# Passport 9500ix and V1



## leebo (Dec 17, 2003)

Hey Guys & Gals -
Has anyone here tried using the Escort Passport 9500ix? I have used a Valentine V1 or several years, but I recently bought the 9500ix to compare...
My biggest problem with the Valentine V1 is that it tends to false too much. I also think that the Valentine doesn't do a great job of detecting Ka-band around corners. Other than that, I really like the Valentine, especially the arrows that show the direction of the "bogey."
On the other hand, the Passport 9500ix comes equipped with a GPS that "learns" (or allows you to manually mark) the location of junk (usually K-band, door openers) and the location of speed traps, speed cameras and red light cameras. There is also an online database option that allows you to download locations of these items. I also think that the 9500ix does a slightly better job of detecting Ka-band around the bend than the V1. I do miss the "arrows," but the expert display on the 9500ix almost makes up for that...almost.
Another cool configuration setting of the 9500ix will allow the detector to automatically reduces sensitivity of the X- and K-band as your speed decreases (it uses the GPS to calculate your speed). The upshot of this is that when you're driving in the parking lot by the front doors of a CVS/Publix/Walgreens, the 9500ix isn't blazing away on the alerts. This can be turned off...
Clearly the ultimate test of any radar/laser detection device is whether or not it helps me avoid a speeding ticket. I've used my V1 without a ticket for about 3 years (before that I used a Passport 8500 successfully). If both the V1 and the 9500ix can help me avoid a ticket, I think I would prefer a quieter cabin with less false positives...might even make me more attentive to the alerts that I do get.
I haven't made up my mind yet, but I think the Valentine V1 is getting a bit long in the tooth - even with the latest programming. I do like the V1's directional arrows, but I think it could really benefit from the GPS and database features now offered by the Passport 9500ix. The new features of the 9500ix have started to grow on me. I'll give it a month or two and see how successful it is and how I feel about it as a tool.
Anyone else have any experience with the 9500ix? Any drawbacks?


----------



## 2YY4U (Jul 29, 2004)

*Re: Passport 9500ix and V1 (leebo)*

Please let us know your thoughts after a month.
I have the V1 for almost 4 years and love it.
Now I need to buy another device for my wife's car and would be nice to know about the 95ooix.


----------



## ehd (Sep 9, 2006)

*Re: Passport 9500ix and V1 (2YY4U)*

I've used Escort's for years with great results; needed a new one prior to a road trip. I go to Best Buy and ask for the top-of-the-line and walked out with a "8500 x50/blue" -- later to lean that the 9500ix was out








Granted, no tickets with the 8500 x50; nil false positives, yet very sensitive and very well designed










_Modified by ehd at 6:49 AM 8-18-2008_


----------



## VegasMatt (Aug 30, 2006)

*Re: Passport 9500ix and V1 (ehd)*

I'm running an X50 here as well, with great results. I do wish it had some form of directional indication like the V1, but overall it's a great unit. I'd assume the 9500 is the same great unit made better.
Matt


----------



## leebo (Dec 17, 2003)

Found this marketing material for the 9500i that has some pretty good explanations of the GPS features:
http://www.escortradar.com/9500i-tech-talk.htm


----------



## RogueTDI (Dec 12, 2002)

*Re: Passport 9500ix and V1 (leebo)*

When my old Bel Vector 895 crapped out last week after 2 years of good service, I ended up ordering the new Beltronics GX-65. I shortly thereafter learned about the 9500ix, which seems to offer more for only about $50 more (considering difference in old detector trade-in value; $30 direct retail difference). The new GX-65 is essentially a copy of the 9500ix, with some features missing (and maybe offering a couple features not on the 9500ix?), for a bit less money. It's also not shipping yet, so I gotta wait another 1-2 weeks for it to even ship.
Now I'm thinking I'd better just get the 9500ix. Only thing I dont like is the blue - I much prefer red display. But if I can make it dim/dark at night, I guess that's ok.

Leebo, please do offer your "1-month" impression asap.









