R3 firmware

RobK

Premium RDF Member
Intermediate User
Premium Member
Joined
Dec 11, 2015
Messages
526
Reaction score
354
OK thank you. I wouldn't expect the method to change but I have seen software updates on many computer platforms change functionality
unexpectedly.

Sorry, forgot to quote Vortex above.
 
Last edited:

Vortex

Making Videos
Observer
Advanced User
Lifetime Premium Member
Joined
Jul 19, 2012
Messages
21,165
Reaction score
41,415
Location
Washington State
OK thank you. I wouldn't expect the method to change but I have seen software updates on many computer platforms change functionality
unexpectedly.

Sorry, forgot to quote Vortex above.
Yeah totally.

I've seen that happen with Stinger. It was a bit of a PITA actually because often when a new firmware would come out, it would add new features, the filtering algorithms and thus effectiveness would chance, sometimes existing features would break, and so on, and that started to make it less enjoyable to test because old test data may or may not be relevant with the new firmware and so much work would have to be redone every time to fully understand the capabilities of the new setup. I mean it's a good thing to have the detector continue to evolve, don't get me wrong, but it does start to get kind of laborious after a while, especially if you're doing it for free in your spare time, you know?

Honestly I used to be super gung ho about testing everything under the sun, but now I've had to become more selective about focusing on the highest priority things. Luckily something like a Spectre test would only take a few minutes to do... just hook it up to a portable battery pack and move it around the front of the car so this one wouldn't be a big deal, but either way I'm trying to avoid doing a bunch of extra work unless it's absolutely necessary. :)
 

gugarci

Hiding in Plain Sight
Intermediate User
Joined
Sep 5, 2014
Messages
799
Reaction score
662
Location
Northern NJ
The only thing I would like to see in future FW's are better filtering without loosing sensitivity & completely eliminating the KA ghosting issue. Although to be fair with FW 1.26 it's much better than before. I mainly run KA wide & I don't experience too many ghosting issues. Also hope they don't break what isn't broken by adding bells & whistles & bloatware that doesn't improve the over-all performance.
 

RobK

Premium RDF Member
Intermediate User
Premium Member
Joined
Dec 11, 2015
Messages
526
Reaction score
354
Yeah totally.

I've seen that happen with Stinger. It was a bit of a PITA actually because often when a new firmware would come out, it would add new features, the filtering algorithms and thus effectiveness would chance, sometimes existing features would break, and so on, and that started to make it less enjoyable to test because old test data may or may not be relevant with the new firmware and so much work would have to be redone to fully understand the capabilities of the new setup. I mean it's a good thing to have the detector continue to evolve, don't get me wrong, but it does start to get kind of laborious after a while, especially if you're doing it for free in your free time, you know?

Honestly I used to be super gung ho about testing everything under the sun, but now I've had to become more selective about focusing on the highest priority things. Luckily something like a Spectre test would only take a few minutes to do... just hook it up to a portable battery pack and move it around the front of the car so this one wouldn't be a big deal, but either way I'm trying to avoid doing a bunch of extra work unless it's absolutely necessary. :)
You are absolutely correct. We do regression testing on incremental software releases and it is a PITA. I wasn't trying to give you work however.

The only reason I brought it up as you pointed out is things break and in this case, reading the original discussions of how the R's achieve stealth, it was determined it wasn't via physical means leading me to believe it's achieved in software.
 

Vortex

Making Videos
Observer
Advanced User
Lifetime Premium Member
Joined
Jul 19, 2012
Messages
21,165
Reaction score
41,415
Location
Washington State
You are absolutely correct. We do regression testing on incremental software releases and it is a PITA. I wasn't trying to give you work however.

The only reason I brought it up as you pointed out is things break and in this case, reading the original discussions of how the R's achieve stealth, it was determined it wasn't via physical means leading me to believe it's achieved in software.
I'm curious too about how, exactly, Uniden is doing it. Luckily with the M3's there's a patent on it where all the different techniques are publicly disclosed. It would be nice if we were able to see something similar with Uniden. :)
 

spongebobradarpants

aka "The Grouch"
Advanced User
Joined
May 18, 2017
Messages
3,069
Reaction score
2,417
Location
PNW
No, we're pretty sure it's the LO frequency, which I'm pretty sure is a hardware design. I don't know that they can change the LO frequency through firmware. I would ping FWGuy but he'll probably see this anyway and I've been annoying him a lot lately :p
 

LeftLaneInPA

School buses are my nemeses.
Advanced User
Joined
Jun 20, 2017
Messages
2,539
Reaction score
3,111
Location
Clue's in the name
No, we're pretty sure it's the LO frequency, which I'm pretty sure is a hardware design. I don't know that they can change the LO frequency through firmware. I would ping FWGuy but he'll probably see this anyway and I've been annoying him a lot lately :p
So once RDD manufacturers figure out the R1 & R3's LO frequency, it will no longer be stealth. Well, feh.
 

