I just scored a mint Rx65 S7 one owner in the metal case!!

[nine_c1]

In the end ANY rd test can only give one a rough ball park idea of what one is getting with any particular detector as the cost of acquiring sufficient examples of each brand would no doubt be prohibitive as well as the time it would take to test each properly on a proper long range course with the proper equipment.

The best thing anyone can do is do their own testing in their particular area of driving with what units they favor and be able to return any unit they find deficient.

"To thine own self be true" in other words.

Let's dispense with the hyperbole and stick with the facts Buckdharma.

We included multiple copies of the high end detectors in that test and used state of the art certified radar equipment operated by an FCC licensed user (Land Mobile Radiolocation / General Radio Telephone / Ship Radar Endorsement) with a degree in electronic communications and a phd in the target car recording results. The course was over a mile long and it took (5) individuals (2) days to get pain staking accurate measurements using a GPS device.

The Pro300 got (3) runs against K-Band and 34.7 Ka just like everyone else and it's results were consistent with every other M4 on K-Band and actually better than it's cousin (the 9500ix) on Ka, but still short of the RX65/S7 that Goodtimes claimed to be half as good.

So we have this vs. a whole bunch of hoopla you are spewing. I suggest you and Goodtimes push yourselves away from the keyboard and go get some REAL radar equipment and do some REAL tests yourselves. Then come back when you have something more solid than hearsay to argue with.

[Buckdarma]

In the end ANY rd test can only give one a rough ball park idea of what one is getting with any particular detector as the cost of acquiring sufficient examples of each brand would no doubt be prohibitive as well as the time it would take to test each properly on a proper long range course with the proper equipment.

The best thing anyone can do is do their own testing in their particular area of driving with what units they favor and be able to return any unit they find deficient.

"To thine own self be true" in other words.

Let's dispense with the hyperbole and stick with the facts Buckdharma.

We included multiple copies of the high end detectors in that test and used state of the art certified radar equipment operated by an FCC licensed user (Land Mobile Radiolocation / General Radio Telephone / Ship Radar Endorsement) with a degree in electronic communications and a phd in the target car recording results. The course was over a mile long and it took (5) individuals (2) days to get pain staking accurate measurements using a GPS device.

The Pro300 got (3) runs against K-Band and 34.7 Ka just like everyone else and it's results were consistent with every other M4 on K-Band and actually better than it's cousin (the 9500ix) on Ka, but still short of the RX65/S7 that Goodtimes claimed to be half as good.

So we have this vs. a whole bunch of hoopla you are spewing. I suggest you and Goodtimes push yourselves away from the keyboard and go get some REAL radar equipment and do some REAL tests yourselves. Then come back when you have something more solid than hearsay to argue with.

Lets look at your statements here shall we then ?

I wouldn't ever want to be accused of using too much hyperbole for gods sakes. I already use way too much sugar in my coffee !


"We included multiple copies of the high end detectors in that test"

You used a few multiple units on some high end detectors you were interested in but hardly all of the units you tested as you obviously must realize and certainly not the one in question here.

The pro 300

That bit of wordsmithing is called "sins of omission"

furthermore

" state of the art certified radar equipment operated by an FCC licensed user (Land Mobile Radiolocation / General Radio Telephone / Ship Radar Endorsement) with a degree in electronic communications and a phd in the target car recording results. "

"certified by WHO and when was the last certification on your units done? Oh I see you mean GENERAL FCC CERTIFICATION. Well of course it was. I dare say I didn't expect you to build your own traffic radar units yourself !

The particular FCC test you refer to here is a very general question test on the subject more akin to what a radio operator would need and has no traffic radar operation questions whatsoever and means little if nothing here. It is just a simple requirement from the government to be allowed to use certain radar equipment. Nothing more. In fact this certification can cover a whole police dept and a traffic officer needn't even read it !

PHd in " target car recording results? "

where do you get such a degree and is it even involved with traffic radar whatsoever ? LOL! Please...

Yes, I am quite certain policeman using traffic radar have such advanced engineering degrees

next time I see one I will ask to see his PHD on radar operation !

No mention whatsoever here of any of your group ever taking a basic traffic radar operations course here as is required by case law for officers to operate traffic radar which none of you have obviously have ever done.

these statements are called "grandstanding"

" The Pro300 got (3) runs against K-Band and 34.7 Ka just like everyone else and it's results were consistent with every other M4 on K-Band and actually better than it's cousin (the 9500ix) on Ka, but still short of the RX65/S7 that Goodtimes claimed to be half as good."