EDIT and PS: 
I saw some mention by someone on a radar detector forum that the 9500ix has some kind of automated blocking, and it was also implied that the GX didnt have that. I'm now reading all details I can find, and it seems in fact this isnt the case - seems the 9500ix has "TrueLock" and the GX has "AlertLock." Both appear to be the same thing, and both require manual indication by the operator. EDIT: scratch that, the "ix" has "AutoLearn" (the standard "i" model doesnt) which the GX doesnt appear to have.
One concern I see is in being certain to understand the logic of the discrimination/lockout programming. I read the link leebo posted directly above - seems like a lead designer from Escort giving the description, along with unfortunately too much marketing smack talk cluttering up the facts. It wasnt made clear how exactly the detector operates when using the location-based signal lockout.
Either way, GPS-based detectors are absolutely the way to go. It's fortunate for myself that my detector went when it did - perfect timing to grab a new GPS-based unit. http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif







It's going to be really nice to virtually eliminate routine false alarms, while speed-based sensitivity will greatly reduce non-routine falsies. Can't wait.



_Modified by RogueTDI at 1:09 PM 9-22-2008_


----------



## leebo (Dec 17, 2003)

*Re: Passport 9500ix and V1 (RogueTDI)*


_Quote, originally posted by *RogueTDI* »_...Now I'm thinking I'd better just get the 9500ix. Only thing I dont like is the blue - I much prefer red display. But if I can make it dim/dark at night, I guess that's ok...

You can dim it manually or automatically.

_Quote, originally posted by *RogueTDI* »_...Leebo, please do offer your "1-month" impression asap.









I am still in evaluation mode...but to give you an idea of how it's going, I recently installed the V1 in my wife's Nissan. Interesting note on that front...I found a web site that has a cord that allows you to easily hard wire your radar detector in Nissan vehicles. It's called a StealthCord. Google it to find the site. It's a great idea...Spockcat should make one for the Touareg.


_Quote, originally posted by *RogueTDI* »_...One concern I see is in being certain to understand the logic of the discrimination/lockout programming. I read the link leebo posted directly above - seems like a lead designer from Escort giving the description, along with unfortunately too much marketing smack talk cluttering up the facts. It wasnt made clear how exactly the detector operates when using the location-based signal lockout....

I believe the AutoLearn works by matching the specific alert frequency with a GPS location, but only for K- and X-band. If the 9500ix detects the same frequency at the same location 3 times, it will lock out that frequency at that location. I need to read this again, but I believe the 9500ix will AutoUnlearn if it does not detect that frequency on 3 subsequent passes by that GPS location.
*****
Another cool feature of the 9500ix is that it stores the location of other traffic enforcement devices. For example, I recently drove out to the theme park attractions here in Central Florida (Universal Studios behind the scenes tour - hoping to run into Megan Fox...or is that Foxxx? No luck either way) and the 9500ix warned me about several Red Light Cameras that were installed only recently.
I'm liking the 9500ix.
And speaking of liking...Here's a nice on-topic post of Megan Fox for those of you that don't remember her from the Transformers movie:









_Modified by leebo at 9:57 PM 9-22-2008_


_Modified by leebo at 9:58 PM 9-22-2008_


----------



## RogueTDI (Dec 12, 2002)

*Re: Passport 9500ix and V1 (leebo)*

http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif








Lord have mercy









I discovered that a reset operation fixed my 895 detector. Regardless, my order for the 9500ix is in - should have it Thur/Friday.







Can't wait!








How did you go about mounting yours? 
I've currently got my Vector hardwired above the rear view mirror - nice stealth/OEM look, and less attractive to theives, but real close to the roof steel. However, the 9500ix will require good sky-view for GPS operation. Along with rear laser visibility and forward visual obstruction issues, this seems to greatly limit detector mounting location to a small area in the lower center of the windshield. Any thoughts on that? 
I thought I might try to put some collector/reflector material to direct GPS signal info to the antenna somehow if necessary... 
PS: I'm seeing alot of questionable performances of the 9500i on youtube, in terms of protection in locked-out areas. Those vids might be pretty old though (>1 year even) and between that and making a new detector in the "xi," hopefully there's little worry?


_Modified by RogueTDI at 11:26 PM 9-22-2008_


----------



## leebo (Dec 17, 2003)

*Re: Passport 9500ix and V1 (RogueTDI)*


_Quote, originally posted by *RogueTDI* »_...How did you go about mounting yours?...

