Radio-Shack Pro-43 vs. Pro-2006

Radio-Shack Pro-43 vs. Pro-2006

Post by Jim Kearm » Wed, 15 Dec 1993 00:05:52


>   Would anybody happen to know if the Pro-2006 is amazingly better than the
>Pro-43 ?
>   I'm considering getting a scanner (military bands are a must) and these
>are the only 2 I've been able to actually find.  (yes, I know there are
>others, but none of the stores around here seem to have them)  I'd like to
>go portable if they're anywhere near close, but if the Pro-43 isn't going
>to pull in much, I'm not so sure it would really be worth it.

>  Any opinions?

Everyone is entitled to my opinion! :>

I recently purchased a portable scanner (Yupiteru MVT-7100)
after owning a PRO-2006 for about a year. I wish I had started
with the portable. If I could have only one scanner now, I'd
want a portable. The 2006 is a great receiver, but any large
scanner ties you down. I can stick the portable in my pocket
and take it with me. Before I go somewhere in the car, I punch
in the frequencies of towns in the area I'm headed to, so I get
a variety of listening I can't get from home. With the 7100, if
all else fails, I can listen to the BBC!

When time allows, I hope to do some comparison tests of the 7100
and PRO-43, using real test equipment. A friend has a PRO-43. So
far, our side-by-side listening tests show no clear receiving
advantage to either, on the frequencies covered by his modified
PRO-43. If I hadn't gotten a good deal on the used MVT-7100, I'd
have gone with a PRO-43.

My gut feeling tells me that Radio Shack isn't going to continue
to offer the 2006 and 43 for very long after the import cutoff
date next year. Radio Shack probably has higher dollar sales of
cellular equipment than scanners, and would likely be concerned
about their public image. So, if you want a radio that tunes the
former upper UHF-TV frequencies, better buy it soon.

Good listening.

Jim

--

 
 
 

Radio-Shack Pro-43 vs. Pro-2006

Post by Tom Bod » Wed, 15 Dec 1993 23:58:41


|>...
|> My gut feeling tells me that Radio Shack isn't going to continue
|> to offer the 2006 and 43 for very long after the import cutoff
|> date next year. Radio Shack probably has higher dollar sales of
|> cellular equipment than scanners, and would likely be concerned
|> about their public image. So, if you want a radio that tunes the
|> former upper UHF-TV frequencies, better buy it soon.
|>
|> Jim

Word has it that the 2006 will be replaced by the 2007 - which will have
different firware/CPU to disallow mods to restore cellular.  The 43 will
reportedly be replaced by the 43A, which will also have new firmware/CPU...

I have also hear a rumour that RS will drop all double conversion
scanners capable of 800 Mhz reception - due to the possibility of the
FCC nit-picking over double conversion imaging.  I'm not sure about this
in light of the fact that they just released the non-restorable, but
double conversion 2032...

--
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+ Tom Bodoh - Sr. systems software engineer, Hughes STX, N0YGT                +
+ USGS/EROS Data Center, Sioux Falls, SD, USA   57198     (605) 594-6830      +

+       "Welcome back my friends to the show that never ends!" EL&P             +
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 
 
 

Radio-Shack Pro-43 vs. Pro-2006

Post by Bob Lon » Mon, 13 Dec 1993 19:16:21


>    Would anybody happen to know if the Pro-2006 is amazingly better than the
> Pro-43 ?
>    I'm considering getting a scanner (military bands are a must) and these
> are the only 2 I've been able to actually find.  (yes, I know there are
> others, but none of the stores around here seem to have them)  I'd like to
> go portable if they're anywhere near close, but if the Pro-43 isn't going
> to pull in much, I'm not so sure it would really be worth it.

>   Any opinions?

>                                                    Paul Bienvenue

--

I have both.  The PRO-43 suffers from intermod, which makes it almost unusable
in the 150mHz range where I live.  The PRO-2006 is much easier to modify for
cellular.  Features on both are about the same except the 2006 has twice the
number of memory channels.  Your choice will probably be dictated by the need
for portability.  However, if you dont require a portable, I would go with the
2006.

