More R Series K Band Bench Testing. 1.37 and 1.46

OBeerWANKenobi

This is not the car you're looking for.....
Premium Member
Advanced User
Intermediate User
Beginner User
General User
Newly Registered
Mar 20, 2018
2,293
5,070
Right Behind You! (Wisconsin)
#1
Ever since noticing a delay in detection with my R3 on 1.46 during quick check that @darkpenguin and I did while scouting courses, I wanted to do more of a controlled test. I was able to do that tonight.

Mr. Penguin loaned me his K band gun and a special box that he recently completed to attenuate radar signals. Along with testing the delay and a few pertinent settings, I also decided to show what can happen when the signal strength isn't reduced when testing.

It's a fairly long video but hopefully helpful or interesting to a few of you. It seems to me that Uniden still has some work to do with K band. That or the R series hates this particular gun.

 

Gowski

Premium Member
Premium Member
Intermediate User
Beginner User
General User
Newly Registered
Apr 9, 2017
718
1,036
39
NH
#2
Nice! I was curious to see results of 1.46 with MRCD-on TSF-off and see if it was similar to @Brainstorm69 test. Looks like although the inconsistency is real, 1.46 in general is slower than 1.37 especially with TSF-on adding another couple seconds to the delay. And no matter the setting could very well miss an IO shot. Thanks for sharing!
 

Deacon

TXCTG
Premium Member
Advanced User
Intermediate User
Newly Registered
Nov 13, 2016
7,455
8,240
Hill Country, TX
#3
Well done, thank you for sharing! Love that box...
 

milkman

Premium Member
Premium Member
Advanced User
Intermediate User
Beginner User
General User
Acceptus
Newly Registered
Dec 6, 2010
14,336
5,093
Missouri
#4
Nice Job ole buddy! Thanks for sharing!
 

Heywood

Learning Something New, Still Dying Stupid
Premium Member
Advanced User
Intermediate User
Beginner User
General User
Newly Registered
May 12, 2016
2,225
3,157
Alberta Canada
#5
Great testing.
The distance penalty was pretty close to 4000 feet when I ran the test with 1.46 on the R3 and TSF on vs off

I think it was the November 19th test.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Edit:
Just looked. On average.
R3 TSF off - 16,800 feet
R3 TSF on - 9900 feet
 
Last edited:

Bossdad71

Premium Member
Premium Member
Advanced User
Intermediate User
Beginner User
General User
MFG/Vendor
Newly Registered
Jul 11, 2016
5,094
6,016
Kansas running with the pack
#6
where was the box? on the floor or right next to the detector?
 

OBeerWANKenobi

This is not the car you're looking for.....
Premium Member
Advanced User
Intermediate User
Beginner User
General User
Newly Registered
Mar 20, 2018
2,293
5,070
Right Behind You! (Wisconsin)
#7
Great testing.
The distance penalty was pretty close to 4000 feet when I ran the test with 1.46 on the R3 and TSF on vs off

I think it was the November 19th test.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Edit:
Just looked. On average.
R3 TSF off - 16,800 feet
R3 TSF on - 9900 feet
For sure there is quite a distance penalty with 1.46 and TSF on. In our November test we saw it too. What I mentioned in this video though is that I also believe that there is a distance penalty for 1.37 and TSF on which is what needs more testing.

My theory is that on a straight-line course you might not see much of a distance penalty but on a course with obstructions and vegetation to suck the signal and bounce it around you'll see more. This idea is based on when the filtering tells the detector to alert. With the heartbeat display on both 1.46 and 1.37 you see that the heart stutters in pretty much the same spot so it's where the detector actually decides to alert the user that the difference lies Hopefully I'll have some time to test that.

where was the box? on the floor or right next to the detector?
The box was about 2 feet to the left of the detector. It works really well. When I put it on the floor the detectors wouldn't even register a signal.
 
Last edited:

Heywood

Learning Something New, Still Dying Stupid
Premium Member
Advanced User
Intermediate User
Beginner User
General User
Newly Registered
May 12, 2016
2,225
3,157
Alberta Canada
#8
I agree.

People wanted me to record the first blip, or sniff. It wasn’t a solid detection of K band through the whole course. You can see it in the video.

TSF eliminated that first sniff. And a couple more until it decided to alert me. 4 to 6000 feet comes up pretty quick at 60 mph.


I was pretty surprised to see that it was that big of a difference.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

Deadhead1971

Instant-On Survivor
Premium Member
Advanced User
Intermediate User
Beginner User
General User
Newly Registered
Dec 7, 2014
2,403
3,204
47
Central NC
#9
Thanks for the video demonstration. Cool Genesis I.
 

