PRO-92A vs PRO-92...the bottom line?

PRO-92A vs PRO-92...the bottom line?

Post by Kwo.. » Tue, 15 Aug 2000 04:00:00

Has anyone heard exactly what the difference between a PRO-92A and a
PRO-92 is SUPPOSED to be? Any word from the Shack as to what the new
firmware really does for us? I bought a 92A recently and from what I
can see, it does not have the trunk ID flicker problem reported in the
92, but seems to have trouble detecting the ID from time to time. I'm
just curious what the real difference is supposed to be.

John

 
 
 

PRO-92A vs PRO-92...the bottom line?

Post by KuR » Tue, 15 Aug 2000 04:00:00


the real difference is the firmware version change from v1.00 to 3.25
in version 3.25 it trunks using the control channel as apposed to sub-audible
data
there are some other changes but nothing major
 
 
 

PRO-92A vs PRO-92...the bottom line?

Post by bob dolso » Tue, 15 Aug 2000 04:00:00


Quote:> Has anyone heard exactly what the difference between a PRO-92A and a
> PRO-92 is SUPPOSED to be? Any word from the Shack as to what the new
> firmware really does for us? I bought a 92A recently and from what I
> can see, it does not have the trunk ID flicker problem reported in the
> 92, but seems to have trouble detecting the ID from time to time. I'm
> just curious what the real difference is supposed to be.

> John

The plain 92 uses sub-audible tones to figure out the trunking on Motorola
systems. Due to various reasons, this causes it to leave some conversations
before the actual conversation is done. The 92A uses the control channel
instead of sub-audible tones to control it's trunk tracking. This is
normally the better way to do it, but the 92A (and the mobile version 2067,
both of which have the same firmware) completely misses some conversations
for some reason (the problem you wrote about). So they still have work to do
in my humble opinion.

I tried two different 92's, and a 2067 (after they went on sale). Returned
all of them and got a BC245, which is much more satisfactory, even with it's
5 second trunk delay.

--
Sincerely,

Bob Dolson

Blissfully living in retirement

check out our web pages when you get a chance.
Now including some QTVR pans from the Casio 2000UX at:
http://home.sprynet.com/~bdolson

Also check out our PhotoPoint web albums.
Also including some 2000UX samples at:
http://albums.photopoint.com/j/AlbumList?u=49802

 
 
 

PRO-92A vs PRO-92...the bottom line?

Post by Kwo.. » Wed, 16 Aug 2000 10:42:14

Thanks for the info. I hadn't heard the bit about the new version
using the control channel. I agree, Uniden still seems to have the
best trunk scanner products. I just wish they'd give us those nifty
features like CTCSS/DCS and alphatags in their trunk trackers. Guess
we gotta wait for the BC-780 and, hopefully, a handheld equivalent. I
do like my PRO-92A for conventional use. That's really what I bought
to do, so I'm not all that disappointed. It's a very good conventional
scanner and is probably the best self-contained scanner for finding
unknown CTCSS tones. The only rig better that I've seen in this
respect is one of the Optoelectronics interfaces with Probe software.
The 92 detects and displays tone frequencies in very nearly realtime.
The few other scanners (and ham radios) that can search for tones just
hunt through the tone list at a very slow pace. The AR-8200 isn't bad,
but is still much slower than the PRO-92. Oh well, maybe the PRO-92Z
Mk99X will be the perfect scanner....yeah right. Hope does spring
eternal...

John





>> Has anyone heard exactly what the difference between a PRO-92A and a
>> PRO-92 is SUPPOSED to be? Any word from the Shack as to what the new
>> firmware really does for us? I bought a 92A recently and from what I
>> can see, it does not have the trunk ID flicker problem reported in the
>> 92, but seems to have trouble detecting the ID from time to time. I'm
>> just curious what the real difference is supposed to be.

>> John

>The plain 92 uses sub-audible tones to figure out the trunking on Motorola
>systems. Due to various reasons, this causes it to leave some conversations
>before the actual conversation is done. The 92A uses the control channel
>instead of sub-audible tones to control it's trunk tracking. This is
>normally the better way to do it, but the 92A (and the mobile version 2067,
>both of which have the same firmware) completely misses some conversations
>for some reason (the problem you wrote about). So they still have work to do
>in my humble opinion.

>I tried two different 92's, and a 2067 (after they went on sale). Returned
>all of them and got a BC245, which is much more satisfactory, even with it's
>5 second trunk delay.

 
 
 

PRO-92A vs PRO-92...the bottom line?

Post by Jim Kirico » Thu, 17 Aug 2000 13:31:04

On a finally note, unless you live in a heavy populated trunk city, you may
want to consider the pro 92 for it's large alpha tag screen.  It's nice to
organise your channels by bank names, and frequency names.
Jim


> Thanks for the info. I hadn't heard the bit about the new version
> using the control channel. I agree, Uniden still seems to have the
> best trunk scanner products. I just wish they'd give us those nifty
> features like CTCSS/DCS and alphatags in their trunk trackers. Guess
> we gotta wait for the BC-780 and, hopefully, a handheld equivalent. I
> do like my PRO-92A for conventional use. That's really what I bought
> to do, so I'm not all that disappointed. It's a very good conventional
> scanner and is probably the best self-contained scanner for finding
> unknown CTCSS tones. The only rig better that I've seen in this
> respect is one of the Optoelectronics interfaces with Probe software.
> The 92 detects and displays tone frequencies in very nearly realtime.
> The few other scanners (and ham radios) that can search for tones just
> hunt through the tone list at a very slow pace. The AR-8200 isn't bad,
> but is still much slower than the PRO-92. Oh well, maybe the PRO-92Z
> Mk99X will be the perfect scanner....yeah right. Hope does spring
> eternal...

> John





> >> Has anyone heard exactly what the difference between a PRO-92A and a
> >> PRO-92 is SUPPOSED to be? Any word from the Shack as to what the new
> >> firmware really does for us? I bought a 92A recently and from what I
> >> can see, it does not have the trunk ID flicker problem reported in the
> >> 92, but seems to have trouble detecting the ID from time to time. I'm
> >> just curious what the real difference is supposed to be.

> >> John

> >The plain 92 uses sub-audible tones to figure out the trunking on
Motorola
> >systems. Due to various reasons, this causes it to leave some
conversations
> >before the actual conversation is done. The 92A uses the control channel
> >instead of sub-audible tones to control it's trunk tracking. This is
> >normally the better way to do it, but the 92A (and the mobile version
2067,
> >both of which have the same firmware) completely misses some
conversations
> >for some reason (the problem you wrote about). So they still have work to
do
> >in my humble opinion.

> >I tried two different 92's, and a 2067 (after they went on sale).
Returned
> >all of them and got a BC245, which is much more satisfactory, even with
it's
> >5 second trunk delay.