Center of the windshield to give maximum rear visibility and the best laser visibility. I'm tall enough that this position doesn't obstruct my visibility. I am considering purchase/instalation of the Laser Interceptor (Google it) to supplement my laser warning.
I use the "smart cord" to get power from the power outlet near the gear shifter (which i rewired to make the outlet "switched" to turn on/off with the Touareg). I purchased an outlet adaptor from Radio Shack that gives an additional outlet and raises the Passport power controller level with the gear shifter. Since I usually rest my right hand on the shifter while driving, it makes it very easy to hit the mute button on the controller. However, I don't have to hit the mute buton nearly as much as I used to, so I'm considering a hard wire option.

_Quote, originally posted by *RogueTDI* »_...PS: I'm seeing alot of questionable performances of the 9500i on youtube, in terms of protection in locked-out areas. Those vids might be pretty old though (>1 year even) and between that and making a new detector in the "xi," hopefully there's little worry?

I heard the same and I believe I read that Escort made some adjustments to the lockout functions on both the 9500i and the 9500ix some time ago. I have done some testing and found that it works well to screen out the junk, with limited risk of locking out K-band radar. So far, no issues.


----------



## RogueTDI (Dec 12, 2002)

*Re: Passport 9500ix and V1 (leebo)*

Sounds good. So with your power supply - you have the detector powering on/off essentially via ignition key, no need for detector power button, and no issues with that? That'll be good to hear. My current setup is that way - detector is left in the "on" condition and power is interrupted by the ignition circuit.


----------



## leebo (Dec 17, 2003)

Yes.


----------



## RogueTDI (Dec 12, 2002)

*Re: (leebo)*

Cool.








I was just wondering... something I dont think the manual clearly indicates (I've read most of it already): I know the detector can automatically UnLearn certain blocked locations. Is it possible to tell it to not AutoLearn certain locations while allowing AutoLearn to function for all other locations (i.e. user-override of certain special spots where you want to receive all signals)?
EDIT: I think I figured the best option available: allow AutoLearn to operate for a while during your normal driving routes. This is nice and easier than manually locking out all false locations. After most falsies are locked out, switch AutoLearn off in preferences, then manually unlock certain locations as desired. The AutoLearned locations should still remain active in memory. http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif ??



_Modified by RogueTDI at 12:55 PM 9-23-2008_


----------



## leebo (Dec 17, 2003)

*Re: (RogueTDI)*

Yes.
Or just turn off AutoLearn and manually program locations. It's easy to manually lockout false positive signals.


----------



## RogueTDI (Dec 12, 2002)

*Re: (leebo)*

Just recieved my 9500ix today. Very nice. Most thankfully, the GPS signal has little problem getting through my 98 Jetta's roof, so no problem mounting it up above the mirror. http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif 
So far so good. Running it side by side with my Bel Vector 895, it seems definitely more sensitive, and has demonstrated much better selectivity and filtering ability. Loving it so far, look forward to more time with it.


----------



## RogueTDI (Dec 12, 2002)

*Re: (RogueTDI)*

Update:
Just took the detector around town for a couple hours after work to test it, seeking everything it was designed for - red light cams and "noisy" areas especially.
Wow, this detector rules. The only thing left to confirm is the level of frequency discrimination for locked out signals. Other than that, I'm already very happy.
Great gps operation. Red light camera warnings are perfect. Marker operation works great. There's an arrow that indicates direction to marked locations (both preloaded and user-defined). AutoLearn already has demonstrated itself well. Voice indications are clear, female, and not superfluous. The color actually looks really good, and I think I prefer it to my Vector's red. The sensitivity compared to Vector 895 is fantastic, and the filtering great - 895 sent off POP alerts numerous times, the 9500ix not once (I can't believe it's broken, yes POP is enabled). Speed sensitivity is awesome - the "auto" and "highway" modes take on new value in town: in auto mode, below 20mph, X and K alerts are just ignored; but in highway mode, below 20mph, you'll get a quick chirp to indicate signal, then silent displays of the signal. http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif 
Little things that could be better: Auto dimming and autovolume seem to work reasonably well. Autodimming could use a calibration function; autovolume I think already incorporates this, but I wasnt quite able to confirm. Would be nice to have dedicated button for signal threat display (graph, "expert" and "spec") and some way to interpret the frequencies of the various "bogies" shown on the expert mode would be great. I'm not sure but it seemed that radar took precedent over a read light camera in one case - not so bad really, at least red light cams are intended to be seen. 
Maybe coming from my crappy 895, it's just so much better. But I'm totally delighted with this device and look forward to some peace and quiet.

















