Worse audio on 396 than 250?

[MediaBiasMan]

I see a lot of discussion here about audio issues with the 396 and new firmware and digital settings, but I think I may have a different problem.

I just got the 396 yesterday and out of the box, and after adjusting all the various audio/digital settings, it produces awful audio that is much worse than what I get on identical analog channels and Mot digital trunk on the 250.

On the 396 I get a hiss in the background (both on analog and digital) that is not on the 250 listening to identical transmission and the sound quality of the voice is much worse. Hard to explain, but sort of like listening to out of tune AM commercial radio on 396 compared to clear voices on FM radio on the 250.

And this doesn't seem to be a digital decoding issue since when tuned side-by-side to a TV channel's audio it's much worse on the 396 than the 250. The lack of clarity in the voice is so bad it's hard to make out what people are saying in the TV audio.

Bad audio is both when operating off AC and via the rechargeable batteries that came with the unit.

Is this:
a) is the audio of lower quality across the board on the 396 than the 250?
b) is the some obvious setting I've missed?
c) could this just be that I got a unit with a manufacturing defect so I have a bad speaker or something?

I'd appreciate any ideas anyone could offer.

 

[MediaBiasMan]

Oh, and I should add: My unit came with firmware version 1.11.03 installed.

 

[DaveIN]

Have you tried adjusting the digital audio settings when pressing hold + the scroll control 2 times. Try changing the auto settings from 8 (default) to 7 or 6 and see if it makes a difference. You can also try turning the AGC on and see if it improves.

There are also some additional audio functions in a special turn on menu when you press the Hold button and turn it on. The details of the firmware can be found here in PDF form: http://www.uniden.com/files/BCD396T Firmware Revision Notes.pdf

The other possibility could be a bad audio amplifer. In that case it is a warrenty fix from Uniden:
http://radioreference.com/forums/showpost.php?p=274118&postcount=1

I would not expect that to be the issue on a newer 396, but you may never know.

 

[MediaBiasMan]

Thanks for the ideas. I tried all that last night, but did again just now to no avail. I can slightly adjust the digital sound quality from bad to a bit worse by playing with those numbers. Whether AGC is on or off makes no difference.

Your third option may be my problem. My bad luck.

All those adjustments to the digital settings, even if way off from where they should be, don't explain the awful sound quality on analog transmissions on non-P25 systems where voices sound like they are talking through a paper bag and are very muffled -- significantly lower quality than I get on my 250 from the same transmission.

 

[UPMan]

Try with a headphone if the audio clears up, it is the third option..

 

[MediaBiasMan]

Duh! I should have thought of doing that. Thank you for posting the suggestion -- though it, unfortunately, confirms the amplifier/speaker is the problem. But now I won't aggravate myself anymore trying to make adjustments and think I did something wrong.

I found some good quality headphones and it's another world. Much deeper/richer/clearer and overall significantly better quality sound without the background hiss.

 

[RoninJoliet]

Can you tell us where you purchased it, not that it really makes any difference.....Thank YouPS: It would maybe help everyone if the ser:# was revealed so as to see if it is a recent manufacture.........

 

[MediaBiasMan]

I bought it from RR sponsor Scanner Master, but not their fault I'm sure.

serial # has 328Z followed by: 64001922

Hope that helps narrow down if I got a new or older manufacture.

 

[GTO_04]

There is no way that digital audio on a 250D would better than on a properly operating 396. That definitely means there is something wrong with the 396.

I found the 250D to be unuseable for digital so I sold it. Newer digital scanners are much better.

GTO_04

 

[dtscho]

I think my internal speaker/amp might have this problem as well. On an EDACS system and an LTR system, the audio seems to have static and makes the voices sound machine-like. The audio through headphones seems to be much better. These systems are both very strong from where I am.

I received the scanner from Communications Electronics yesterday. I did upgrade firmware to 1.11.03. The serial number is 328Z 64000606.

I don't know when I'll be sending it to Uniden, as I'd like to use the scanner for several events in the next few weeks.

Dave

 

[RoninJoliet]

There seems to be no pattern to the bad audio problem in regard to ser #s, BiasMans radio ends in 1922, Dave's radio ends in 606, and a friend that bought one around Feb 2006, his ends in 334. They all are prefixed by "328Z-6400. Luck of the draw!!!!

 

[Starman918]

I just sent mine in due to muffled sound. Hope they can fix it.

 

[Dewey]

I think my internal speaker/amp might have this problem as well. On an EDACS system and an LTR system, the audio seems to have static and makes the voices sound machine-like. The audio through headphones seems to be much better. These systems are both very strong from where I am.

I received the scanner from Communications Electronics yesterday. I did upgrade firmware to 1.11.03. The serial number is 328Z 64000606.

I don't know when I'll be sending it to Uniden, as I'd like to use the scanner for several events in the next few weeks.

Dave

I'm in the same position. My serial is a couple hundred less than yours, and I got mine from Communications Electronics the day after you. Fuzzy sounding audio when the volume is set below 6, and sometime a somewhat high pitched (but low volume) squeal can be heard in the background. If it wasn't for the fact that it behaves the same way on conventional channels, I would think that the trunked systems weren't tuned properly.

I'm going to hold off for a month or two before I send it for repair, because I want to make sure that I am definately going to keep it instead of taking the "Unsatisfied return" option. While I am very happy with this scanner's dynamic memory, many other features, and high potential, I am equally dissatisfied with its lack of sensitivity. It's not as bad as the later model Pro-92's (just about all of the reports of the "B" and "C" model complained that they were deaf, and so was my "B" model), but my 250 & 96 will run circles around its sensitivity! At this point, I'm still weighting my dislike for its lack of sensitivity against my appreciation for its features.

Dewey

 

[wjf]

I think my internal speaker/amp might have this problem as well. On an EDACS system and an LTR system, the audio seems to have static and makes the voices sound machine-like. The audio through headphones seems to be much better. These systems are both very strong from where I am.

I received the scanner from Communications Electronics yesterday. I did upgrade firmware to 1.11.03. The serial number is 328Z 64000606.

I don't know when I'll be sending it to Uniden, as I'd like to use the scanner for several events in the next few weeks.

Dave

Can you do me a favor and turn off the Digital AGC and tell me if it makes a difference.

I did and I'm fairly certain it's helped the "underwater robot" sound.

 

[dtscho]

wjf,

I tried turning off the digital AGC, but that had no effect on the poor audio through the internal speaker. The problem with the speaker is actually much more noticeable on analog frequencies.

----------

Dewey,

I've noticed poor sensitivy most on UHF. VHF and 800 sound about as good as on my 246.

Dave

 

[wjf]

wjf,

I tried turning off the digital AGC, but that had no effect on the poor audio through the internal speaker. The problem with the speaker is actually much more noticeable on analog frequencies.

Dave

Thanks. Good luck!

 

[Dorpmuller]

At this point, I'm still weighting my dislike for its lack of sensitivity against my appreciation for its features.

Dewey

Awww.... I was thinking on one of these.. so there are poor sensitivity issues also? Would I be better off with a Pro-96, maybe?

Rich