TurboDriver

PSL + 50, every now and then
Premium Member
Advanced User
Intermediate User
Beginner User
General User
Newly Registered
Sep 14, 2012
1,551
1,509
Michigan
#10
Ever since noticing a delay in detection with my R3 on 1.46 during quick check that @darkpenguin and I did while scouting courses, I wanted to do more of a controlled test. I was able to do that tonight.

Mr. Penguin loaned me his K band gun and a special box that he recently completed to attenuate radar signals. Along with testing the delay and a few pertinent settings, I also decided to show what can happen when the signal strength isn't reduced when testing.

It's a fairly long video but hopefully helpful or interesting to a few of you. It seems to me that Uniden still has some work to do with K band. That or the R series hates this particular gun.

I have a testing challenge for you @OBeerWANKenobi.

On 1.37 with TSF Off set the antenna box so there is a very weak signal of 1 bar, then without moving anything change TSF to On and see if it will alert. Reason I wonder is in my past testing it "almost" seemed like the TSF on 1.37 was basically not letting an alert through unless the signal strength was greater than 1 bar...Auto Mode on the Redline works like this (plus multiple signal analysis which the Uniden clearly doesn't have) where it upped the signal threshold for alert.

This may or may not be the case but I had a hard time getting the signal strength consistent to prove or disprove this...the "Box" looks like the perfect solution for signal strength control.
 

OBeerWANKenobi

This is not the car you're looking for.....
Premium Member
Advanced User
Intermediate User
Beginner User
General User
Newly Registered
Mar 20, 2018
2,293
5,070
Right Behind You! (Wisconsin)
#11
I have a testing challenge for you @OBeerWANKenobi.

On 1.37 with TSF Off set the antenna box so there is a very weak signal of 1 bar, then without moving anything change TSF to On and see if it will alert. Reason I wonder is in my past testing it "almost" seemed like the TSF on 1.37 was basically not letting an alert through unless the signal strength was greater than 1 bar...Auto Mode on the Redline works like this (plus multiple signal analysis which the Uniden clearly doesn't have) where it upped the signal threshold for alert.

This may or may not be the case but I had a hard time getting the signal strength consistent to prove or disprove this...the "Box" looks like the perfect solution for signal strength control.
Hey! Great idea for a test. I just completed this and the video is uploading now. I was kind of thinking out loud as I filmed the test and didn't really put 2 and 2 together until writing the video description to upload it so you can ignore my commentary near the end. I think we have our answer for why TSF has a real world distance penalty!

In most of the bench testing we've seen the signal is not attenuated very much. And in those cases with a fairly strong signal we don't see much of a reaction penalty with TSF on or off. Now when we go out in the real world and actually test for distance we're looking for that first blip of a signal. The faster we catch a weak signal the longer detection distance we get.

After testing I can tell you that my R1 on 1.37 struggles to alert with a 1 bar signal and TSF on. This is on the bench. In the real world it's probably even worse. I'll let the video speak for itself once it uploads but you can see how we could get a major distance penalty with TSF on, even on 1.37, but never see it in bench testing unless the signal was kept very weak. This could easily translate to being saved versus not being saved.

--- DOUBLEPOST MERGED ---

 

Heywood

Learning Something New, Still Dying Stupid
Premium Member
Advanced User
Intermediate User
Beginner User
General User
Newly Registered
May 12, 2016
2,225
3,157
Alberta Canada
#12
Nice.
Like to see the comparison with 1.46. If you have time. May not be much difference or totally missed.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

TurboDriver

PSL + 50, every now and then
Premium Member
Advanced User
Intermediate User
Beginner User
General User
Newly Registered
Sep 14, 2012
1,551
1,509
Michigan
#13
Hey! Great idea for a test. I just completed this and the video is uploading now. I was kind of thinking out loud as I filmed the test and didn't really put 2 and 2 together until writing the video description to upload it so you can ignore my commentary near the end. I think we have our answer for why TSF has a real world distance penalty!

In most of the bench testing we've seen the signal is not attenuated very much. And in those cases with a fairly strong signal we don't see much of a reaction penalty with TSF on or off. Now when we go out in the real world and actually test for distance we're looking for that first blip of a signal. The faster we catch a weak signal the longer detection distance we get.

After testing I can tell you that my R1 on 1.37 struggles to alert with a 1 bar signal and TSF on. This is on the bench. In the real world it's probably even worse. I'll let the video speak for itself once it uploads but you can see how we could get a major distance penalty with TSF on, even on 1.37, but never see it in bench testing unless the signal was kept very weak. This could easily translate to being saved versus not being saved.