-Bob
=======================================+======================================

Santa Fe Pacific Pipelines             | middle class to pay for these
Los Angeles, CA                        | programs." - Bill Clinton

 
 
 

Radio-Shack Pro-43 vs. Pro-2006

Post by Bruce James Robert Linl » Thu, 16 Dec 1993 16:23:18



>|> I have both.  The PRO-43 suffers from intermod, which makes it almost unusable
>|> in the 150mHz range where I live.  The PRO-2006 is much easier to modify for
>|>[...]

>For the most part, I agree with Bob.  I would just like to add that the
>intermod problems with the PRO-43 seem to occur only in certain areas.  It
>sounds like activity must be present on certain frequencies for the intermod
>to be a problem.  I have heard something about activity on the NOAA freq
>of 162.550 or on UHF channel 14(?).  I had absolutely no problem with it
>[...]

Well, here in LA, where RF levels can challenge nuclear explosions, my
pro43 is near useless from 150-155 MHz. Theres an old mobile telephone
system from the pre-cellular days operating in the 152MHz area and its
annoying 'busy signals' bleed several MHz into the adjacent spectrum.
Sometimes it even manages to take bites out of the 2m ham band (144-148).
I'll be glad when I finally move to Las Vegas where the airwaves are
clean and uncrowded.

I'd still take the 43 over the 2006 just for portability reasons alone. YMMV.

--
.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.| ___________,  ,-----/^\-----. | "I never wanted to
.Bruce James Robert Linley.| \_NCC-1701_)  `-..--\_/-----' |  be anything but

.`.`.`.`.`.`.`.`.`.`.`.`.`.|       (___________)           | - Montgomery Scott

 
 
 

Radio-Shack Pro-43 vs. Pro-2006

Post by <U36.. » Fri, 17 Dec 1993 04:13:28


Quote:>When time allows, I hope to do some comparison tests of the 7100
>and PRO-43, using real test equipment. A friend has a PRO-43. So
>far, our side-by-side listening tests show no clear receiving
>advantage to either, on the frequencies covered by his modified
>PRO-43. If I hadn't gotten a good deal on the used MVT-7100, I'd
>have gone with a PRO-43.

You mentioned that your friends pro-43 was modified.  This isn't
quite relevant, but would you happen to know how to modify a
pro-37?  I have tried to use pro-38 modification instructions
(on the off chance that they might work) but obviously they don't.

brian

 
 
 

Radio-Shack Pro-43 vs. Pro-2006

Post by s1533.. » Sun, 12 Dec 1993 14:50:24

   Would anybody happen to know if the Pro-2006 is amazingly better than the
Pro-43 ?
   I'm considering getting a scanner (military bands are a must) and these
are the only 2 I've been able to actually find.  (yes, I know there are
others, but none of the stores around here seem to have them)  I'd like to
go portable if they're anywhere near close, but if the Pro-43 isn't going
to pull in much, I'm not so sure it would really be worth it.

  Any opinions?

                                                        Paul Bienvenue

 
 
 

Radio-Shack Pro-43 vs. Pro-2006

Post by Steven Jacks » Thu, 16 Dec 1993 05:36:57



chop chop

|> |> The PRO-43 suffers from intermod, which makes it almost unusable
|> |> in the 150mHz range where I live.

Hi Tom.

|> I would just like to add that the intermod problems with the PRO-43 seem to
|> occur only in certain areas.  It sounds like activity must be present on
|> certain frequencies for the intermod to be a problem.

Wasn't it a net-wide misconception for at least a while that triple conversion
scanners do not suffer intermod when in fact they push the intermod into a
locked out region?

I would like to find a scanner (in the non-restorable era) that moves the
intermod and images into the (firmware) non-restorable cellular ranges. I
don't need *all* of my scanners cellular-capable. Although who knows what
cops are saying on districts where, when asked to give a two-nine (landline
phone call to central), they are now just picking up their "secure" cellular
phones.  Districts like Daytona Beach, Florida.

That way, someone can come up with a triple conversion scanner that doesn't
come with a "but.." within a reasonable price range.
--
Steven Jackson                                              New York University
Assistant to the Chair of Comp Sci       Courant Inst. of Mathematical Sciences

 
 
 

Radio-Shack Pro-43 vs. Pro-2006

Post by Chris Yod » Sun, 19 Dec 1993 03:22:28

-*>
-*>You mentioned that your friends pro-43 was modified.  This isn't
-*>quite relevant, but would you happen to know how to modify a
-*>pro-37?  I have tried to use pro-38 modification instructions
-*>(on the off chance that they might work) but obviously they don't.
-*>

Here you go.  These are the ones I used on mine.


