I have reported in other threads that all of the scanners in the title do well on strong trunking sites here in Los Angeles with good to excellent P25 decoding. Certainly the 536, but also the 996P2 and HP2, I find to have a bit better P25 decoding than the 996XT. The 996P2 is surprisingly great.
For 800 Mhz trunking, however, in my experience and testing over the last several days, the 536HP is the hands down winner on weaker trunking sites. I have been monitoring the UCLA (my alma mater in 1974) Motorola Type II Smartnet system with Butel software for several hours during the night. All 4 scanners hooked up to my 15 el 800 MHz yagi at 30 feet via a Stridsberg MCA204M coupler. The UCLA trunking site (1 only; all analog) is difficult to monitor at my location in Cerritos about 30 miles away. The system is really intended just to cover the area around UCLA and Westwoood in West LA.
The 996P2 and 996XT on will occasionally pick up the CC for a while, then drop out, and very few TGs are logged. The HP2 (HomePatrol 2 Extreme) does not even see the CC on its analyze feature. There is a 1-2 signal strength, but CC decode quality is zero. It picks up zero. The 536HP has reliably been locked on the CC all night, 2-3 bars, and ARC536PRO is full of TG hits with RSSI values of 250-350.
I have now seen this repeatedly on several weaker trunk sites from multiple systems here in LA, Orange County, and San Bernardino on UHF and 800 Mhz. On the stronger sites, all 4 scanners do well, but if you're into searching for weaker trunking systems/sites/TGs (I am a CW DXer at heart from back in the 1960s), the 536HP wins hands down. As an aside, none of my GRE/RS scanners listed below can touch the 436HP/536HP on 800 Mhz trunking.
These are all great scanners, and for many folks that just want to monitor one or two strong 800 Mhz trunk sites, I can recommend any of the 4, or perhaps even the Whister/RS. But if you are seriously into discovery trunking on UHF/800 Mhz, spend a little bit more and go for the 536HP. Again, I always caution, this is my experience only, and YMMV.
For those with more VHF interests, military aircraft monitoring, whatever, obviously there are different considerations. I think most of us into reasonably serious scanning have concluded that one scanner does not fit all situations. But my advice to all who are looking for one scanner, and whose primary interest is going to be UHF/800 Mhz trunking, that narrow-band FM filter in the x36HPs makes a difference.
I agree with Boatanchor, a well known RRDB poster, that all scanners should have an NFM filter, let them charge a few bucks more, the difference is incredible, at least here in radio-dense Southern California.
Steve AA6IO
For 800 Mhz trunking, however, in my experience and testing over the last several days, the 536HP is the hands down winner on weaker trunking sites. I have been monitoring the UCLA (my alma mater in 1974) Motorola Type II Smartnet system with Butel software for several hours during the night. All 4 scanners hooked up to my 15 el 800 MHz yagi at 30 feet via a Stridsberg MCA204M coupler. The UCLA trunking site (1 only; all analog) is difficult to monitor at my location in Cerritos about 30 miles away. The system is really intended just to cover the area around UCLA and Westwoood in West LA.
The 996P2 and 996XT on will occasionally pick up the CC for a while, then drop out, and very few TGs are logged. The HP2 (HomePatrol 2 Extreme) does not even see the CC on its analyze feature. There is a 1-2 signal strength, but CC decode quality is zero. It picks up zero. The 536HP has reliably been locked on the CC all night, 2-3 bars, and ARC536PRO is full of TG hits with RSSI values of 250-350.
I have now seen this repeatedly on several weaker trunk sites from multiple systems here in LA, Orange County, and San Bernardino on UHF and 800 Mhz. On the stronger sites, all 4 scanners do well, but if you're into searching for weaker trunking systems/sites/TGs (I am a CW DXer at heart from back in the 1960s), the 536HP wins hands down. As an aside, none of my GRE/RS scanners listed below can touch the 436HP/536HP on 800 Mhz trunking.
These are all great scanners, and for many folks that just want to monitor one or two strong 800 Mhz trunk sites, I can recommend any of the 4, or perhaps even the Whister/RS. But if you are seriously into discovery trunking on UHF/800 Mhz, spend a little bit more and go for the 536HP. Again, I always caution, this is my experience only, and YMMV.
For those with more VHF interests, military aircraft monitoring, whatever, obviously there are different considerations. I think most of us into reasonably serious scanning have concluded that one scanner does not fit all situations. But my advice to all who are looking for one scanner, and whose primary interest is going to be UHF/800 Mhz trunking, that narrow-band FM filter in the x36HPs makes a difference.
I agree with Boatanchor, a well known RRDB poster, that all scanners should have an NFM filter, let them charge a few bucks more, the difference is incredible, at least here in radio-dense Southern California.
Steve AA6IO
800 Mhz trunking 536 vs 996XT vs 996P2 vs HP2
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire