Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

296Re: [BCD396XT] 396 Uhf Deaf

Expand Messages
  • MCH
    Dec 31, 2008
    • 0 Attachment
      I would... a 396XT! :-)

      Joe M.

      Mike wrote:
      > Dewey,
      >
      >
      >
      > I agree with you when it comes to UHF my 296 runs circles around the 396 but
      > the 396 beats the Hec out of it when it comes to 800 MHz. I can monitor a
      > Federal prison about 30 miles away with stock antenna the 396 doesn't even
      > no it is there even with two different outside antennas and it still wont
      > pull it in, yet I hook the 296 up and it is full quieting. That being said
      > though I still would not trade the 396 for anything out there.
      >
      >
      >
      > 73
      >
      >
      >
      > Mike
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > I sure hope this is not entirely true! The current 396 is DEAF on
      > the UHF frequencies. The only thing that I have worse is the "C"
      > model Pro-92. The 396 is still my "primary" radio of choice, but I
      > can NOT use it to monitor DC PD (603d UHF) from my home in DC's
      > suburbs. My 235, 245, and 250 will run circles around the 396 when
      > it comes to receiving UHF (mid to upper 400's). I can use the 235
      > and 245 to monitor DC PD's control channels with pretty much full
      > quieting, and I still monitor DC PD on the 250 while the 396 just
      > sits there and says "Finding Control Channel". Sure the 235, 245 and
      > 250 have "larger" ground planes, but the amount is negligible! I'm
      > seriously hoping that Uniden fixes whatever they broke when designing
      > the current 396's front end.
      >
      > Not bashing, just an honest observation from someone who has been
      > scanning DC since the early 70's with the old Realistic 4-channel
      > portable.
      >
      > Dewey
      >
      > --- In BCD396XT@yahoogroup <mailto:BCD396XT%40yahoogroups.com> s.com, MCH
      > <mch@...> wrote:
      >> BTW, I don't think you're going to see much change in the audio or
      >> reception. Both are limited by the size of the unit - the audio
      > since
      >> the speaker has to be small, and the reception since there isn't
      > much of
      >> a ground plane for the antenna.
      >>
      >> Joe M.
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      >
      >
      > ------------------------------------
      >
      > Yahoo! Groups Links
      >
      >
      >
      >
    • Show all 22 messages in this topic