No where does using the same m4 antenna mean that this particular detector has the EXACT same software as the other detectors or even performs similar. There seems to be a common misconception in your group that using the same m4 antenna means that a unit will perform similarly to other m4 antenna units

NOT Necessarily

Further more doing multiple runs on the same unit is NOT the same as using different units of the same detector line to test with which you all were obviously aware of as you DID include multiple copies of some of YOUR more favorite units as one can see.

and is precisely what I have been talking about all this time.

"hot units" and such which you own group has admitted to on many a occasion.

I hope this posting has dispensed with your latent fear of "spewing, hyperbole and hearsay " now.

I see you were a good little student in basic english 101 "rhetorical arguments for the beginner "

your english teacher should be proud of you.

[Buckdarma]

and "good times" I expect the check for my many postings on traffic radar and Rd's in general in defense of your silly love affair with your Pro 300 will be in the mail very soon.

I may write a book for all of you that fall in love with your rd's now.

" Black Beauty "

one man's elicit forbidden love affair with the thing he love the most in life

over his job,his wife,his mother and his kids

His radar detector

[auskip07]

Buck: ever try to dig yourself out of a hole?

Nine: you can explain something to someone but you cant comprehend it for them. I think you are trying to reason with a moron.

[Buckdarma]

Buck: ever try to dig yourself out of a hole?

Nine: you can explain something to someone but you cant comprehend it for them. I think you are trying to reason with a moron.

No, that would be you actuality . Opinions are like @#$&**#@. Ever hear that one? Your exactly like a opinion.

stop brown-nosing posters until you even vaguely know what your talking about child

BTW, CT is the absolute absolute laser capitol of the country. Traffic radar is a complete after thought there.

only place I ever saw lasers used in residential neighborhoods

Good luck with that old x50 dude ! LOL!

[nine_c1]

In the end ANY rd test can only give one a rough ball park idea of what one is getting with any particular detector as the cost of acquiring sufficient examples of each brand would no doubt be prohibitive as well as the time it would take to test each properly on a proper long range course with the proper equipment.

The best thing anyone can do is do their own testing in their particular area of driving with what units they favor and be able to return any unit they find deficient.

"To thine own self be true" in other words.

Let's dispense with the hyperbole and stick with the facts Buckdharma.

We included multiple copies of the high end detectors in that test and used state of the art certified radar equipment operated by an FCC licensed user (Land Mobile Radiolocation / General Radio Telephone / Ship Radar Endorsement) with a degree in electronic communications and a phd in the target car recording results. The course was over a mile long and it took (5) individuals (2) days to get pain staking accurate measurements using a GPS device.

The Pro300 got (3) runs against K-Band and 34.7 Ka just like everyone else and it's results were consistent with every other M4 on K-Band and actually better than it's cousin (the 9500ix) on Ka, but still short of the RX65/S7 that Goodtimes claimed to be half as good.

So we have this vs. a whole bunch of hoopla you are spewing. I suggest you and Goodtimes push yourselves away from the keyboard and go get some REAL radar equipment and do some REAL tests yourselves. Then come back when you have something more solid than hearsay to argue with.

Lets look at your statements here shall we then ?

I wouldn't ever want to be accused of using too much hyperbole for gods sakes. I already use way too much sugar in my coffee !


"We included multiple copies of the high end detectors in that test"

You used a few multiple units on some high end detectors you were interested in but hardly all of the units you tested as you obviously must realize and certainly not the one in question here.

The pro 300

That bit of wordsmithing is called "sins of omission"

furthermore

" state of the art certified radar equipment operated by an FCC licensed user (Land Mobile Radiolocation / General Radio Telephone / Ship Radar Endorsement) with a degree in electronic communications and a phd in the target car recording results. "

"certified by WHO and when was the last certification on your units done? Oh I see you mean GENERAL FCC CERTIFICATION. Well of course it was. I dare say I didn't expect you to build your own traffic radar units yourself !

The particular FCC test you refer to here is a very general question test on the subject more akin to what a radio operator would need and has no traffic radar operation questions whatsoever and means little if nothing here. It is just a simple requirement from the government to be allowed to use certain radar equipment. Nothing more. In fact this certification can cover a whole police dept and a traffic officer needn't even read it !