_Modified by RogueTDI at 11:51 PM 9-25-2008_


----------



## RogueTDI (Dec 12, 2002)

*Re: (RogueTDI)*

Well, disappointment tonight.
Basically, I observed in my new 9500ix what is demonstrated in this year-old test of a 9500i:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bZnmUd8ysRc
So, Escort knew of this issue for at least a year and did nothing to correct it in the 9500ix.







http://****************.com/smile/emthdown.gif








I'm really torn now, and may return this detector. Reliably blocking unwanted signals while not blocking potential threats is EXACTLY what Escort advertises, and this really defies that completely, and makes for nearly outright false claims on Escort's part. Over $500 for a detector the main merit of which turns out to be a nonlegitimate claim. This makes "TrueLock" now little more than a fancy location-based mute button.
I performed my tests very simply (and anyone can do it, although it will take you a bit of time) - go to a shopping area with lots of false sources, use spec mode to identify different frequencies of same band in close proximity, block one, see if the other is detected. My results showed something like blocking offset extending a minimum 70mhz on K, and 20-30mhz on X (K, X and Laser(much less common need) are only ones affected by TrueLock). I turned off POP and SWS, even AutoLearn, which combined seemed to increase frequency isolation/detection performance of the detector in SPEC mode, and might have improved signal discrimination, but it's hard to say with my limited testing scheme. Essentially, it appears anywhere from 1/4 to 1/2 the band's width is blocked out, in purely offset (that is, +/- could be far worse). The whole (or nearly whole) band wasnt blocked, and I did demonstrate that it would still pick up some signals on the same band in a "TrueLocked" area, but that was hard to demonstrate. 
The pisser is that the detector is obviously able to discern signals to easily within +/-10Mhz (really, +/-5 is probably an underestimation), as it repeatably demonstrates in "SPEC" mode. So the detector can definitely distinguish. It simply doesnt take advantage of that in operation, and that can only be either a programming omission, or a hardware performance limitation. If the latter - you'll have to buy yet another device later; if the former, we can only hope Escort will fix it, but what are the odds of that given they've had over a year to do so.
Considering most false signals are somewhere near the middle fo the band, and considering the normal distribution of a random set of signals, most actual threats are likely to be blocked as well, if police would ever set up in the vicinity on the same band. 
The question is, how close in frequency is police radar able to operate to other sources of signal/noise, and what about simple amplitude sensitivity (i.e. stronger police radar simply overpowering door opener radar)?
Oh, I've also had no luck demonstrating AutoVolume to work at all.








This is really bad. The detector is way better than my old Vector 895 of course, but is it worth >$500 when my 895 basically works? It will be a tough call. I'll probably be calling up Escort to interrogate them about this.








I dont know, I could still play the odds and figure "hey, long as there's no cop in the same area" but maybe the cops would know that too. I think on the highway it would still be very useful, even with Truelock in operation - there's usually a handful of falsies on any regular long distance route that constitute like <<1% of the route, so odds of getting nailed there are tiny, while the silence would be valued. I've certainly grown to really like the redlight camera warnings, especially in towns with tons of them.



_Modified by RogueTDI at 12:54 AM 10-1-2008_


----------



## leebo (Dec 17, 2003)

*Re: (RogueTDI)*

I read about this issue but when I tested, the 9500ix did alert on K-band police radar in the same location where it was locking out K-band junk (2 door openers).
Did you try this with the 9500ix Firmware 1.1? It supposedly has "Improved the marked location feature when other radar signals are present."
I turned off the AutoVolume in the preferences. I'll enable it this weekend and give it a test.


----------



## RogueTDI (Dec 12, 2002)

*Re: (leebo)*


_Quote, originally posted by *leebo* »_I read about this issue but when I tested, the 9500ix did alert on K-band police radar in the same location where it was locking out K-band junk (2 door openers).
Did you try this with the 9500ix Firmware 1.1? It supposedly has "Improved the marked location feature when other radar signals are present."
I turned off the AutoVolume in the preferences. I'll enable it this weekend and give it a test.


