how can people bash the x50, when it won all 2005 testing

**Tick Magnet** · 01-06-2006, 07:43 AM

Being a new x50 owner. I don't understand how a lot of people try to bash on the x50 in here when it won all of the 2005 testing I seen and notice on other websites? Even on Roy's testing the x50 had the same numbers as the rx65 and beat the v1 besides in laser detecton.

**fasthappy** · 01-06-2006, 07:58 AM

I too am very happy with my x50. Love it. BUT - StealthjJamal's and the GOL testing 8500 vs X50 KA issue, is a fact and therefore, not bashing imo. And the issue of the falses on POP. Mine has that prob or there happens to be a ton of crapola detecors when I POP on.

Bottom line for me, I think there is some issues with unit consistency(sp?) with the X50's. Mine has saved me many times, K & KA Instant ons.

And that, works for me!

**happya$$** · 01-06-2006, 08:41 AM

No one is bashing it but its performance is not what is advertised by the few. IMHO the V1 is a superior detector in every aspect. Again this is just my opinion and my experience using the top detectors. The V1 is REALLY good now with firm 3.826. I am EXTREMELY happy with it. It is also MUCH quiter for me on "L" mode and with POP turned off. I dont get the quick burst of K band that I used to get here and there

**jimbonzzz** · 01-06-2006, 08:45 AM

Unfortunately, the majority of radar detector tests out there have questionable testing methods, business or financial agendas, or even intentional bias behind the testing...

**lordhamster** · 01-06-2006, 08:57 AM

I belive the testing you are refering to was the SML testing. In 2005 the testing was In my opinion very poorly done.

For example, they judged detector performance by the number of LEDS that lit up at a given distance. Essentially what they did was compared the "signal strengh meter" and not the radar detection capability.

Their constant changing in testing parameters from year to year and other things like one year saying "We don't pick winners, you evaluate the info on your own" and the next year they declared a "winner."

I don't want to go so far as to say SML has been corrupted somehow, but I will say that their testing methods are silly.

I perfere the type of testing done by GOL because they at least also provide videos of the testing that everyone can evaluate etc etc. ....

**Tick Magnet** · 01-06-2006, 10:20 AM

Ok but I have also read of people owning more than 3 x50's at a time and that they say some preform greatly more than the others. So if the x50 did good on other test sights,including roy's. Who's not to say the x50 that GOL tested was one of the bad seeds?

**Tick Magnet** · 01-06-2006, 10:31 AM

[quote="happya$$"]No one is bashing it but its performance is not what is advertised by the few.

Sorry happy but people are bashing the x50. We have a fourm in here titled" x50 bashing........objective evidence"

ES13Raven · 01-06-2006, 10:33 AM

Originally Posted by happya$$

IMHO the V1 is a superior detector in every aspect.

Except in filtering and aesthetics :wink:

**jimbonzzz** · 01-06-2006, 10:49 AM

Originally Posted by Tick Magnet

Ok but I have also read of people owning more than 3 x50's at a time and that they say some preform greatly more than the others. So if the x50 did good on other test sights,including roy's. Who's not to say the x50 that GOL tested was one of the bad seeds?

It is certainly possible, and it has been suggested before.
Hopefully in future tests, we'll be able to test a few of each detector, to expose any problems due to "manufacturer variance".

Jim

**Tick Magnet** · 01-06-2006, 11:00 AM

Originally Posted by ES13Raven

Originally Posted by happya$$

IMHO the V1 is a superior detector in every aspect.

Except in filtering and aesthetics :wink:

Yup very true. V1 has issues with falsing. The rx65 has issues with lasers. But what does everybody want to talk about. "X50 has Ka issues!" So its funny how when you see all these negative comments about the x50 weak points from V1 and rx65 owners, but there quick to forgett and not mention there detectors weak aspects.