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

Re: [BCD396XT] scanners

Expand Messages
  • Lance
    Interesting John, Are you running the stock antenna with your 396XT? -L ... [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    Message 1 of 11 , Jul 24, 2011
    • 0 Attachment
      Interesting John,

      Are you running the stock antenna with your 396XT?

      -L
      On Jul 24, 2011, at 10:44 AM, John wrote:

      > No close call, but it has search functions and RF Power Plot, both capable
      > of more than close call if they do what they say it will. I find close call
      > pretty useless for any real use.
      >
      > -----Original Message-----
      > From: Lance
      > Sent: Sunday, July 24, 2011 1:31 PM
      > To: BCD396XT@yahoogroups.com
      > Subject: Re: [BCD396XT] scanners
      >
      > Doesn't look like with the advanced features update of the HP-1 that "Close
      > Call" feature was included...
      >
      > If it has, point it out to me.
      >
      > I know this is off topic to 396XT.
      >
      > On Jul 24, 2011, at 9:11 AM, Mark Levine, D.C. wrote:
      >
      > > The HP 1 with the new advanced features
      > >
      > > ----- Original Message -----
      > > From: "butch" <grblaze@...>
      > > To: <BCD396XT@yahoogroups.com>
      > > Sent: Sunday, July 24, 2011 10:42 AM
      > > Subject: [BCD396XT] scanners
      > >
      > > > want to buy a new scanner witch is better 396xt or 106
      > > >
      > > >
      > > >
      > > > ------------------------------------
      > > >
      > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
      > > >
      > > >
      > > >
      > > >
      > >
      >
      > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      >
      > ------------------------------------
      >
      > Yahoo! Groups Links
      >
      >



      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • John
      nope, I have several antennas to choose from ... From: Lance Sent: Sunday, July 24, 2011 2:41 PM To: BCD396XT@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [BCD396XT] scanners
      Message 2 of 11 , Jul 24, 2011
      • 0 Attachment
        nope, I have several antennas to choose from

        -----Original Message-----
        From: Lance
        Sent: Sunday, July 24, 2011 2:41 PM
        To: BCD396XT@yahoogroups.com
        Subject: Re: [BCD396XT] scanners

        Interesting John,

        Are you running the stock antenna with your 396XT?

        -L
        On Jul 24, 2011, at 10:44 AM, John wrote:

        > No close call, but it has search functions and RF Power Plot, both capable
        > of more than close call if they do what they say it will. I find close
        > call
        > pretty useless for any real use.
        >
        > -----Original Message-----
        > From: Lance
        > Sent: Sunday, July 24, 2011 1:31 PM
        > To: BCD396XT@yahoogroups.com
        > Subject: Re: [BCD396XT] scanners
        >
        > Doesn't look like with the advanced features update of the HP-1 that
        > "Close
        > Call" feature was included...
        >
        > If it has, point it out to me.
        >
        > I know this is off topic to 396XT.
        >
        > On Jul 24, 2011, at 9:11 AM, Mark Levine, D.C. wrote:
        >
        > > The HP 1 with the new advanced features
        > >
        > > ----- Original Message -----
        > > From: "butch" <grblaze@...>
        > > To: <BCD396XT@yahoogroups.com>
        > > Sent: Sunday, July 24, 2011 10:42 AM
        > > Subject: [BCD396XT] scanners
        > >
        > > > want to buy a new scanner witch is better 396xt or 106
        > > >
        > > >
        > > >
        > > > ------------------------------------
        > > >
        > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
        > > >
        > > >
        > > >
        > > >
        > >
        >
        > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        >
        > ------------------------------------
        >
        > Yahoo! Groups Links
        >
        >



        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



        ------------------------------------

        Yahoo! Groups Links
      • MCH
        That all depends on what you want it to do and were you are located. The XT is better in dense RF environments (urban areas) while the 106 is better in more
        Message 3 of 11 , Jul 24, 2011
        • 0 Attachment
          That all depends on what you want it to do and were you are located.

          The XT is better in dense RF environments (urban areas) while the 106 is
          better in more rural areas. Also, each has unique features that only you
          can say if those are wanted features.

          Joe M.

          butch wrote:
          > want to buy a new scanner witch is better 396xt or 106
        • AAR9SM
          As others have said it depends on the features you want and need. If you are planning on listening to Mil- Air or Vhf and Uhf in my opinion and comparisons I
          Message 4 of 11 , Jul 25, 2011
          • 0 Attachment
            As others have said it depends on the features you want and need. If you are
            planning on listening to Mil- Air or Vhf and Uhf in my opinion and
            comparisons I have done with the same antennas inside and outside and with
            the ATT feature on and off the 396xt and the 396T both pick up Vhf and Uhf
            transmissions much easier whereas the Pro-106 does not even break squelch on
            the same freqs.

            On the other hand if you are mainly monitoring 700/800 MHz area the 106
            does very well in this area and cannot be beat in digital decoding. And I do
            have a copy of test ran on a variety radios that confirm this as well.

