running 2 radar detectors?

[NewCents05]

So I know its a bad idea to run two radar detectors because they will leak and set each other off but ive seen it done where they both work efficiently. What I want to do is run a 9500ix and a Whistler xtr-695se on opposite sides of the rvm. The 9500ix is great around town and I put away the whistler for daily driving but in long distance driving, ive seen the whistler pull some crazy performance on Ka band unlike the 9500ix. I was set when I thought my whistler was broken setting 34.7 Ka for a good 2 miles until I saw the cop. After that I had complete faith in the cheapo detector with Ka band. It sucks with x and k though and thats why I want to run the two parallel with each other so I have complete performance everywhere and to make sure that if say the 9500ix gives me the spinning gps sign and craps out, ill at least have a back up and not get owned. My question is, is there any chance that interference will make both detectors give out and neither of them give a valid reading or is there a chance that I will be taking performance away from either of them. I love the 9500ix, but I am not totally set on its sensitivity to Ka band.

[kpatz]

It all depends on what 2 detectors you're running.

Most detectors emit signals from their local oscillators. This is what allows the Spectre RDD to detect them. These emissions can also interfere with other RDs in close proximity. Most RDs have filtering algorithms to minimize falsing from this, but those algorithms could also erroneously filter out real LEO radar in the process. Falsing can happen as well, such as the infamous cheaper Cobras that cause falses on many high-end RDs.

My only experiences with running multiple RDs is running a V1 in conjunction with various Bel/Escort RDs. For S7 and M4 platform detectors like your 9500ix, I've found that these tend to cause the V1 to miss alerts; however I have yet to see a V1 cause a Belscort to miss an alert. M3 platform (stealth) detectors such as the Bel STi, STi-R, 9500ci and Redline seem to co-exist with the V1 with no apparent ill effects to either detector.

I've even seen two V1s false one another, usually on Ka, when in close proximity.

So, I can't speak specifically for running a 9500ci and xtr-695se together, as I've never tried it (I don't own any Whistlers) but I wouldn't recommend it.

[Divewjason]

I don't recommend it at all. Use one or the other. If you run them both together there is no way of telling if a detectors miss an alert. If you do run them together for experiments sake, do not speed.

[jerry540i]

Explained by the professor.

Radar Detector Tests and Reviews by Guys of LIDAR

[North Alabama]

Find you a sitting Leo with radar on or even a C*S drug store door opener and try different test with the different bands and let us know.

[birkbill]

Gr8 explanation. Thanks for the link Jerry.

[Matt]

I have tried this with 9500ix and an RX 65. It depends which one I turn on first, the other will alert faster. On first=last to alert (split second) I have run both at the same time and have never missed an alert, although at time the detection range seemed suspect.

[djrams80]

I tested a 9500ix and Whistler XTR-690SE side by side and there was obvious interference.

[hiddencam]

"...a cooperative microwave engineer agreed to run an instrumented test of the two (V1 & 9500i) inside an anechoic chamber, checking for interference. Surprisingly, it revealed that each is so well shielded that neither reacted to the other's local oscillator."
Best radar detector reviews from the world's most respected authority.

I guess it comes down to shielding, distance between the two units, physical characteristics of a vehicle etc.

In my own recent crude testing with an XTR-695 with "filter" setting and a Solo S2 on the same dash I've seen enough now to safely conclude that the S2 does interfere with the 695, specifically by causing the 695 to emit false Ka alerts, not only at start up of both units, but intermittently and persistently while parked stationary with no radar sources nearby.

With "filter 2" setting on the 695 that interference level was drastically reduced, and the false alerts actually stopped. My testing wasn't complete enough to know for absolute sure whether or not I was missing valid signals, but I don't think so cuz I had several real saves right when it counted. My personal opinion is the 695 has better shielding than the S2, plus better filtering ability, with "filter 1" and "filter 2" options.

[djrams80]

"...a cooperative microwave engineer agreed to run an instrumented test of the two (V1 & 9500i) inside an anechoic chamber, checking for interference. Surprisingly, it revealed that each is so well shielded that neither reacted to the other's local oscillator."
Best radar detector reviews from the world's most respected authority.

LOL! That's RadarTest.com. You'll find their reputation to be suspect at best.

I guess it comes down to shielding, distance between the two units, physical characteristics of a vehicle etc.

In my own recent crude testing with an XTR-695 with "filter" setting and a Solo S2 on the same dash I've seen enough now to safely conclude that the S2 does interfere with the 695, specifically by causing the 695 to emit false Ka alerts, not only at start up of both units, but intermittently and persistently while parked stationary with no radar sources nearby.

With "filter 2" setting on the 695 that interference level was drastically reduced, and the false alerts actually stopped. My testing wasn't complete enough to know for absolute sure whether or not I was missing valid signals, but I don't think so cuz I had several real saves right when it counted. My personal opinion is the 695 has better shielding than the S2, plus better filtering ability, with "filter 1" and "filter 2" options.

What you've done is actually verify interference between the two units. Filter2 does not eliminate anything, but rather keeps the Whistler from alerting to the interference it is seeing. The interference is still raising the noise floor and thus reducing sensitivity, probably on both units.