Vortex

Making Videos
Observer
Advanced User
Lifetime Premium Member
Joined
Jul 19, 2012
Messages
21,165
Reaction score
41,415
Location
Washington State
So once RDD manufacturers figure out the R1 & R3's LO frequency, it will no longer be stealth. Well, feh.
I'm not convinced that's the case.

Even the "stealth" M3's will trigger a Spectre if you bring it close enough.

There's other factors like an LNA which can have a big impact as well. Look a the difference between the Radenso Pro and Radenso Pro SE, for example. In my testing with the Spectre and RD's lined up head on (not in different lanes like you'd see while driving), the Spectre Elite picked up the RP (no LNA) 151 feet away and the RPSE (with an LNA) just 12 feet away. Given that the Spectre is already scanning for the frequencies that the RP/RPSE LO is using and thus is able to detect them, having the Spectre check for different LO frequencies is NOT going to suddenly make the RPSE more detectable, and the same logic would hold true for the R3, Stinger, M3's, and so on which are also detectable at extremely close ranges.

So honestly I think the whole LO frequency thing is just speculation that is most likely incorrect.
 

FWGuy

Learning to Fly
Beginner User
Joined
May 3, 2017
Messages
1,190
Reaction score
1,292
Location
Ellicott City, MD
No, we're pretty sure it's the LO frequency, which I'm pretty sure is a hardware design. I don't know that they can change the LO frequency through firmware. I would ping FWGuy but he'll probably see this anyway and I've been annoying him a lot lately :p
See Vortex's post immediately above.

Dan

- - - Updated - - -

I'm not convinced that's the case.

Even the "stealth" M3's will trigger a Spectre if you bring it close enough.

There's other factors like an LNA which can have a big impact as well. Look a the difference between the Radenso Pro and Radenso Pro SE, for example. In my testing with the Spectre and RD's lined up head on (not in different lanes like you'd see while driving), the Spectre Elite picked up the RP (no LNA) 151 feet away and the RPSE (with an LNA) just 12 feet away. Given that the Spectre is already scanning for the frequencies that the RP/RPSE LO is using and thus is able to detect them, having the Spectre check for different LO frequencies is NOT going to suddenly make the RPSE more detectable, and the same logic would hold true for the R3, Stinger, M3's, and so on which are also detectable at extremely close ranges.

So honestly I think the whole LO frequency thing is just speculation that is most likely incorrect.
I definitely agree with the bolded text above. Looking for different frequencies may not make the RPSE show up more but it may find a detector that uses the different LO. I don't know how the Specter Elite works but if the LO freq is very different than the Radenso's, wouldn't you think the detectability (by the Specter) might change?

I don't know if the Specter is looking around X band for the LO or higher for harmonics but if one knew the frequency response of the Specter, one could (in theory) choose a frequency value that the Specter would have a hard time receiving.

Guesses on my part.

Dan
 
Last edited:

Driver66

Probably driving
Advanced User
Lifetime Premium Member
Joined
Jun 5, 2017
Messages
1,914
Reaction score
2,947

DJ XtAzY

Learning to Fly
Beginner User
Joined
Jul 31, 2015
Messages
105
Reaction score
56
Location
MA
Will there be an Auto City like Radenso (like Q-Ride from 0-20mph, then 20-35 for City1, 35+ for Highway)?
 

FWGuy

Learning to Fly
Beginner User
Joined
May 3, 2017
Messages
1,190
Reaction score
1,292
Location
Ellicott City, MD
I'm not convinced that's the case.

Even the "stealth" M3's will trigger a Spectre if you bring it close enough.

There's other factors like an LNA which can have a big impact as well. Look a the difference between the Radenso Pro and Radenso Pro SE, for example. In my testing with the Spectre and RD's lined up head on (not in different lanes like you'd see while driving), the Spectre Elite picked up the RP (no LNA) 151 feet away and the RPSE (with an LNA) just 12 feet away. Given that the Spectre is already scanning for the frequencies that the RP/RPSE LO is using and thus is able to detect them, having the Spectre check for different LO frequencies is NOT going to suddenly make the RPSE more detectable, and the same logic would hold true for the R3, Stinger, M3's, and so on which are also detectable at extremely close ranges.

So honestly I think the whole LO frequency thing is just speculation that is most likely incorrect.
[MENTION=2404]Vortex[/MENTION]

When you have a chance, would you mind explaining this for me please? You are responding to someone who's asking whether the R1/R3 will no longer be stealth once a RDD manufacturer figures out the R1/R3 LO (see your post #108 in this thread).

