What's the Difference?

[scanrrman]

What's the difference between a handheld scanner and a base scanner? Besides that a base scanner isn't portable :roll: Do base scanners have better sensitivity. I want to get a second scanner and don't know whether to get a base or another handheld. I was wanting to know the differences between them. pros and cons. Thanks all

 

[K2KOH]

In my opinion, I'll use the BC250 and the BC785 as examples. Obviously, the mobile/base unit is going to have much louder audio; that can be fixed on a portable with an amplified speaker. To tell you the truth, I can't really see a difference. Compare the RS Pro 96 and the new 2096...basically the mobile unit is the 96 packaged differently.

It all depends on what you want the second radio for. If it's an upgrade over the old one, what the hell, go with another portable.

 

[W4KRR]

If all of you listening is going to be done from one location, like a particular room in your house, then go with a base unit. If you plan to monitor at various locations, like while walking around out in public, or on vacation, at shopping malls, on the beach, at an airshow or other public event, then get a hand held portable. Operationally, they're pretty much the same, the main limiting factor being the antenna on a hand held when it is used on your belt.

 

[LordJ]

OK then...

Well, then I pose this question. Why do people always mention to be careful when you put a base antenna to a portable, you might overload the front end? Why is this not the case with the base/mobile?

 

[K5MAR]

Re: OK then...

Well, then I pose this question. Why do people always mention to be careful when you put a base antenna to a portable, you might overload the front end? Why is this not the case with the base/mobile?

The sensitivity of many portables is set much higher to compensate for the normal inefficiency of the factory rubber duck antenna, aka rubber dummy load. And due to the physically smaller size, it's more difficult to put in good filtering. So, the portables are more easily overloaded by stong signals. Connecting these radios to better antennas may increase the signal levels to the point where it actually adversally affects reception.

Mark S.

 

[Voyager]

Re: OK then...

Well, then I pose this question. Why do people always mention to be careful when you put a base antenna to a portable, you might overload the front end? Why is this not the case with the base/mobile?

The sensitivity of many portables is set much higher to compensate for the normal inefficiency of the factory rubber duck antenna, aka rubber dummy load. And due to the physically smaller size, it's more difficult to put in good filtering. So, the portables are more easily overloaded by stong signals. Connecting these radios to better antennas may increase the signal levels to the point where it actually adversally affects reception.

Mark S.

I agree completely with the antenna comment (for ANY scanner - portable, mobile, or base). The filtering is GENERALLY correct, but the sensitivity remark is completely false.

PRO-96 Specs:
25- 54 0.3µV
108- 137 0.3µV
137- 174 0.5µV
216- 225 0.5µV
406- 512 0.5µV
806- 960 0.7µV
1240-1300 0.7µV

PRO-2096 Specs:
25- 54 0.3µV
108- 137 0.3µV
137- 174 0.5µV
216- 225 0.5µV
406- 512 0.5µV
806- 960 0.7µV
1240-1300 0.7µV

As you can see, they are IDENTICAL.

In fact, the selectivity and spurious rejection specs happen to be identical for those two units, too.

I wanted to post the specs for the BC296/796D as well (to show both major manuafacturers), but it seems Uniden never published any sensitivity specs on those units. :roll:

Base units have generally been designed better (better filtering) since they have traditionally needed the room for the better components while portables required smaller, usually less effective components which is a compromise.

Recently, scanner design has evolved to the point where the room is no longer of much concern. This is mainly due to the evolution of SMT (surface mount) components and much smaller (or more functional) ICs. By more functional, I mean that they do much more of the functions traditionally done by discrete components in older receiver designs. Receivers used to be a few chips and a lot of components. Today, there are more multi-function chips and few discrete components.

Again, today there is little difference between portables and base/mobiles.

Joe M.

 

[poltergeisty]

Re: OK then...

I wanted to post the specs for the BC296/796D as well (to show both major manuafacturers), but it seems Uniden never published any sensitivity specs on those units. :roll:

Ya, tell me about it. I wonder why? Upman do you know?

What dose everyone here use for a hand held that will be used as a base sometimes? In regards to attenuation.

Now I have to add that the 296 and I think the 396 has an attenuation option. So scanrrman if your needs are a scanner to be mobile as well as stationary. Just use the attenuation feature of the scanner providing it has it when used as a base.

 

[K5MAR]

Joe, the specs you quoted are just two radios, which coincidently are the same radio, just in different packages. I considered mentioning the 92/2067 and 96/2096 as exceptions, due to this fact, but decided to keep my response short. I said "many portables", not all portables. In fact, if the 96/2096 are like my 92/2067 radios, the actual sensitivity (not published specs) is below that of other comparable scanners. I considered the 2067 to be a decent scanner until I bought a 780, then I found that the 780 is much superior in it's reception ability. In short, there are always exceptions.

Mark S.