Perhaps you're hearing cordless phones in the 902 - 928
MHz range and misidentifying them as cell phones.

I get those signals too, but even a novice scanner
enthusiast can tell the difference ... especially when
these "mirror" signals remain active with identifiable
traffic, and can be verified by any unblocked rig in the
designated cellular range.

For instance, a signal heard on 907.0750 MHz in (factory
pre-set) step on my BC80, will show up as
886.3500 MHz in NFM@30k step on the unblocked radio.

Nope ... I can't explain it boys, and I'm eagerly learning
more all the time, but I figure a passion like ours knows
no boundaries. It's just a matter of operating the
equipment and acclimating to the mechanics of the trade.

This is FUN stuff.

I was impressed with the BC80XLT I reviewed in Sept. 2004
Monitoring Times. It is very simple to operate so it can
serve as a good first scanner. The triple up-conversion
circuitry performs much better than older style economy
models employing a 10.8 or 10.7 MHz first IF, so it is
suitable as a second "knock around" scanner or more
advanced users, too.

Interesting observation Bob ... as the seasoned veteran of a BC80XLT
and new owner of an AOR MK3, that's just how I feel, although I'm a
still more of a BC80-level user.

However, that temporary status doesn't interfere with the sheer
pleasure of catching smug cops talking to each other "privately" on
their cell phones. I mean, the new breed of militant law enforcement
can't very well discuss entrapping people on the unblocked airwaves,
now can they?

On 26 Oct 2004 10:13:56 -0700, (Vic Canova) said
in alt.radio.scanner:

For instance, a signal heard on 907.0750 MHz in (factory
pre-set) step on my BC80, will show up as
886.3500 MHz in NFM@30k step on the unblocked radio.

Nope ... I can't explain it boys

It's a 10.3625 MHz image. (Which probably means that the scanner
needs a bit of alignment.)

It's a 10.3625 MHz image. (Which probably means that
the scanner needs a bit of alignment.)

Makes sense Al, and I'm sure that's the case here, but
why would I want to align anything when I'm receiving
the full cellular range on a BLOCKED Uniden scanner
made in 1995? However, I'd really like to know what
formula was used to come up with that "image" number.

On 27 Oct 2004 06:33:11 -0700, (Vic Canova) said
in alt.radio.scanner:

It's a 10.3625 MHz image. (Which probably means that
the scanner needs a bit of alignment.)

Makes sense Al, and I'm sure that's the case here, but
why would I want to align anything when I'm receiving
the full cellular range on a BLOCKED Uniden scanner
made in 1995?

Because you'd still receive the image (that only depends on the design
of the front end) but the sensitivity would probably go up. (Unless
your scanner has a first IF of 10.3625 MHz?)

However, I'd really like to know what
formula was used to come up with that "image" number.

The image is twice the IF above or below the transmitter frequency.
Since you gave both the image and transmitter frequencies, I took the
difference and divided by 2.