PHd in " target car recording results? "

where do you get such a degree and is it even involved with traffic radar whatsoever ? LOL! Please...

Yes, I am quite certain policeman using traffic radar have such advanced engineering degrees

next time I see one I will ask to see his PHD on radar operation !

No mention whatsoever here of any of your group ever taking a basic traffic radar operations course here as is required by case law for officers to operate traffic radar which none of you have obviously have ever done.

these statements are called "grandstanding"

" The Pro300 got (3) runs against K-Band and 34.7 Ka just like everyone else and it's results were consistent with every other M4 on K-Band and actually better than it's cousin (the 9500ix) on Ka, but still short of the RX65/S7 that Goodtimes claimed to be half as good."

No where does using the same m4 antenna mean that this particular detector has the EXACT same software as the other detectors or even performs similar. There seems to be a common misconception in your group that using the same m4 antenna means that a unit will perform similarly to other m4 antenna units

NOT Necessarily

Further more doing multiple runs on the same unit is NOT the same as using different units of the same detector line to test with which you all were obviously aware of as you DID include multiple copies of some of YOUR more favorite units as one can see.

and is precisely what I have been talking about all this time.

"hot units" and such which you own group has admitted to on many a occasion.

I hope this posting has dispensed with your latent fear of "spewing, hyperbole and hearsay " now.

I see you were a good little student in basic english 101 "rhetorical arguments for the beginner "

your english teacher should be proud of you.

Once again, competent test data rebutted with a Chinese supertanker boat load of bull$hit.

Sins of omission......for sure, we are still waiting for your test data.

The Land Mobile Radio Location is the license to operate, the General Radio w/ship radar is the FCC license to work on and repair transmitting equipment. What do you have? Any formal training / certs in radios or electronics at all?

Certified by factory authorized service centers.

No mention of our group taking a basic traffic radar operators course because none of us are LEOs and those courses are restricted to law enforcement.......but I think we got it figured out. If it makes you feel any better, we did not issue any tickets.

Multiple copies of the same detector were tested where we were able to supplement the field with privately owned units. The purpose was to check for consistency within model type and the results showed a high degree between like models.

There is no misconception in our group with regard to the M4 in it's various editions. We ran the tests and recorded the results and several M4s placed quite high in the Ka rankings........particulary the 8500/X50 Black. So if you're implying we are biased against the M4 you are once again shoveling $hit.

But that's all you have done here the entire time; supported unqualified statements that the Pro300 is twice as good as the RX65/S7 and refutted actual test results performed by a competent team of enthusiasts.

Now you can continue with your rhetoric, but that's all it amounts to. Go do a test and give the folks here some reason to believe you have the slightest clue.

[auskip07]

Buck: ever try to dig yourself out of a hole?

Nine: you can explain something to someone but you cant comprehend it for them. I think you are trying to reason with a moron.

No, that would be you actuality . Opinions are like @#$&**#@. Ever hear that one? Your exactly like a opinion.

stop brown-nosing posters until you even vaguely know what your talking about child

BTW, CT is the absolute absolute laser capitol of the country. Traffic radar is a complete after thought there.

only place I ever saw lasers used in residential neighborhoods

Good luck with that old x50 dude ! LOL!

I will enjoy my refurbished x50 but you never know because well thought out and planned test with specific variables cannot accurately measure one Radar Detector from another. IE test can be unreliable.

Also Putting a smiley face behind your comments does not make more playful or sound more intelligent.

you have fun with what ever RD you have or dont have seeing as how you dont state which one you own.

[Buckdarma]

In the end ANY rd test can only give one a rough ball park idea of what one is getting with any particular detector as the cost of acquiring sufficient examples of each brand would no doubt be prohibitive as well as the time it would take to test each properly on a proper long range course with the proper equipment.

The best thing anyone can do is do their own testing in their particular area of driving with what units they favor and be able to return any unit they find deficient.

"To thine own self be true" in other words.

Let's dispense with the hyperbole and stick with the facts Buckdharma.

We included multiple copies of the high end detectors in that test and used state of the art certified radar equipment operated by an FCC licensed user (Land Mobile Radiolocation / General Radio Telephone / Ship Radar Endorsement) with a degree in electronic communications and a phd in the target car recording results. The course was over a mile long and it took (5) individuals (2) days to get pain staking accurate measurements using a GPS device.