I'm going to try hard reset to see if that makes AutoVolume work.
I'm not sure what firmware I have.
Glad to see you had reasonable results in your testing.
I realized one thing I may have goofed on - I didnt realize during my testing last night that the manual TrueLock function (mute three times) locks out all signals present at the time. I assumed it was specific to the strongest signal (i.e. the one that SPEC display indicates). I thus may have "intentionally" locked out all the signals in some of my testing, not realizing it. In other cases though, I'm fairly sure I didnt. Regardless, I'll have to retest with this new understanding and report back.
I guess, realistically, the benefits of this detector are still great. There's always the ability to turn GPS filtering off with a button, and AutoLearn can be turned off. Speed sensitivity alone is really great, although it's off when filtering is switched off. Most areas with significant falses arent worth speeding in anyway, although really in So Cal there are plenty of fast "surface streets" around shopping malls, etc., where I know I can (and I do) comfortably cruise well over the limit without risk of collisions. For sure, if this was my first detector, I'd probably still keep it. But since I already have a reasonably functional one that has already saved my skin many times, it's a harder choice.



_Modified by RogueTDI at 5:17 PM 10-1-2008_


----------



## RogueTDI (Dec 12, 2002)

*Re: (RogueTDI)*

New testing complete. No go. The thing blocks the whole K band. Unless I have outdated firmware, I'm thinking this thing needs to go back, if only as a protest. More to come shortly...


----------



## leebo (Dec 17, 2003)

*Re: (RogueTDI)*

I'll re-do that test. It's not easy around here because K-band isn't commonly used for traffic enforcement and timing my arrival at the intersection (speed >10mph) is even more difficult. I've had the 9500ix for 6 weeks and I was able to test only one time (and the unit did alert on the police k-band).


----------



## RogueTDI (Dec 12, 2002)

*Re: (leebo)*

So, for more details:
I was careful last night with my testing.

I was able to verify that locking out the low end of the X band didnt lock out the high end (~.503 blocked, .554 still indicates). But I dont care that much about X band. Despite it being higher sensitivity than my 895, and having 4-signal monitoring ability, and even considering X band is narrower, .. I have very little use for X band in So Cal.
It took me over 2 hours to find a suitable area, but I found a spot perfect for K band test. There were at least 3 frequencies, 24.067, 24.138, 24.206, which span the band pretty well. I was able to isolate the .067 frequency, coming from a grocery store. I was able to switch to Expert mode to confirm there was only one signal being detected (at least within one of the supposed 30mHz frequency "blocks", see here good link: http://www.radardetector.net/f....html ). I sustained EXPERT mode for a while even to ensure random hits werent coming in that might be blocked. Then I locked out the signal - again, presumably only that signal. Once locked out, the GPS filter silences it - by hitting the GPS button, the filter is switched off and in SPEC mode the strongest signal is immediately displayed. This confirmed I was still blocking just the .067 signal. 
Now, I drove around the parking lot within a short radius, aiming my car at other signals from across an intersection, .138 and .206. Switching back and forth between GPS and non-GPS mode, using SPEC display mode, I confirmed that these two other frequencies, .206 being nearly on the other side of the band, were being blocked.
The only possibilities I can think of is the detector sensed the other signals but didnt indicate it on the EXPERT display mode, and it was blocked then - I find this unlikely; alternately it has been suggested that getting too close to a source signal such that it is strong will cause the signal to bleed into other segments of the receiver's frequency band division.
Beyond that, it seems pretty clear that K band is nearly totally locked out simply because I locked out one false signal. To top that off, it appears that, around town at least, my 895 has better K sensitivity - it might be an off-axis performance issue, but really, that's important in K band which is usually used around town, not on the highway (laser and Ka mostly there).
Reset didnt fix AutoVolume - still does nothing in response to louder radio noise. Any idea how this is supposed to work?
I'd love if someone could explain away these issues. I'm not holding my breath.