I thought I'd read several times that the emissions (picked up by our RD's and by RDD's) are caused by the LO frequencies of lousy detectors (in the case of our RD's) and just LO's in general (in the case of the RDD's).

Would you explain why you think the LO explanation might not be valid?

Thanks very much.
Dan

P.S. - I'm sorry to drag you out of bed with the @ sign. :)
 
Last edited:

Vortex

Making Videos
Observer
Advanced User
Lifetime Premium Member
Joined
Jul 19, 2012
Messages
21,165
Reaction score
41,415
Location
Washington State
[MENTION=2404]Vortex[/MENTION]

When you have a chance, would you mind explaining this for me please? You are responding to someone who's asking whether the R1/R3 will no longer be stealth once a RDD manufacturer figures out the R1/R3 LO (see your post #108 in this thread).

I thought I'd read several times that the emissions (picked up by our RD's and by RDD's) are caused by the LO frequencies of lousy detectors (in the case of our RD's) and just LO's in general (in the case of the RDD's).

Would you explain why you think the LO explanation might not be valid?

Thanks very much.
Dan
I just pulled up the specs for the Spectre Elite. It is scanning for frequencies between 10 GHz and 25 GHz. That's a huge area to be scanning for and doesn't leave any room for detector manufacturers to hide in there.

I don't know what frequency ranges every LO for every detector uses, but there was a cool example I found in Escort's patent explaining how RDR works. (I explored it here.) In that example they used an LO which was set to 11.5583 GHz.

Fundamental frequency: 11.5583 GHz
1st harmonic: 23.1166 GHz
2nd harmonic: 34.6749 GHz

Take a look at how the harmonics conveniently line up with X band, K band, and Ka band. They're all roughly around +/- 1 GHz of X, K, and Ka. The first intermediate frequencies (IF) you'd step down to in this example RD would be in the ballpark of 1 GHz instead of 34.7 GHz or whatever. I go into more detail about this in the article I mention earlier. Anyway, the key takeaway is that you need to select a frequency below where you need and to step up with harmonics.

What if a company wanted to say okay, let's just go outside the range where the Spectre is scanning? Its lowest frequency range is 10 GHz. Let's take our 11.5583 GHz signal, cut it in half to 5.7792 GHz, and look for higher order harmonics from that LO. Well, I imagine the Spectre would still be able to pick up the harmonics of that 5.7 GHz signal just like how our RD's can pick up 33.6xx Cobra falses which are really just the harmonics of a "leaky" 11.2xx GHz LO.

What about going higher than where the Spectre is scanning? Well if you go higher than 25 GHz, now you can no longer scan for K band, plus even the very first harmonic at 50+ GHz puts you way beyond Ka band so you can't scan for Ka either. That's out too.

From what I understand, the way RD companies developed VG-2 immunity was simply to change where the scanning frequencies of the LO's in their RD's were set to, choosing a frequency where the VG-2 wasn't scanning. That was a really simple and obvious technique. I don't know the specs for each individual Spectre model, but when Stealth Microsystems developed the Spectre, clearly they didn't want to let RD's escape using the same technique so they set the Spectre up in a way where pretty much any suitable frequency a RD manufacturer could possibly choose from, the Spectre would already be scanning for it.

Thus, in order to develop immunity from the Spectre, you have to cut back on the emissions that the RD is emitting in the first place. It's why you see the difference between the RP and RPSE that I mentioned earlier. One technique is to use an LNA, which acts like a one-way switch a reduces the emissions coming back out of the horn.

I don't know all the different techniques that RD manufacturers use to accomplish RDD immunity. Escort has a patent on their techniques which is great for educating us on how it can be done, but given that it's patented, other manufacturers can't just flat out copy them. Nevertheless, in order to be RDD immune to the Spectre, given that the Spectre is already scanning for any and all frequencies that RD's could be using, other techniques are having to be employed to reduce emissions that the RD is producing and the Spectre is already scanning for. Having the Spectre scan for additional frequencies is not going to magically make current detectors detectable.

(Wow that was fun to research, think through, and put together.) :p
 

OPPOP

PSL +5
Intermediate User
Joined
Feb 5, 2014
Messages
234
Reaction score
206
Location
Vancouver, BC
Any ETA on next firmware update? I know BRD mentioned beginning of August, is it still the case?
 

Rango

Learning to Fly
Beginner User
Joined
Apr 22, 2017
Messages
380
Reaction score
284
Location
Chicago, IL
Any ETA on next firmware update? I know BRD mentioned beginning of August, is it still the case?
X3 haha ...not that it will help lol
 

Discord Server

Latest threads

Forum statistics

Threads
77,632
Messages
1,183,009
Members
19,858
Latest member
b4jc100
Top