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

Re: [BCD396XT] scanners

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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.