So this doesnt look good for the 9500ix. It's not just the off chance of a cop being in a locked out area. It's the supreme lack of confidence in the TrueLock's value now. The fact that I can't rely on AutoLearn to do the thinking for me, because you can't risk it locking out areas where cops may be. AutoLearn is basically a $50 feature. I may be able to make some use of the TrueLock but only very carefully. Really, speed sensitivity isnt all that - it's nice to have automatic highway mode, and automatic muting @<20mph, but really, that's not that hard to deal with manually (highway button; power off in mall lots)...
I'll continue to test - going out of town this weekend to a denser urban area, more and better test grounds. I apparently wiped out the whole camera and speedtrap database in my reset attempts, so I'll have to register and download software to get that back - might find an updated software in the process? I want to like this detector, but its main advantage seems to be nearly negated. With flaws like this, all any cop has to do is set up near a noise source. Any reason why they havent or wouldnt have done this yet? 



_Modified by RogueTDI at 11:44 AM 10-2-2008_


----------



## nm+ (Jan 6, 2006)

I believe that autolearn uses a narrower frequency than when you manually lock it out, but I'm not 100% on how it works.
I think the best way is to find a source that's low on the signal and have the detector lock it out automatically, then see what's going on.
Oh and truelock's never been a huge feature for me.
The main advantage of the 9500i is the speed sensitive filtering, not the truelock. The speed sensitive filter is much better than a hwy/cty mode. It changes senstivity much more fluidly. It keeps the detector very quiet at low speed. It finally makes the a radar detector useful on a 35mph urban street.
Cops do try to setup near noise sources. However, the truelock locking them out is no different than you hitting the mute everytime you pass that radar sign


_Modified by nm+ at 12:11 PM 10-2-2008_


----------



## RogueTDI (Dec 12, 2002)

*Re: (nm+)*

Thanks for the post nm+.
I agree speed sensitivity is nice - no need to manually worry about muting, powering, or otherwise touching the detector, and it will keep things quieter for sure.
But TrueLock was a huge selling point for me, especially when combined with AutoLearn (automated TrueLock) - near silence and virtually eliminated false alarms on normal routes, and no more worrying about where falsies are, either permanently or for purpose of needing to manually register them, nor any concern of not detecting police radar.
Really, if it would work exactly as advertised, it would in fact revolutionize radar detector industry, and probably open up a huge untapped market. So why didnt Escort do it I wonder (as it appears anyway)? I'm no RF design expert, but I have to believe if the detector can isolate alert frequencies for display in SPEC mode down to a few Mhz, it should be able to isolate them for purpose of filtering to within the same resolution.








I mean, if speed sensitivity was the only thing, there's probably easier and less costly ways to handle that than GPS.
I'll try to test the AutoLearn's selectivity, but that would definitely be more complicated in an uncontrolled environment.
There's one other possibility mentioned in the page I linked above, but it's the sort of thing that's just so hokey - really Escort needs to give much more detail on how exactly their device works. It was suggested that after doing a manual TrueLock operation (3 mute presses), the detector would continue to look for signals in that area for a brief time, and so to isolate a signal, I should TrueLock then reboot the detector. Again, this seems hokey and I dont think it's acceptable, but I didnt do that procedure last night.
Clearly, one can see how much work it already is to simply verify that the detector works as advertised.











_Modified by RogueTDI at 12:53 PM 10-2-2008_


----------



## leebo (Dec 17, 2003)

*Re: (RogueTDI)*


_Quote, originally posted by *RogueTDI* »_...Now, I drove around the parking lot within a short radius, aiming my car at other signals from across an intersection, .138 and .206. Switching back and forth between GPS and non-GPS mode, using SPEC display mode, I confirmed that these two other frequencies, .206 being nearly on the other side of the band, were being blocked.
The only possibilities I can think of is the detector sensed the other signals but didnt indicate it on the EXPERT display mode, and it was blocked then - I find this unlikely; alternately it has been suggested that getting too close to a source signal such that it is strong will cause the signal to bleed into other segments of the receiver's frequency band division...

