Comprehensive R1/R3/R7 Scan Cycle Times for Various Settings

[Fixxxer0]

Do these times reflect x band being turned off?

Does anyone know if keeping x on or off significantly affects the sweep times? (I'm guessing not much since it's such a narrow band)

I'm going to try and spotcheck my config on firmware 1.46 and see if anything changed

 

[Elcid2015]

Do these times reflect x band being turned off?

Does anyone know if keeping x on or off significantly affects the sweep times? (I'm guessing not much since it's such a narrow band)

I'm going to try and spotcheck my config on firmware 1.46 and see if anything changed

X band was off because I didn't think many people still run with X band anymore. Adding any bandwidth should increase the scan cycle time. Please refer to Note1 to get an idea of what your cycle time would be if you included X band.
"Note1- If I did not test the exact settings you run and you wish to get an approximate scan time (in ms) for your settings, add up the total bandwidth (in MHz) scanned under your settings, and plug in for 'x' in the slope-intercept formula to calculate 'y' which will be roughly the time to complete 1 cycle (since bandwidth scanned and scan cycle time are roughly linear)."

 

[Gowski]

To account for Stalkers that drift high, would Ka Narrow be better/quicker to run than Segging 2,5,6,8 and having to scan all of Seg 6? Or can they drift even higher than 34.870? I guess that is my question/concern...

 

[InsipidMonkey]

To account for Stalkers that drift high, would Ka Narrow be better/quicker to run than Segging 2,5,6,8 and having to scan all of Seg 6? Or can they drift even higher than 34.870? I guess that is my question/concern...

It depends on where you are. I've seen NHSP with a Stalker at 34.917 on I-95. It's fairly common to see them in upstate NY as well. Any performance difference will likely be minimal, so it wouldn't hurt to run Seg 6 for awhile to be safe.

 

[Gowski]

It depends on where you are. I've seen NHSP with a Stalker at 34.917 on I-95. It's fairly common to see them in upstate NY as well. Any performance difference will likely be minimal, so it wouldn't hurt to run Seg 6 for awhile to be safe.

Yeah I normally run 6 but was thinking about switching to Narrow to get that little extra quickness. I guess I’ll just leave 6 on and keep an eye on it..

 

[UnidenSupport]

View attachment 65356 Okay, this should hopefully address the requests of 99% of people with R1 and R3's.
What I did:
1) Video the heartbeat icon of the R1 turning on and off at 240 fps
2) Calculate time from heartbeat on to heartbeat on again = Time of 1 "scan cycle" (according to Uniden R series user manuals, this was calculated for 4 cycles to obtain an average)
3) I added a chart showing how much bandwidth is scanned for each segment or setting

Note1- If I did not test the exact settings you run and you wish to get an approximate scan time (in ms) for your settings, add up the total bandwidth (in MHz) scanned under your settings, and plug in for 'x' in the slope-intercept formula to calculate 'y' which will be roughly the time to complete 1 cycle (since bandwidth scanned and scan cycle time are roughly linear).
Note2- The GHz per second "scan speed" (overall scan time/total bandwidth scanned) appears to increase as you increase the total bandwidth scanned. This most likely does not mean that the detector is scanning faster, but rather it is not being penalized for segmenting or "switching" between segments as much.
New Conclusions:
K or Ka Filtering does not seem affect scan times within a statistical difference.

@benzr @thesilverbullet @Salty @NPark

Dat R squared -value doe.

 

[Up All Night]

View attachment 65356
New Conclusions:
K or Ka Filtering does not seem affect scan times within a statistical difference.

Good to know, Thank You.
Posted from my iPhone using the RDF Mobile App!

 

[Fixxxer0]

Good to know, Thank You.
Posted from my iPhone using the RDF Mobile App!

do we know if the ka filter reduces range on this FW? (aware range was not tested by the OP)

i think ive read some other detectors where this was the case, not sure if it is the same on the R3.

 

[butterman]

awesome info! Thanks for sharing!

 

[DChiJEllis]

do we know if the ka filter reduces range on this FW? (aware range was not tested by the OP)

i think ive read some other detectors where this was the case, not sure if it is the same on the R3.

If I remember correctly, Ka filter on actually made it faster, thereby increasing range. Since the Ka filter has not been touched at all, the results should be the same.

 

[hlh1]

I'm trying to understand whether it's better to run 2/5/8 or just run Ka narrow?

 

[DChiJEllis]

I'm trying to understand whether it's better to run 2/5/8 or just run Ka narrow?

Depends on where you live. If you live in an area where 34.7 Stalker guns drift and are not required to be certified, you're better running Narrow or 2/5/6/8 if the guns drift way high. In reality, on the Uniden R1/3/7 or DFR8/9 the difference in scan times is in low milliseconds because of the digital architecture.

 

[RabbitCatcher]

Am I wrong to assume similar results would be seen with the R7 ?

 

[DrHow]

Depends on where you live. If you live in an area where 34.7 Stalker guns drift and are not required to be certified, you're better running Narrow or 2/5/6/8 if the guns drift way high. In reality, on the Uniden R1/3/7 or DFR8/9 the difference in scan times is in low milliseconds because of the digital architecture.

Well, have not gone back and looked up..... However with R3 and R7, the folks published testing when they hit the market, had 2/5/8 Used. When Ka nom segmented, distance on Ka went down enough to notice. And those far off weak I/O like pick ups did not show up.

for class leading Ka performance, 2/5/8 is essential on R platform. Otherwise, they can in end up with performance closer to others. K response might also be affected when running no Ka segmented.

I do not run uber segmented 2/5/8. Because of out of tune devices I have seen, around here (check RDFS1 will also validate) Indiana, I segment out 1. Could possible seg out 9. My R series are not as “hot” as some others. Bet this could be one reason.

 

[DChiJEllis]

Am I wrong to assume similar results would be seen with the R7 ?

It should be the same or exceedingly close.

 

[Elcid2015]

I agree that it would be similar. Supposedly the R7 has a 50% faster processor, but it has two horns. (although they didn't say what that referenced). Unfortunately they got rid of the little heartbeat indicator, so this can't be replicated.

 

[Elcid2015]

Updated with new R7 Data
Maybe the mods can update the post title to say "Comprehensive R1/R3 and R7 Scan Cycle Times for Various Settings" ?
@DChiJEllis

 

[DocTJ]

Updated with new R7 Data
Maybe the mods can update the post title to say "Comprehensive R1/R3 and R7 Scan Cycle Times for Various Settings" ?
@DChiJEllis

Freaking thank you
Hope you’re well man.

 

[oversteer325]

Thanks for updating with the R7 data!!! You are the man!

 

[DChiJEllis]

Updated with new R7 Data
Maybe the mods can update the post title to say "Comprehensive R1/R3 and R7 Scan Cycle Times for Various Settings" ?
@DChiJEllis

Done