Ageed....why was it brought up by The " RadarExperts " I did not see any thing close to a posititve discussion by this post today, just how smart they are and that no one else can really understand it anyway.Quote:
Originally Posted by jdong
Printable View
Ageed....why was it brought up by The " RadarExperts " I did not see any thing close to a posititve discussion by this post today, just how smart they are and that no one else can really understand it anyway.Quote:
Originally Posted by jdong
RadarExperts sounds like the guy who made the video driving around a shopping center with a V1 in "A" mode then complained how noisy it was. :rolleyes: Leave the sales pitches to the 9500 series fans on here, we have plenty of them just like there are fans for competitors RDs.
In summary, you should remember the following: AutoLearn is fully functional (as you can even read here from others who have observed its Artificial Intelligence operation) and is working properly, successfully. AutoLearn is so far ahead of any other competitor design it’s not even worth considering (anymore) the alternatives (including the V1 groupies who have paid way too much for oh so boring little). AutoLearn is the future of detection protection – but you can get it today, from ESCORT. If you already have a 9500ix, then you know as you have witnessed AutoLearn in operation (and you are nodding your head and smiling right now). If you do not yet have a 9500ix, it’s yours to try virtually for free – 30 days to decide and if you aren’t fully satisfied, simply call and ESCORT will take it back and give you a full refund with no harassing questions. This isn’t arrogance – this just is. Cutting edge. Simple. Cool. Advantage – 9500ix and ESCORT owners.
Thanks,
RadarExpert(s)
this is nothing more than a sales pitch, and bashing the V1 head on.
I have to agree. The post by RadarExperts was unprofessional and uninformative. I'd say it was closer to spam than actual information. "It works, trust me" doesn't work around here. There are some of the keenest minds you'll find anywhere that are regulars to this forum. To try to imply that it's above the collective "us" and we wouldn't get it, is silly. Also, we've already got a pretty good handle on how it works, so the "super-secret" argument is also "null and void". We might be missing a few small details about how it works, but we are definitely on the right track, no doubt about it.Quote:
Originally Posted by OffshoreAgeed....why was it brought up by The " RadarExperts " I did not see any thing close to a posititve discussion by this post today, just how smart they are and that no one else can really understand it anyway.Quote:
Originally Posted by jdong
Well i didn't get any answers from it ether, and i really want it to work.
The only technical stuff i could compile from both posts is:
Because AutoLearn does far more than ‘just count’. Beyond indexing and cataloguing repeat passes for a same/repeat signal, some of the many parameters being analyzed include: location, frequency, same signal seen before on another pass (ie, is this a repeat event or a near but different event?), and a number of other parameters not publicly known beyond the engineers who designed the software.
there are additional parameters – some of these include approach speed, closing speed on original index, heading, other previous near lockouts, band, number of sources seen and more than this than cannot be mentioned due to proprietary concerns.The fact that some bloggers have observed several or more lockouts in different locations but by the same pattern (the assumed ‘3 passes) simply underscores the fact that there are many sources similar in nature and more easily indexed by AutoLearn than the very complicated and difficult 20 or 30% that are not similar (and locked out after 3 or more passes).
the 9500ix uses more than a half mile of travel for 1) separation of indexing and cataloging as pertains to creating independent lockouts and 2) determining the ‘depth of history’ for a previously noted signal still under software identification for continued analysis. A half mile test run boxes in the 9500ix and prevents AutoLearn from operating properly (of course all of this is in the manual). And so it goes.
the funny part is i know and understand what hes saying and non of it answers the question weather it actually unlocks or not.
dj, I think it's time that you check it out too in a controlled testing. CJR will be glad to ship you a modified auto door sensor. That way, he's not alone and you may be able to find out how the thing works and share it with us here. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by djrams80I have to agree. The post by RadarExperts was unprofessional and uninformative. I'd say it was closer to spam than actual information. "It works, trust me" doesn't work around here. There are some of the keenest minds you'll find anywhere that are regulars to this forum. To try to imply that it's above the collective "us" and we wouldn't get it, is silly. Also, we've already got a pretty good handle on how it works, so the "super-secret" argument is also "null and void". We might be missing a few small details about how it works, but we are definitely on the right track, no doubt about it.Quote:
Originally Posted by OffshoreAgeed....why was it brought up by The " RadarExperts " I did not see any thing close to a posititve discussion by this post today, just how smart they are and that no one else can really understand it anyway.Quote:
Originally Posted by jdong
Hey RADAREXPERTS, I was told that the Escort 8500 X50 was truly upgradeable so why can't I upgrade it to the Escort 9500i without dumping it off at the local pawn shop or getting raped by Escort for only $80 towards a trade-in?