--- DOUBLEPOST MERGED ---

Thanks! Nice job!

So I guess it is hard to tell what is truly going on, but I did notice the delay with a really low signal and thus the reason for asking you to test...thank you very much!

Posted from my moto x4 using the RDF Mobile App!
 

hiddencam

Premium Member
Premium Member
Advanced User
Intermediate User
Beginner User
General User
Newly Registered
Oct 29, 2010
10,841
21,320
#14
Awesome testing, thanks that's very helpful. That 1 bar testing with TSF is interesting. Obviously the detector is "thinking" about more than just signal strength, probably because it's being seen as an intermittent weak signal, maybe it's making sure it's not a traffic monitoring signal that TSF was designed to filter out. Does that until it eventually determines, nope, not a TSF so I'll alert to it.

Love the radar-absorbing box! Much better than my POT-test ™ using metal kitchen pots for 1.35 testing in Feb haha

Screenshot 2019-01-07 at 8.28.19 PM.png
Screenshot 2019-01-07 at 8.28.38 PM.png
 

OBeerWANKenobi

This is not the car you're looking for.....
Premium Member
Advanced User
Intermediate User
Beginner User
General User
Newly Registered
Mar 20, 2018
2,293
5,070
Right Behind You! (Wisconsin)
#15
Awesome testing, thanks that's very helpful. That 1 bar testing with TSF is interesting. Obviously the detector is "thinking" about more than just signal strength, probably because it's being seen as an intermittent weak signal, maybe it's making sure it's not a traffic monitoring signal that TSF was designed to filter out. Does that until it eventually determines, nope, not a TSF so I'll alert to it.

Love the radar-absorbing box! Much better than my POT-test ™ using metal kitchen pots for 1.35 testing in Feb haha

View attachment 96303 View attachment 96302
An R series would probably need a lot of seasoning LOL

I agree that what you are thinking about TSF is probably correct and I think that being slow on the uptake with a weaker signal might be turning into a real world distance penalty.

Did you receive my PM @hiddencam ?

--- DOUBLEPOST MERGED ---

Nice.
Like to see the comparison with 1.46. If you have time. May not be much difference or totally missed.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Finally had a few minutes to get your request in.;)

 

Heywood

Learning Something New, Still Dying Stupid
Premium Member
Advanced User
Intermediate User
Beginner User
General User
Newly Registered
May 12, 2016
2,225
3,157
Alberta Canada
#16
Pretty awesome.
That makes a whole lotta sense on why.

When I ran TSF off, it was latching the signals and alerting when it was faint. It wasn’t constant trough the whole test, but it was giving me blips that far out.

More or less, see the signal, drop it, pick it up again... etc as I’m heading towards the source.

When TSF was activated, it was missing, or filtering those faint hits.

I was traveling at 60 mph towards it, but I can see how it could’ve been missing it. Might pick it up, think about it, lose it, and pick it up again and start thinking about it all over again. Meanwhile your hurling towards the trap losing alert range.

I get going for the first blip, but I almost prefer a stew test like this.

Great testing. Pretty much nails what’s happening with 1.46. I think the TSF filter is a touch too aggressive.

I wonder if you would see the same results, or worse when MRCD detection is added to the mix. I’m still confused why my R3 is blocking out some K band signals, or alerting them as MRCD sometimes.

Anyhow, I’m looking forward to the next FW to see if They’ve made adjustments.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

DrHow

Premium Member
Premium Member
Intermediate User
Beginner User
General User
Newly Registered
May 18, 2018
983
1,132
#17
An R series would probably need a lot of seasoning LOL

I agree that what you are thinking about TSF is probably correct and I think that being slow on the uptake with a weaker signal might be turning into a real world distance penalty.

Did you receive my PM @hiddencam ?

--- DOUBLEPOST MERGED ---



Finally had a few minutes to get your request in.;)

Nice work... @cihkal saw the same heartbeat response when turning on MRTC and MRCD testing on actual Chicago MRTC systems. Which delayed the distance to alert from good alert distance (1100-1500), down to 200ft in front of the system. I may be off a bit in exact footages. Point is, the processor saw the radar, but held back alerting while doing some processing or preplanned delays. The heart beat acted exactly same way yours did. His on the street testing on 1.46 showed not only a bad delay of real MRTC alerts, but I am guessing this would also affect real K band response. I believe he has TSR off. The MRxx settings had the same affect in delayed response/range.