Newsgroups: rec.radio.shortwave
Subject: PRO-37 Scanner Modifications (Long)

Date: 24 Sep 91 13:32:11 GMT
Organization: Spar Aerospace Ltd, Toronto, Canada
Lines: 143

MODIFICATIONS FOR THE PRO-37
----------------------------

The disassembly instructions are based on the excellent PRO-34 instructions

comments.

First of all, what modifications are possible?
----------------------------------------------

The PRO-37 uses a diode array to tell its microprocessor what model it
is, and thus which frequency bands to allow and what channel spacing to
use. European and Australian models have full 800 MHz coverage (at an
unknown channel spacing) and a VHF-Mid band (68-88 MHz) rather than a
VHF-Low band (30-54 MHz).

The Canadian and US models differ in the amount of care taken to reduce
EMI. The Canadian model has additional screening, and one or two other
minor component additions to achieve this. Therefore, if you have the choice,
the Canadian model is preferable to the US model.

Changing from VHF-Low to VHF-Mid band coverage requires many
component value changes (and realignment of the appropriate RF stage).
Given that the PRO-37 uses SMT technology, it's not worth trying.
(You can change the diode array easily enough, but just don't
expect reasonable performance!)

The only sensible (straightforward) modification is the restoration of
full 800 MHz coverage on Canadian and US models. The ranges restored
appear with a 30kHz channel spacing - which just happens to coincide
with the N. American cellular telephone channel spacing. A remarkable
coincidence.

The modification described is therefore applicable ONLY to Canadian and
US models. (European and Australian readers could always remove
800 MHz coverage if they wished:-).

You will need:

        Soldering iron          - with a fine point. (The components desoldered
                                  and soldered are not SMT, but ....)
        Desoldering tool        - to remove excess solder
        Philips screwdriver     - if it fits the screws on the back of the
                                  case it's the right size.
        Small pliers            - bending component leads while unsoldering
                                  and removing hexagonal posts
        Earthing  wrist strap   - strongly advisable with CMOS components.
                                  (Static can cause premature, if not immediate
                                  failure of components). Wear this at all
                                  times.
        Small screwdriver       - for prying components etc.

        Experience and confidence in working with modern electronics

        A couple of hours without interruptions...

Instructions
------------

0. READ THROUGH ALL OF THESE INSTRUCTIONS BEFORE STARTING!

1. Remove the battery

2. Remove the antenna

3. Pull to remove squelch and volume knobs

4. Unscrew the 4***on the back of the case

5. Separate the case beginning at the battery end and work over the circuit
   board and knobs at the top

6. Unsolder both connections to the antenna - ground can be bent away and the
   centre has a link to the board

7. Unsolder the two power switch links at the board end

8. Unsolder the ground connections to the metal shield

9. Disconnect the two connectors to the squelch and volume controls

10.Remove 4 hexagonal posts

11.The top board may now be removed by separating it gently from the
   connector on the adjacent board

12.Remove 3 screws holding the shield in place

13.Lift the shield to separate it from the lower control circuit board

14.Identify diodes D12,D13 on the control board

15.EITHER cut the diode D13 and SKIP to reassembly OR continue to
   desolder diode

16.Remove last two screws and remove control board. Take care not to
   dislocate the KEY LOCK switch when doing this.

17.Unsolder screening from side of control board near diode array,
   and bend back out of way.

18.Unsolder and remove diode D13. Keep it somewhere so that you can replace
   it if required to do so by US legislation.

Reassembly is the reverse of the above procedure.

If you performed steps 16-18 CHECK REALLY CAREFULLY that the metal part of
the KEY LOCK switch is in the right location. (Otherwise, you may find
yourself having to disassemble the whole thing again - I know, I did!)

NOTES.

1.  One must exercise great caution in the procedure.  Check that no flakes
    of solder get dropped on the boards.  Take anti-static
    precautions by doing the work on a mat and wearing a wrist strap.  Do
    not make any adjustments to the upper analogue board or bend any of the
    other wire links on it, which are tuned circuits.

