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

Re: [BCD396XT] Re: XT version sensitivity?

Expand Messages
  • Mike Iszak
    For 800MHz, I picked up a Larsen 800MHz elevated feed dipole. Physically, its about 8 inches tall. A bit big yes, but the performance you get out of this
    Message 1 of 31 , Mar 4 7:31 PM
    • 0 Attachment
      For 800MHz, I picked up a Larsen 800MHz elevated feed dipole. Physically, its about 8 inches tall. A bit big yes, but the performance you get out of this sucker is incredible. In terms of its ability to catch distant RF, systems that wouldn't even decode with the stock antenna come in very usable (2 or 3 bars) with this.

      It works "good enough" for the VHF and UHF needs I have as well.

      See here:

      http://www.tessco.com/products/displayProductInfo.do?sku=36817&eventPage=1
      -----Original Message-----
      From: MCH <mch@...>

      Date: Wed, 04 Mar 2009 22:07:41
      To: <BCD396XT@yahoogroups.com>
      Subject: Re: [BCD396XT] Re: XT version sensitivity?


      Good solution, but how many people would complain about the antenna that
      is twice the height of the current stock one? How many would feel that
      is a good trade-off for increased sensitivity? How many people would not
      like the increased center of gravity (it's not as if the 396 isn't
      already top-heavy with some larger antennas)? How many would pay the
      extra $10 or so? And last, what are the odds Uniden would prefer to
      leave that choice up to the consumer who can purchase an aftermarket
      antenna if they feel the need for it?

      All good points from a technical point of view,
      but not always the best marketing solution.

      Recently, I've been using a super-stubby antenna which seems to work
      just as well on 800 MHz as the stock duck, and not too far off par from
      any other antenna out there (again, at 800 MHz).

      Joe M.

      Mike Iszak wrote:
      > To solve the antenna issue, pick up an antenna that doesn't require a groundplane.
      >
      > In mobile use, I use a Sinclair 1482 which is a half wave that doesn't need a ground plane. I'm SURE they make portable antennas that are the same. It'd likely be larger (like, double)...but it would work great.
      > -----Original Message-----
      > From: MCH <mch@...>
      >
      > Date: Wed, 04 Mar 2009 19:54:47
      > To: <BCD396XT@yahoogroups.com>
      > Subject: Re: [BCD396XT] Re: XT version sensitivity?
      >
      >
      > And I'll bring up a point I've made many times. How much of that
      > 'betterness' (new word, I think) is due to the more efficient antenna
      > system? The 296 has a much better ground plane to work with over the
      > 396. This is particularly true on UHF where the radio itself is a
      > quarter wave counterpoise to compliment the antenna.
      >
      > I've noticed in general that scanner sensitivity has been on the
      > decrease (all manufacturers, not just Uniden), but I'm not sure if it's
      > due to the components used/available (compact multifunction components
      > never seem to perform as well as discrete components), or other factors
      > such as the aforementioned antenna inefficiency.
      >
      > Part of the issue could be the size reduction for both of the above
      > reasons. So, do you want it big and work a little better or small at the
      > sacrifice of a little sensitivity? Personally, I've never noticed much
      > difference in the scanners. There is some loss, but it's hardly what I
      > would call 'deaf' on any band. Maybe some units have more of an issue
      > than others.
      >
      > Joe M.
      >
      > Dewey wrote:
      >> I would have to fully agree with Joseph McGinley's statement, and
      >> respectfully disagree with yours Joe M. I've always said, and always will
      >> say that the 396 if DEAF in the UHF band. I can not agree that increasing
      >> the sensitivity necessarily means decreasing the selectivity. My BC250D's
      >> receiver is as hot as all of my GREs to include the Pro-96, yet it does not
      >> seem to be susceptible to front end overload.
      >>
      >> Dewey
      >>
      >> -----Original Message-----
      >> From: BCD396XT@yahoogroups.com [mailto:BCD396XT@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf
      >> Of MCH
      >> Sent: Wednesday, March 04, 2009 16:15
      >> To: BCD396XT@yahoogroups.com
      >> Subject: Re: [BCD396XT] Re: XT version sensitivity?
      >>
      >> Why would you want that? Other scanners have more sensitivity but have
      >> intermod and overload issues in urban areas. When these other scanners are
      >> deaf, the 396 receives the signals fine. IOW, don't mess with what works.
      >>
      >> Granted, if you're in a rural area the extra sensitivity would be nice, but
      >> not at the expense of usability in urban areas. Many people travel between
      >> the two areas and would rather have a scanner that works fair everywhere as
      >> opposed to only working in one environment and not all.
      >> The 396T is a good balance between the various environments.
      >>
      >> Joe M.
      >>
      >> --- In BCD396XT@yahoogroups.com, McGinley Joseph <mcginleyjoseph2000@...>
      >> wrote:
      >> >
      >> > Can someone tell me if this version has better sensitivity than that >
      >> of the t version? That is my deciding factor to purchase.
      >>
      >>
      >> ------------------------------------
      >>
      >> Yahoo! Groups Links
      >>
      >>
      >>
      >>
      >>
      >> ------------------------------------
      >>
      >> Yahoo! Groups Links
      >>
      >>
      >>
      >>
      >>
      >
      >
      >
      > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      >
      >
      >
      > ------------------------------------
      >
      > Yahoo! Groups Links
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >



      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • MRI
      Or if the storing of multi tones on one freq has been sorted on search and store? This is a problem with the t version. That will be my deciding factor.
      Message 31 of 31 , Mar 5 6:20 AM
      • 0 Attachment
        Or if the storing of multi tones on one freq has been sorted on search and store? This is a problem with the t version. That will be my deciding factor.

        McGinley Joseph wrote:
        > Can someone tell me if this version has better sensitivity than that of the t version? That is my deciding factor to purchase.
        > --- On Wed, 3/4/09, Uniden UPMan < uniden.upman@ yahoo.com > wrote:
        > From: Uniden UPMan < uniden.upman@ yahoo.com >
        > Subject: Re: [BCD396XT] Time keeps on slippin', slippin', slippin' ...
        > To: BCD396XT@yahoogroup s.com
        > Date: Wednesday, March 4, 2009, 3:25 PM
        > Uniden's fiscal year 2009 starts 4/1/2009. So, our 1Q ends on 6/30/2009.
        > (but we still expect to start shipping to most distributors on 3/23)
        >  UPMan
        > ____________ _________ _________ __
        > From: Peter Laws <plaws0@gmail. com>
        > To: BCD396XT@yahoogroup s.com
        > Sent: Wednesday, March 4, 2009 2:20:56 PM
        > Subject: [BCD396XT] Time keeps on slippin', slippin', slippin' ...
        > Let me just state, for the record, that there are only 27 days left in
        > the 1st Quarter of 2009. :-)
        > --
        > Peter Laws | N5UWY | plaws plaws net | Travel by Train!
        > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        >
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.