Uniden LRD950 K band Speed Sign Test 1.37 vs 1.51

Tallyho

Premium Plus
Lifetime Premium
Advanced User
Joined
Mar 21, 2013
Messages
3,340
Reaction score
6,644
Got some K band testing in tonight for the Uniden LRD950 vs a K band Speed sign ~24.150 (without any accompanying videos).


My main concern was getting a gauge for K band without any filtering on both 1.37 and 1.51 firmware. I don't know if there is any consensus on this yet but I've seen so many questions raised that it was a big concern of mine.


Now unfortunately I didn't realize there's no rolling back my firmware to 1.37 after uploading 1.51 but that's another story.


Based on this test I saw no decrease in K band sensitivity between 1.37 and 1.51 firmware. The 950 gave me 1.19 miles of detection in both cases. I ran each test with 3 separate runs to assess consistency and the Uniden gets high marks as a very consistent test subject. The 1.19 mile distance marker you see on the map is the full range on unfiltered mode.

After upgrading to 1.51 I also decided to test K band filtering to see the filtering "performance penalty". It turned out the K band filtering results in a reduction in range of 12% or 739 feet on this test. The big red arrow is the start of detection after turning on the K band filter and all the distance behind the arrow represents the "performance penalty".


Here's the map:
 

Attachments

  • Uniden LRD950 K Band Test.2png.png
    Uniden LRD950 K Band Test.2png.png
    1.4 MB · Views: 418
Last edited:

oneheadlight

Advanced User
Joined
Jul 9, 2012
Messages
706
Reaction score
561
Location
Michigan
you should be able to go back to v1.35, from what Brainstorm69 and Vortex have found is that 1.37 is 1.35 + uniden smart cord programming. Which, of course, the Uniden smart cord doesn't exist yet. So go back to 1.35 and I bet you'll see it's identical to 1.37's performance. Thanks for the testing!
 

languy99

Advanced User
Joined
Jul 1, 2012
Messages
1,111
Reaction score
897
Location
UoM
I'll take that penalty hit in detection if it keeps it as quiet as it is. 1.35 to 1.51 is a world of difference in quietness around me so a loss of about 10% is not bad.
 

CobawLT2010

Land of the quarantined, home of the afraid.
Premium Plus
Lifetime Premium
Advanced User
Joined
Oct 26, 2011
Messages
8,297
Reaction score
5,382
Location
Wuhan, China
I'll take that penalty hit in detection if it keeps it as quiet as it is. 1.35 to 1.51 is a world of difference in quietness around me so a loss of about 10% is not bad.

1.37 seems quieter than the Redline / Magnum / Max... I do get some GM's and Chryslers that blow through the filtering though... but the unit overall is an impressive first effort by Uniden.

I am extremely happy at both the price and the performance of this unit. If they keep this up they'll be serious contenders in the RD field...
 

CJR238

RDF founding father
Lifetime Premium
Advanced User
Joined
Oct 30, 2010
Messages
17,904
Reaction score
15,569
Location
CT- 4Runner - ALP - V1/RedLine/Waze
Impressive if it still does well with BSM falses with no filtering, and only a 10% decrease in range that's very good isn't bad. But i guess ill have to wait till i get mine to figure it all out.
 

Tallyho

Premium Plus
Lifetime Premium
Advanced User
Joined
Mar 21, 2013
Messages
3,340
Reaction score
6,644
Impressive if it still does well with BSM falses with no filtering, and only a 10% decrease in range that's very good isn't bad. But i guess ill have to wait till i get mine to figure it all out.

I'll be curious to see your results. If it didn't dump almost a foot of snow on us today I'd be out there testing it against the Falcon on K band. Ka band results have been even more impressive.
 

CJR238

RDF founding father
Lifetime Premium
Advanced User
Joined
Oct 30, 2010
Messages
17,904
Reaction score
15,569
Location
CT- 4Runner - ALP - V1/RedLine/Waze
I'll be curious to see your results. If it didn't dump almost a foot of snow on us today I'd be out there testing it against the Falcon on K band. Ka band results have been even more impressive.

I'm very intrigued. With the amount of driving time i have had with V1's, M3's and M5's, as well as the understanding of paying for quality this will be interesting to see if it lives up to what all are saying.

I don't see a lot of K band, but i encounter it enough that its still important to have good range. I see mostly 34.7.
 

benji91

Learning to Fly
Beginner User
Joined
Oct 25, 2015
Messages
61
Reaction score
12
Location
Minnesota
Quick question guys. So i know 1.51 will reduce k band performance but will it also reduce Ka band? or same or better?
 

Edwv30

Advanced User
Joined
Jun 11, 2011
Messages
1,921
Reaction score
1,568
Quick question guys. So i know 1.51 will reduce k band performance but will it also reduce Ka band? or same or better?

I haven't noticed a reduction in KA band detection with 1.51.
 

Tallyho

Premium Plus
Lifetime Premium
Advanced User
Joined
Mar 21, 2013
Messages
3,340
Reaction score
6,644
Quick question guys. So i know 1.51 will reduce k band performance but will it also reduce Ka band? or same or better?

One of the points of this thread was to show that there was no reduction in K band performance going to 1.51. At least not in this test.
 

nomore55

PSL +10%
Advanced User
Joined
Dec 16, 2014
Messages
2,121
Reaction score
2,254
Location
suburban Boston
The newer firm wares aren't going to affect Ka performance. The hit is likely to be on K band.
 

Discord Server

Latest threads

Forum statistics

Threads
92,286
Messages
1,406,534
Members
23,426
Latest member
TGurnie
Top