It's certainly an interesting situation. Were you in Highway mode? If not, how fast were you driving around the parking lot? Do you think you were driving fast enough to overcome Variable Speed Sensitivity?
Unless you were in Highway mode, I believe the 9500ix tracks your speed to automatically vary its sensitivity proportional to the speed of your vehicle. If you slow your speed for a stop at the mall, a parking lot or even a stop light, the sensitivity is turned down to almost zero. I'm not sure, but I think the GPS satellite icon spins the same as a lockout...? 
IIRC, when I start my car in a parking lot with a door opener (k-band), the 9500ix will alert until it acquires the GPS signal, registers my speed as "0" and then it will go silent while the GPS satellite icon spins. I don't think the location is locked out - but I could be mistaken.
Lots of variables to test/control to ensure conclusions are accurate.


----------



## RogueTDI (Dec 12, 2002)

*Re: (leebo)*


_Quote, originally posted by *leebo* »_It's certainly an interesting situation. Were you in Highway mode? If not, how fast were you driving around the parking lot? Do you think you were driving fast enough to overcome Variable Speed Sensitivity?
Unless you were in Highway mode, I believe the 9500ix tracks your speed to automatically vary its sensitivity proportional to the speed of your vehicle. If you slow your speed for a stop at the mall, a parking lot or even a stop light, the sensitivity is turned down to almost zero. I'm not sure, but I think the GPS satellite icon spins the same as a lockout...? 
IIRC, when I start my car in a parking lot with a door opener (k-band), the 9500ix will alert until it acquires the GPS signal, registers my speed as "0" and then it will go silent while the GPS satellite icon spins. I don't think the location is locked out - but I could be mistaken.
Lots of variables to test/control to ensure conclusions are accurate.


Interesting yes. I'm finding new information that may offer some help, but we'll see. See this thread - guy sounds just like me: http://www.radardetector.net/f....html
Yes, I was on highway mode. I kept speeds under 20mph no doubt. I locked the one signal sitting still of course.
I dont believe the lockout "spinning satellite" operates in the sub-20mph condition.
You are right, once 9500ix figures your speed, it then goes into full automute for sub 20mph speeds.
I talked to Escort today and got a very helpful/friendly assistant, who also has been using the 9500ix himself for several weeks. He was very willing to listen, discuss and relay my concerns to appropriate people - he took an affirmative approach. Anyway, based on my apparently faulty AutoVolume, I went ahead and ordered a replacement - maybe that will solve some things.


----------



## RogueTDI (Dec 12, 2002)

*Re: Passport 9500ix and V1 (leebo)*

Wow, what a relief. I've confirmed that the detector works fine and essentially as advertised.
Detector works as described in the last link I posted. Weird, but I confirmed ability to lockout 24.168 yet see 24.132 in the exact same location, by following procedures identified by users at radardetector.net forums. It apparently comes down to understanding the way the manual lockout operation works - I certainly wouldn't have figured this out easily. I might apologize for all the premature fuss, although Escort should really explain this stuff somewhere. Posting from PDA, will add more later.
Update:
To clarify, it seems that using the trick described in that radardetector.net forum (linked) demonstrated to my satisfaction that the detector works as advertised, separating K band (at least) into something like 8 blocks of frequencies. That's good enough for me. This means I'm not very worried about the very slim odds of blocking out a cop on the exact same 30Mhz swath of K band in the exact same location. I havent been able to pull off the same trick with X band, but HAVE been able to demonstrate that at least X band isnt totally blocked out, so I'll assume it works similarly. 
To sum up testing of this weekend, the 9500ix has way better sensitivity on all bands than my old Vector 895, especially Ka which the 895 was already pretty good on (picked up oncoming CHP from 9mi awawy once in open desert). It's also much less prone to falses. Of particular note is the lower off-axis sensitivity of the 9500ix. This is both good and bad, but on the whole good, particularly on K band. Having poor off-axis sensitivity means the 9500ix has trouble seeing signals coming from much more than 10-20degrees off its line of sight. This can in certain circumstances result in perhaps not picking up a signal directly from "around the bend." Instead, we must rely on the detector seeing reflections from directly ahead (from the "around the bend" source). However, on the plus side, the dramatically better on-axis performance makes up for this. Also, not seeing all the signals off to the side (where police radar is never set up anyway) means dramatically lower false alarms compared to my 895.
Only real issue with TrueLock and AutoLearn is, I dont understand why the operation should be quite like it is. I'd think and expect that when you manually lock out a frequency, it should just look at that freq, not keep searching and blocking other frequencies as you drive away from the initial lock-out point. I'm guessing the detector is looking for the other member of the assumed "pair" of falses (door openers come in pairs). Yet, it will also block other bands (laser, k, x), which doesnt make sense. Hopefully, a future software update will address this issue - seems plenty likely that it might accidentally lock out a cop without user knowledge.
So, at this point, the only thing I'd really like is calibration/sensitivity control of auto-brightness. Well, that, and any cool little ideas that could be implemented. I'm totally sold on this detector. http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif 



