Whistler Scanners - Sensitivity Shootout

[woodpecker]

Here you go .. measured like a ton of radios today, all on the same frequencies as below. The frequencies were chosen as they may be typical and where I typically listen.

The TRX-1 was the clear winner .. at all frequencies of the 5 radio below

Have you just measured the squelch sensitivity or measured the actual receiver sensitivty looking for 12dB SINAD on FM?

 

[SCPD]

Have you just measured the squelch sensitivity or measured the actual receiver sensitivty looking for 12dB SINAD on FM?

Minimal squelch activation. We did not measure 12 dB SINAD in this test but maybe next time. :wink:

For those that do not know, that is the minimum amount of signal required to break the squelch. I know it is not the industry standard but it is still valid as that is where most of us on this forum probably set our radios.

 

[woodpecker]

Minimal squelch activation. We did not measure 12 dB SINAD in this test but maybe next time. :wink:

For those that do not know, that is the minimum amount of signal required to break the squelch. I know it is not the industry standard but it is still valid as that is where most of us on this forum probably set our radios.

Not the industry standard indeed, a misleading load of nonsense, its not a valid comparison at all!

As I suspected, you haven't measured the receiver sensitivity at all, you've just set the squelch to some arbitrary value which will be different on every radio then measured the level required to open it.

What is the point of this drivel you've published, it is NOT a comparison of receiver sensitivity.

If you don't know how to measure receiver performance or don't have the necessary test equipment, don't bother!

 

[buddrousa]

Well dear Mister Woodpecker why don't you take the time and money and do it and report it to us then.

 

[SCPD]

It is all fine .. I had him on my ignore list for a reason. I agree .. I could test all the radios again .. but my answer, no.

I will not bother cause he would have something else to snivel about. If he wants to do it .. then let him.

I do not care about his 2 cents as there are plenty here that can accept the testing as it is because as I already mentioned, the test was done to replicate how users may use their scanners / radios in the real world.

 

[buddrousa]

I understand you and I have not always seen eye to eye but hard work that others are not willing to do is very much appreciated and I still thank you.

 

[Boatanchor]

Now, just for giggles...

Try setting the squelch to the lowest closed setting and assuming you have more than one channel in memory, hit the scan button on your Whistler/GRE scanner.

Once the radio is scanning, generate a weak signal, using your signal generator, on one of your conventional memory channels.

Keep increasing the Signal Generator level until the radio stops scanning and halts on that channel..

What is the signal generator level?

I bet it isn't what you were expecting..

Now, repeat on a Uniden scanner

 

[SCPD]

Now, just for giggles...

Try setting the squelch to the lowest closed setting and assuming you have more than one channel in memory, hit the scan button on your Whistler/GRE scanner.

Once the radio is scanning, generate a weak signal, using your signal generator, on one of your conventional memory channels.

Keep increasing the Signal Generator level until the radio stops scanning and halts on that channel..

What is the signal generator level?

I bet it isn't what you were expecting..

Now, repeat on a Uniden scanner

I know all about the squelch issue and have commented on this in the past as have you .. and trust me, I am not a fan boy for either side. They both have issues.

I would rather have a bit of a squelch issue than a terrible user interface. There is room for improvement by both manufacturers.

 

[buddrousa]

Edmscan like you I like both and do not want to do without either my big wish is Bob (PROSCAN) could add support for the Whistler scanners

 

[milcom_chaser]

Thanks for sharing your Whistler test results. Perfect timing to keep it out of that other thread!

I'd love to see selectivity results from this same group of Whistler models.
The ability to reject out of band signals as well. Like FM Broadcast and in band VHF paging signals in both the 152 MHz range as well as the 158 MHz paging bands while tuning other frequencies between 144 and 174 MHz.

I think you mentioned a weaker (poorer) out of band rejection when near cell towers on the TRX models. That one would be of interest with cell towers or antennas on about every structure they can put them on these days! I don't think you mentioned what frequency you had in the TRX-1 when you saw the cell tower rejection drop and allow some of the cell sites signal into your TRX-1.
And who knows what frequencies the cell sites may have been on.

About two or three years ago I drove a 1.5 mile stretch of a main street through the county. In that short distance I counted at least 27 cell sites within maybe 500 feet or less from the road I was driving on. And who knows how many I did not see.
They were mounted on everything from long haul power line towers to low height light poles in a McDonald's parking lot. Some used three sides of a square or rectangular building and some were on 3 sided triangular shaped buildings. Basically, if there was space to mount cell antennas with the spacing needed for the radiation pattern, there was a cell site to be found.

I did not even have a radio with me as I wanted to simply count cell sites while someone else was driving.

My GRE branded radio problems are mostly poor or no FM Broadcast band filtering in the models that were actually labeled with a GRE label on the radio. The older model made by GRE but sold by RadioShack like the Pro-2004 did not have the FM broadcast band problem. The GRE made models from that era seemed to have better filtering than those actually sold with a GRE label on the front like the PSR-500 or 600 as well as the non digital models they also sold at that time.
I'm also surrounded by VHF high band paging transmitters on the many hospitals all around me. Paging signals wipe out my PSR500 and 600 models when trying to monitor other VHF signals.
That problem is much better on Uniden models and totally gone on Icom receivers like the R7000 or R9000. The Icom's have superior selectivity from in band signals just a few kHz away from the frequency you are after!

That all led up to my question that you answered about the Whistler TRX series.
If you have any selectivity test results from both in and out of band signals for the TRX models compared to say the GRE PSR500/600 models, I'd love to see those results.

Most of my problems with the PSR500 or 600 were cured with PAR notch filters for the VHF paging band issues and PAR band stop filters to kill the FM broadcast band.
Cheaper filters like the FM trap that RadioShack sold did not cut it for me with my proximity to several high power FM broadcasters.
I used to test my cheap radioshack FM traps and found that many were way off frequency for the 20 MHz of bandwidth they blocked.
Some were so far away from the FM broadcast band that they had no effect at all. I tested them and found some of them centered around 160 MHz!
I used to take the backs off and retune them for the few low frequency TV stations like channel 2 up to the bottom of the FM broadcast band. The ones I found that were tuned way out of band did not have anything to keep the coils fixed in place while the ones that were tuned for a center around 98 MHz had hot glue applied after they tuned them. They still had nowhere near the notch depth of a PAR filter though.
If you were really lazy, you could retune the old unfixed radioshack FM traps by a hard rap on a solid surface or drop to the floor!
I fixed all my coils with quick set epoxy or hot glue and would mark the new center notch frequency on them. They all did have about 20 MHz of notched bandwidth so you had to be careful where you set the center at otherwise you could knock out a part of the band you want to hear.

Anyway, if you have any selectivity test results from the TRX models that Whistler actually designed compared to GRE models or those that Whistler simply put their name on them in the beginning, I'd love to see those results.
I guess Whistler also had/has a couple other models where they changed the front end design away from GRE's original design but I don't know what those model numbers are. At least I think I recall reading a post stating that Whistler did change the front end filtering before the TRX models were introduced.

Thanks for posting your Whistler branded sensitivity test results!
Like you and Ubbe said, better sensitivity could be a good thing and it could also be a bad thing. I know my GRE's worked very well when I was out at the farm far away from all sources of RF running at a moderate or higher power level. I could hear signals that other brands could not even detect.

"At least I think I recall reading a post stating that Whistler did change the front end filtering before the TRX models were introduced."

>>Whistler did an "end of life cycle" component change when they manufactured the TRX series. Thus,
the improved RX performance...