The Pro300 got (3) runs against K-Band and 34.7 Ka just like everyone else and it's results were consistent with every other M4 on K-Band and actually better than it's cousin (the 9500ix) on Ka, but still short of the RX65/S7 that Goodtimes claimed to be half as good.

So we have this vs. a whole bunch of hoopla you are spewing. I suggest you and Goodtimes push yourselves away from the keyboard and go get some REAL radar equipment and do some REAL tests yourselves. Then come back when you have something more solid than hearsay to argue with.

Lets look at your statements here shall we then ?

I wouldn't ever want to be accused of using too much hyperbole for gods sakes. I already use way too much sugar in my coffee !


"We included multiple copies of the high end detectors in that test"

You used a few multiple units on some high end detectors you were interested in but hardly all of the units you tested as you obviously must realize and certainly not the one in question here.

The pro 300

That bit of wordsmithing is called "sins of omission"

furthermore

" state of the art certified radar equipment operated by an FCC licensed user (Land Mobile Radiolocation / General Radio Telephone / Ship Radar Endorsement) with a degree in electronic communications and a phd in the target car recording results. "

"certified by WHO and when was the last certification on your units done? Oh I see you mean GENERAL FCC CERTIFICATION. Well of course it was. I dare say I didn't expect you to build your own traffic radar units yourself !

The particular FCC test you refer to here is a very general question test on the subject more akin to what a radio operator would need and has no traffic radar operation questions whatsoever and means little if nothing here. It is just a simple requirement from the government to be allowed to use certain radar equipment. Nothing more. In fact this certification can cover a whole police dept and a traffic officer needn't even read it !

PHd in " target car recording results? "

where do you get such a degree and is it even involved with traffic radar whatsoever ? LOL! Please...

Yes, I am quite certain policeman using traffic radar have such advanced engineering degrees

next time I see one I will ask to see his PHD on radar operation !

No mention whatsoever here of any of your group ever taking a basic traffic radar operations course here as is required by case law for officers to operate traffic radar which none of you have obviously have ever done.

these statements are called "grandstanding"

" The Pro300 got (3) runs against K-Band and 34.7 Ka just like everyone else and it's results were consistent with every other M4 on K-Band and actually better than it's cousin (the 9500ix) on Ka, but still short of the RX65/S7 that Goodtimes claimed to be half as good."

No where does using the same m4 antenna mean that this particular detector has the EXACT same software as the other detectors or even performs similar. There seems to be a common misconception in your group that using the same m4 antenna means that a unit will perform similarly to other m4 antenna units

NOT Necessarily

Further more doing multiple runs on the same unit is NOT the same as using different units of the same detector line to test with which you all were obviously aware of as you DID include multiple copies of some of YOUR more favorite units as one can see.

and is precisely what I have been talking about all this time.

"hot units" and such which you own group has admitted to on many a occasion.

I hope this posting has dispensed with your latent fear of "spewing, hyperbole and hearsay " now.

I see you were a good little student in basic english 101 "rhetorical arguments for the beginner "

your english teacher should be proud of you.

Once again, competent test data rebutted with a Chinese supertanker boat load of bull$hit.

Sins of omission......for sure, we are still waiting for your test data.

The Land Mobile Radio Location is the license to operate, the General Radio w/ship radar is the FCC license to work on and repair transmitting equipment. What do you have? Any formal training / certs in radios or electronics at all?

Certified by factory authorized service centers.

No mention of our group taking a basic traffic radar operators course because none of us are LEOs and those courses are restricted to law enforcement.......but I think we got it figured out. If it makes you feel any better, we did not issue any tickets.

Multiple copies of the same detector were tested where we were able to supplement the field with privately owned units. The purpose was to check for consistency within model type and the results showed a high degree between like models.

There is no misconception in our group with regard to the M4 in it's various editions. We ran the tests and recorded the results and several M4s placed quite high in the Ka rankings........particulary the 8500/X50 Black. So if you're implying we are biased against the M4 you are once again shoveling $hit.

But that's all you have done here the entire time; supported unqualified statements that the Pro300 is twice as good as the RX65/S7 and refutted actual test results performed by a competent team of enthusiasts.

Now you can continue with your rhetoric, but that's all it amounts to. Go do a test and give the folks here some reason to believe you have the slightest clue.