_Modified by RogueTDI at 1:04 AM 10-6-2008_


----------



## RogueTDI (Dec 12, 2002)

*Re: Passport 9500ix and V1 (RogueTDI)*

Just a bump to highlight my update above, and a little additional blurb.
Took my two detectors on the 15 tonight, heading toward Barstow (toward Vegas) from Victorville. I set cruise to 65mph, limit was 70mph (saving fuel). CHP was everywhere. 
On Ka, the 9500ix absolutely spanks the V895. CHP cruiser came up from behind with 10mph on me. 9500ix must have had him when he was 3/4mi back or further. The 895 picked him up at <1/8mi. No contest.
Next, a few minutes later, both detectors picked up a K signal, around a right hand sweeping bend, with dip/grade change. V895 had it a bit sooner, in particular because of off-axis sensitivity - it wouldnt have made any functional difference as the 9500ix still picked it up way out. Cop was a bit over 1mi ahead, UNDER and behind a large concrete overpass. 9500ix was lit full at >1/2mi out when the road straightened out. V895 didnt ramp to full until right on the cop.
I wonder if the ramp up on the 9500ix needs adjustment, I think it might have gotten this in the latest software update.


----------



## jwestpro (Feb 6, 2008)

*Re: Passport 9500ix and V1 (RogueTDI)*

9500ci - We just got an Audi S4 Avant and had the best tech place in town do a stealth install. nothing is exposed anywhere and it has little laser jammer thingies in the lower grill and under rear hatch lift. 
I have no idea how it works because it's pretty much all automated and "learns things"







The controls are mounted in the ashtray which closes up of course.


----------



## nm+ (Jan 6, 2006)

*Re: Passport 9500ix and V1 (RogueTDI)*


_Quote, originally posted by *RogueTDI* »_Just a bump to highlight my update above, and a little additional blurb.
Took my two detectors on the 15 tonight, heading toward Barstow (toward Vegas) from Victorville. I set cruise to 65mph, limit was 70mph (saving fuel). CHP was everywhere. 
On Ka, the 9500ix absolutely spanks the V895. CHP cruiser came up from behind with 10mph on me. 9500ix must have had him when he was 3/4mi back or further. The 895 picked him up at <1/8mi. No contest.
Next, a few minutes later, both detectors picked up a K signal, around a right hand sweeping bend, with dip/grade change. V895 had it a bit sooner, in particular because of off-axis sensitivity - it wouldnt have made any functional difference as the 9500ix still picked it up way out. Cop was a bit over 1mi ahead, UNDER and behind a large concrete overpass. 9500ix was lit full at >1/2mi out when the road straightened out. V895 didnt ramp to full until right on the cop.
I wonder if the ramp up on the 9500ix needs adjustment, I think it might have gotten this in the latest software update.

FYI, two detectors in the same car can interfere with each other, which may explain the ramping issues


----------



## RogueTDI (Dec 12, 2002)

*Re: Passport 9500ix and V1 (jwestpro)*


_Quote, originally posted by *jwestpro* »_9500ci - We just got an Audi S4 Avant and had the best tech place in town do a stealth install. nothing is exposed anywhere and it has little laser jammer thingies in the lower grill and under rear hatch lift. 
I have no idea how it works because it's pretty much all automated and "learns things"







The controls are mounted in the ashtray which closes up of course.

Heh. Tight. 
I'd definitely go for the CI when I get my new car. http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif


----------



## RogueTDI (Dec 12, 2002)

*Re: Passport 9500ix and V1 (nm+)*


_Quote, originally posted by *nm+* »_FYI, two detectors in the same car can interfere with each other, which may explain the ramping issues

Yeah, I'm aware of that _possibility_. Still, they didnt seem to interfere too much, and I did try to switch one off then the other, when possible, to check this sensitivity.


----------