2.  Another caution is that doing any of the work will probably violate
    any warranty you may have on the scanner. Might be worth burning the
    scanner in for ~150 hrs before attempting this to reduce the risk of
    a latent component fault appearing after you have made the modification.

3.  YOU PERFORM THE ABOVE PROCEDURE ENTIRELY AT YOUR OWN RISK. You may
    wish to obtain a copy of the PRO-37 Service Manual from Radio Shack
    before attempting this. (Cost about $20 - well written - just wish
    I could afford all the service gear required!)

4.  If you happen to find out what adding D14 does (another difference
    between N. American and European/Australian versions), I'd be
    interested to know. It's not mentioned in the service manual. I think
    it could affect 800 MHz channel spacing - any info on the European
    Australian PRO-37 specs in this area would be appreciated.

5.  If you found something wrong in the above instructions, let me know
    and I will try and post an update.

6.  If you found all this helpful, help someone else and donate $5.00
    *today* to your favourite charity.

Share and Enjoy!



Newsgroups: alt.radio.scanner
Subject: Re: PRO-37 MOD's
Date: 14 Dec 1992 16:14:44 GMT
Organization: HP Colorado Springs Division
Lines: 207


NNTP-Posting-Host: itchub21.cs.itc.hp.com

==================================================================

                         PRO-37

This works.  I have used this procedure to modify my pro37.  One note:
there is no reason the remove the logic board.  If you have skinny wire
cutters, you can easily get to the correct diode.  This will save you
the trouble of getting the key pad and key lock back together properly.

Restoring the full 800Mhz coverage of the RS Pro-37 scanner.

The following notes have been shamelessly plagiarized from Mark Miller's
excellent instructions on modifying the Pro-34.  The two scanners are
physically so similar that I needed to make only a few minor changes
in Mark's notes to make them fit the Pro-37.

--------

  The instructions below are for those that don't like to completely
dissassemble every new electronic toy they buy just to see how it
works. Nor is it for the guy that has been building their own equipment
since the days of the first tube diode. This set of instructions assumes
a moderate level of skill with a soldering iron, and some simple hand
tools. It is aimed at those who just want the additional coverage from
the mods but havn't been building kits for a decade.
 lets just call these ....

                 "NOVICE NOTES" FOR PRO-37 MODIFICATIONS

1.  Remove the 4 small phillips screws on the back of the unit

2.  Remove the battery cover and battery holder from the case.  You won't
    loose your programming as long as you don't take all day to do
    this.

3.  Remove the two knobs on the top of the case (Volume &  Squelch)

4.  The case snaps together at the bottom via two molded "hooks"
    in the back half of the case which fit into two indentations
    in the front half.  These can be snapped apart by applying
    the right leverage to bend the hooks away from the indentations
    that they fit into while pulling the case apart.  You'll see what
    I mean when you look at it.  You need to be a bit careful in
    forcing the two halves of the case shell apart. Once you have
    the snaps at the bottom released, angle up the bottom of the case
    until the battery separation wall is clear of the internal metal
    frame, and slide towards the top of the unit. Place the back half
    of the shell aside.

5.  Now you will see the RF board mounted to the metal support frame. The
    BNC (antenna) conector leads and the volume control power switch leads
    are soldered directly to the board. Carefully desolder these 4 connections.

7.  There will be a wire from the volume control knob to the PC board that
    is plugged in. Remove the plug from the RF board (needle nose pliers work)

8.  There will also be a similar wire (small shielded ) from the squelch control
    to the RF board wich is also plugged in. Remove the plug from the RF board.
    (Again Needle Nose Pliers work good here)

9.  Remove the 4 threaded hex stand-offs from the RF Board (these hold the RF
    board to the internal metal frame AND are where the screws that hold the
    back of the case***in) Use a nut driver or Needle Nose Pliers.

10. Now the RF board is mostly free. The only thing holding it in is
    the row of connector pins on its botom side that plug into the logic
    board. You will need to pry this board up gently. Be warned that
    the bottom side of the RF board is just chock full of Very Small
    surface mounted components. So use something non-metalic and smooth
    to do the prying with.