More English 10I thrown in with a few expletives for good measure I see.

a sure sign someone is losing a argument and knows it.

Not use to THAT are we ? LOL

your fcc licensed guy calibrates, repairs and works on traffic radar units hmm?

NOT

"Multiple copies.."

Covered this already

"can't get into traffic radar training programs "

Extremely doubtful indeed as I have heard other that have done this. I have looked into schools that teach this and being a policeman isn't required

" no misconceptions of the m4 models "

well not quite true.

This is what you believe

This is a brand new model with no doubt improved software that has been tweaked in the new model and not just "lens improved" as you all think. BTW EVERYONE is using these microwave lens nowadays.

Seems you guys actually believe this platform isn't software update-able from your branding the platform the way you do and think once stuck with a m4 your stuck but in all of Bells previous adds they claim it is sure is. One unit tested and then claim all are the same isn't a very good test. The proof that you know this is your multiple tests on other detectors you keep not mentioning.

When the new escort models come out with updated advanced filtering they will undoubtedly use the same platforms as you now see but it will be a LARGE software change.

I bet you won't be expecting that !

" But that's all you have done here the entire time; supported unqualified statements that the Pro300 is twice as good as the RX65/S7 and refutted actual test results performed by a competent team of enthusiasts."

Straw man attack.

never said it was twice as good whatsoever

" supported by a competent team of enthusiasts "

from your point of view that is.

since you have no actual traffic radar training you do realize this is just a personal assertion.

I could claim the very same thing with the rd unit I own.

I could also claim I was a competent individual in dentistry having patched a missing filling with a patch kit but that doesn't make me a dentist either ! LOL !

enthusiasts.

YES

Lets just agree to disagree why don't we ?

it a nice civil argument right now.

and we will leave it this way

and I won't claim to be a "competent dental enthusiast" and start filling teeth

[nine_c1]

And another boatload of rubber dog$****.

"This is a brand new model with no doubt improved software that has been tweaked in the new model and not just "lens improved" as you all think. BTW EVERYONE is using these microwave lens nowadays."

So the Pro300 has improved software now that makes it better? Tell me how that works? Is the USA mode functional? Does it make it quicker? Does it give it more range? Ahhhhhh NO! It's a black RX65/M4 with a bubble lens and that's it.

"When the new escort models come out with updated advanced filtering they will undoubtedly use the same platforms as you now see but it will be a LARGE software change."

You are totally clueless here as well. Escort can't do what they want to do without changing the hardware. But where did you hear about these new models? Were you reading and not comprehending my threads again?

"Lets just agree to disagree why don't we ?

it a nice civil argument right now.

and we will leave it this way"


Let's not. Let's be clear that one of us has no background in radios whatsoever, never owned and operated real radar equipment, doesn't have a clue on how these things work, and never did a valid test with the units in question.

That would be you.

[Buckdarma]

And another boatload of rubber dog$****.

"This is a brand new model with no doubt improved software that has been tweaked in the new model and not just "lens improved" as you all think. BTW EVERYONE is using these microwave lens nowadays."

So the Pro300 has improved software now that makes it better? Tell me how that works? Is the USA mode functional? Does it make it quicker? Does it give it more range? Ahhhhhh NO! It's a black RX65/M4 with a bubble lens and that's it.

"When the new escort models come out with updated advanced filtering they will undoubtedly use the same platforms as you now see but it will be a LARGE software change."

You are totally clueless here as well. Escort can't do what they want to do without changing the hardware. But where did you hear about these new models? Were you reading and not comprehending my threads again?

"Lets just agree to disagree why don't we ?

it a nice civil argument right now.

and we will leave it this way"


Let's not. Let's be clear that one of us has no background in radios whatsoever, never owned and operated real radar equipment, doesn't have a clue on how these things work, and never did a valid test with the units in question.

That would be you.

lets not shall we ?

alright then

In point of fact.

I OWN a Bushnel Radar gun and even HAND BUILT a operating radar gun with operational audio doppler so I sure as hell know how they work.

Far more then you do.

Do yourself a favor and try to import a sympathetic policeman professionally trained in new radar equipment usage into your mutual admiration society to try to give it at least a slight air of legitimacy.

but that would be impossible wouldn't it ?

and it appears that Escort can indeed do what they promise this way as their patents on these new upgrades appear to be all software driven