            Remember these test were not done by me. From what I can determine it was
            written by Credit Jeffrey Pryor, Don Starr, Mike Vander Veer for material in
            this document. I can send a copy to whoever would like one let me know.
            Below is just a bit of info included.

            That compares the GRE made PRO-2096, PRO-97, PRO-2055, and PSR-500 to the

            Uniden PRO-83, BC246T, BC780XLT, BC796D, BCD396T, and BC996T. This is a
            bench test for

            raw sensitivity and does not test overload, desense etc. A single signal is
            applied to

            the scanner and the squelch control is set at minimum.

            Fluke 6060B Signal Generator

            Wavetek A151 20dB Attenuator DC-2000 MHz

            Pomona 2249-C-36 RG-58 cable (Belden 8262), 3 feet long, -0.6dB @ 900 MHz

            Audio isolated detector circuit

            Fluke 8050A meter, DC scale, dB function

            20 dB Quieting Test, All Channels NFM Mode except PRO-83 and PRO-2096 FM
            mode

            When judging sensitivity blanket statements are not useful as there are
            variations for

            each band among the radios. At VHF-LO and the civil air band all the radios
            are about

            equal except the BC780 which is worse than the others. On the VHF-HI band
            there is a

            spread of sensitivity values with the BCD996 best and the BC780 worst; my
            PSR500 was

            less sensitive than most other radios on VHF-HI. On the Mil-Air band the
            2096 is by far

            the worst since it wasn't really designed to cover that band. Among the
            other radios the

            PSR-500 is worst in this band. At UHF frequencies the PSR-500 is also the
            worst and in

            general GRE radios are not as sensitive as Unidens at UHF. At 800 MHz The
            PSR-500 and

            BCD996 are the most sensitive, and the BC780 is the worst.



            I want to buy a new scanner witch is better 396xt or 106





            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          • John
            I d disagree, here the 106 couldn t decode MECA very well even in the city limits, wouldn t even hear the CC most of the time at home while the 396XT and HP-1
            Message 5 of 11 , Jul 25, 2011
            • 0 Attachment
              I'd disagree, here the 106 couldn't decode MECA very well even in the city
              limits, wouldn't even hear the CC most of the time at home while the 396XT
              and HP-1 both decoded it fine at home. I tried it with several antennas,
              inside and out, even on two outside antennas and the only one that it
              actually could receive the CC on was a 70' high discone and it still only
              had one bar while the 396XT with the same 1 bar decoded the system fine and
              the HP-1 had 2 bars and excellent decode. The HP-1 typically does better on
              800 and decode of digital better than anything out now.
              Just an fyi all three radios were connected to the antenna through a DLI
              multicoupler (16 channel)

              John

              -----Original Message-----
              From: AAR9SM
              Sent: Monday, July 25, 2011 2:35 PM
              To: BCD396XT@yahoogroups.com
              Subject: RE: [BCD396XT] scanners

              On the other hand if you are mainly monitoring 700/800 MHz area the 106
              does very well in this area and cannot be beat in digital decoding. And I do
              have a copy of test ran on a variety radios that confirm this as well.
            • dataman60435
              I do like my GRE/RS scanners but also like the above post here on the ILL-700/800 Digital Starcom statewide system my 396XT decodes the system great almost
              Message 6 of 11 , Jul 26, 2011
              • 0 Attachment
                I do like my GRE/RS scanners but also like the above post here on the ILL-700/800 Digital Starcom statewide system my 396XT decodes the system great almost everywhere in my home with a RS rubber duck but i cannot find a good spot anywhere to get a good constant signal on my GRE500 using the same antenna...They (GRE) advertized the 500 as the best decoding scanner but here in my area its not true, maybe other locations are better....

                --- In BCD396XT@yahoogroups.com, "John" <johnstark@...> wrote:
                >
                > I'd disagree, here the 106 couldn't decode MECA very well even in the city
                > limits, wouldn't even hear the CC most of the time at home while the 396XT
                > and HP-1 both decoded it fine at home. I tried it with several antennas,
                > inside and out, even on two outside antennas and the only one that it
                > actually could receive the CC on was a 70' high discone and it still only
                > had one bar while the 396XT with the same 1 bar decoded the system fine and
                > the HP-1 had 2 bars and excellent decode. The HP-1 typically does better on
                > 800 and decode of digital better than anything out now.
                > Just an fyi all three radios were connected to the antenna through a DLI
                > multicoupler (16 channel)
                >
                > John
                >
                > -----Original Message-----
                > From: AAR9SM
                > Sent: Monday, July 25, 2011 2:35 PM
                > To: BCD396XT@yahoogroups.com
                > Subject: RE: [BCD396XT] scanners
                >
                > On the other hand if you are mainly monitoring 700/800 MHz area the 106
                > does very well in this area and cannot be beat in digital decoding. And I do
                > have a copy of test ran on a variety radios that confirm this as well.
                >
              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.