11. Set the RF ...

read more »

 
 
 

Radio-Shack Pro-43 vs. Pro-2006

Post by Henry Brugs » Sun, 19 Dec 1993 03:15:22

Interesting, comments on pro-43 V. yup 7100. For the what
it's worth department.
A friend works for Motorola near Boston, and we tested the
7100. on most frequencies tested on a range from 50mhz, to
about 900mhz, the receiver could receive a test signal at
.13 mv. the thing captured squelch at .15. The point _is_
in the right place. My friend reckoned it was up there with
most of the motorola units he was familiar with in terms of
sensitivity.
I'd be really interested in hearing the test figures of the
pro-43 and the 7100 side-by-side. I had a hunch that the
pro-43 was slightly, but not much less sensitive. I'd be
especially in hearing about performance in the 200-400 mhz
segment.
--
Henry Brugsch
aka hbj elsewher, CIS: 75366.317.com

telnet and internet connectivity $13 per month
(Join adaptive.tech) for info on adaptive tech for disabilities
telnet x25.bix.com
The freedom of information is a right not a privilege.
 
 
 

Radio-Shack Pro-43 vs. Pro-2006

Post by Earl Barfie » Sun, 19 Dec 1993 10:40:17

Quote:>A friend works for Motorola near Boston, and we tested the
>7100. on most frequencies tested on a range from 50mhz, to
>about 900mhz, the receiver could receive a test signal at
>.13 mv. the thing captured squelch at .15. The point _is_
>in the right place.

So the decimal point _is_ in the right place.... how about the units?
I assume you're talking about 0.13 uV, not 0.13 mV?

--
Earl Barfield  --  Operations Department / Information Technology  
Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta Georgia, 30332


 
 
 

Radio-Shack Pro-43 vs. Pro-2006

Post by Tom Bod » Thu, 16 Dec 1993 04:01:30

|> I have both.  The PRO-43 suffers from intermod, which makes it almost unusable
|> in the 150mHz range where I live.  The PRO-2006 is much easier to modify for
|> cellular.  Features on both are about the same except the 2006 has twice the
|> number of memory channels.  Your choice will probably be dictated by the need
|> for portability.  However, if you dont require a portable, I would go with the
|> 2006.
|>
|> -Bob

For the most part, I agree with Bob.  I would just like to add that the
intermod problems with the PRO-43 seem to occur only in certain areas.  It
sounds like activity must be present on certain frequencies for the intermod
to be a problem.  I have heard something about activity on the NOAA freq
of 162.550 or on UHF channel 14(?).  I had absolutely no problem with it
around here and did not notice any problems in any of my travels (Denver,
northern VA, Anchorage, etc).  There may also have been production mods
which caused/corrected intermod problems...

--
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+ Tom Bodoh - Sr. systems software engineer, Hughes STX, N0YGT                +
+ USGS/EROS Data Center, Sioux Falls, SD, USA   57198     (605) 594-6830      +

+       "Welcome back my friends to the show that never ends!" EL&P             +
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 
 
 

Radio-Shack Pro-43 vs. Pro-2006

Post by David Hor » Tue, 21 Dec 1993 23:58:51


Quote:>>A friend works for Motorola near Boston, and we tested the
>>7100. on most frequencies tested on a range from 50mhz, to
>>about 900mhz, the receiver could receive a test signal at
>>.13 mv. the thing captured squelch at .15. The point _is_
>>in the right place.
>So the decimal point _is_ in the right place.... how about the units?
>I assume you're talking about 0.13 uV, not 0.13 mV?

It would seem that it MUST be uV.  Heck, my Opto Freq Counter does
better than .13mV on some freqs!

David

 
 
 

Radio-Shack Pro-43 vs. Pro-2006

Post by Joseph Perei » Wed, 22 Dec 1993 08:48:00

Hi Chris!
I came in late on this topic......so please excuse me if I'm repeating
anything previously posted!

I'm thinking of buying a Radio Shack Pro-43 scanner, and I would like to
ask you your opinion on this particular model?!

Also, are there any other portable models that offer more frequency
coverage?

Another question, if I may...your previous posts suggest modifying the
PRO-37 to allow full 800 MHz coverage.
What are the benefits of having the 800 MHz coverage? I guess what I'm
asking is, what resides in that area?

Would it also be possible to re-post the instructions to modify the
PRO-43?

I'm new to scanning so any information I receive, would be greatly
appreciated!!! I just recently discovered this conference, i think it's
FANTASTIC that there are so many scanner enthusiasts out there!

Joseph Pereira