RADAREXPERTS is a tool and I have already talked about this douche in another thread and here is the quote.
"Now look what he is claiming over at that forum. Denial is not just a river in Egypt Escort. This guy needs to join Craig Peterson and they can sit on a mountain and cover themselves with camouflaged BS.
[ame]http://www.nsxprime.com/forums/showthread.php?t=115728e[/ame]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Radar Expert
As for the GPS Truelock capability, do you really think that a premier radar detector manufacturer would release not just one but several high-end radar detectors with Truelock that would actively block police radar and expect to stay in business long? I can tell you from personal experience that Truelock works brilliantly as advertised.
Here is my response:
My answer is YES. Do I think that a premier radar detector manufacturer would lie about all of their past products being upgradeable to the latest threat. My answer is YES. Do I think that a premier radar detector manufacturer would hire Craig Peterson to be a shill for their products. My answer is YES."
~
Ya' know...
I have never understood the incredible animosity some folks have over another persons choice of radar detector. Has always seemed pretty irrational and immature to me...
All the "My V-1 is better than your 9500" or "Escort is the only way to go and V-1's are junk", etc. Hell, folks, it's not you designed or built the damn thing - you just bought it. It ain't a religion - i.e. where unless you are one of the "faithful" you are an "infidel". ;)
Essentially these are no more than super-highly developed and tuned transistor radios, designed to receive very specific frequencies. Nothing more, nothing less. Different manufacturers have decided to attack the problem different ways, and some have chosen to filter out the unwanted "white noise" different ways, or to different degrees. Neither one is really *better* than the other. In all reality the products from both Valentine and BEL/Escort are incredible, amazing, well built, and remarkably affordable devices for what you get... Particularly considering how small and specialized the target market is.
I started out in the 1970's with Autotronics Super Snooper's and original Fuzzbuster's... Went right on through the truly ground-breaking original Escort... Followed by the even more amazing and tiny Escort DSP... Then one of the very first Valentine One's ever produced... On to an Escort Passport 8500, then a BEL STI... And now another Valentine One.
With probably a 9500ix in my future, too, just because I want to experiment with it like I do with the others.
So let me say this...
ALL of the radar detectors I have used in the past few years are so good compared to what we all started with those many long years that I'm just thankful that it's still legal to own one. I drove over 1,000 miles this past weekend, and used both my STI and the latest V-1. Both were great. Both had great range. Both saved me multiple times on this trip alone, despite sometimes traveling in triple-digits. Neither were perfect, but they were plenty good enough that I could easily and confidently live with either exclusively and not feel I was *missing* something in the way of protection or technology.
Are Truelock and Autolearn the way of the future, or the answer?
Certainly I don't know. I've never owned one. By the same token I doubt any of the V-1 fanatics who have never owned a 9500ix "know" anything about them, either... And unless the Escort faithful have owned a V-1 I doubt they know anything about how good it is.
In the end, a bunch of insults, name calling, errant assumptions, smack talk, baiting, etc. doesn't do anyone here a bit of good. I would bet the originator of these forums wanted them to be for the exchange and discussion of information, ideas, and reasonable opinions... Not for any malcontents to be constantly wandering from topic to topic saying "Mine is better than yours."
Okay, off the soapbox now, and back to your regularly scheduled programming... :D
~
I tried to test this before, but it was too time consuming, so I gave up. I was more interested in making sure that it did not unlock with just one pass without the signal present, because that could get annoying.Quote:
Originally Posted by KnightHawk
http://www.radardetector.net/forums/...lock-test.html
Quote:
Originally Posted by CJR238
It might be a stretch but PERHAPS AutoLock's heuristics are more keen to that of a neural net or some other AI binary classifier whose behavior, as suggested, indeed cannot be quanitized by a simple set of accept/reject rules.
However, I don't see any evidence in the marketing, patent portfolio, or testing that substantiates any of these claims, so I'm not ready to hear hoofbeats and think UFO invasion :)