Thank you for the methodical comparisons. Im left thinking that the units are very close in terms of performance. I might have bought a LR LX if they had been introduced before the Garmin, but that $ has already been spent. I started playing around with chronos in the late 80’s when i built my own but never took it to market. LOL, I used a Z80 processor!
Thanks for all your work on this. I'd be more interested in knowing which one is more accurate. They both provide "Calculated" muzzle velocity based on where it began tracking the projectile. I feel like something like the Magnetospeed is more accurate than either of these because it is actually measuring the physical projectile as it passes over the sensor. And it's doing it AT the muzzle so there is no algorithm involved.
Well, not really. The magnetospeed also have a margin of error, considering how parallels the sensors have to be vs bullet trajectory to give an accurate data. So far, all units tested (old Lab, Lx, Garmin, Magnetospeed) are giving, when mounted the same way, results within the margin of error claimed by their manufacturer when you compare one to the other. So when they have 2 to 3 fps difference, it is hard to tell which one is really closer to the reality. But ballistic speaking, your BC consistency will have more effect on the trajectory then this speed margin.
@canadianprecisionshooting9597 That is true about the margin of error on the magnetospeed. Once it is set up perfectly, that margin is minimal, and the results will be more accurate. Even the original labradar is questionable even if you review the csv files. You can set your v numbers, and they won't even agree with the raw data. Then, depending on which algorithm you use, you can get different velocity values. NONE of these radar units are what they appear to be, sadly.
@@Rico11b I'm more then curious to see thoses wrong numbers. I've been looking into the raw data and even more further with the noise that is not available for everyone, and it always line up perfectly. If you have real data that shows inconsistency please share it to me so I can pass the info, but as they are trued to give the same accuracy as the huge units that are also use to get BC and custom curves at distance way over 3 miles... I have really high doubt that the algorithm might be off
@@canadianprecisionshooting9597 First determine the max distance your labradar will track a given projectile. Then setup the V numbers in the Labradar and shoot a session. Then download the data and take a look. You'll see that the labradar uses an algorithm to "estimate" the approx. velocity at those different number. Now compare them to the raw data trying your best to pick the closest range to the different V numbers you've preset. For example V25. I set one of the V numbers to 25 yards, I then compare it to the raw data captured at 25.31 yards, and the difference can sometimes be 10 fps or more different, then when looking at different ranges the variance could be less or more. So labradar says that in 0.31 (11 inches) of a yard the speed drops by over 10 fps, but from 30 to 31.21 yards it only drops by one or two FPS at most. I have even found the results reversed. The raw data says it tracked a projectile at 20.16 yards and the speed was 11 FPS faster than the speed it tracked at 18 yards. How can this be? Labradar just like all the radar chronos out there are all HEAVILY dependent on algorithms to provide you numbers that are "estimated". That sucks for people who are striving to get super low SD and ES. At some point the whole things seems like a questimation based off an algorithm. Heck it can't even track the projectile at the muzzle. The closest I've ever been able to get the labradar to track a projectile is 6.15 yards and even then the signal to noise ratio isn't great. I still think the Magnetospeed are more accurate. They're just NOT convenient and easy to use like the new radar chronographs.
@@Rico11b Thanks for this reply. Could you send me a message either by email or FB and sending me your data file for analysis please? There is a HUGE difference between what is available in the CSV and all the data that are collected. The algorithm on the doppler is only use to get a speed at the muzzle of the rifle, the rest of the trajectory is given directly by the reading itself, not estimated. You have to see the software and the raw draw trajectory, you can see it at any distance (0.xxxxx1cm if you want), then from this draw numbers are taken to give you a reading. If there is no reading at X distance because it lost the projectile, it will show nothing. Same goes for the LX, just reading at shorter distance. But I agree, radar need a strong algorithm to be reliable compare to just sensor at the muzzle. but given as accurate number as we have now (when you compare Lab, Garmin and magneto) they are so close one to the other, under 0.03%, algorithm have to be robust
Yeah after some comments on the music background being too loud, I lower it down 30db. RUclips doesnt let you just change an existing video, so I had to re-upload it
It does work without any issue. Actually the Labrador's interior shooting range where they test their unit use 177 air rifle (under 500fps) and Airsoft guns.
J'aimerais beaucoup. Pour le moment c'est le temps qui manque pour le faire, mais ce serait bien au courant de la saison. Entre temps il y a toujours la traduction des sous-titre, même si ce n'est pas extra
Yeah Ive had issue with the mic, giving some background noise I cant get to cancel so I had to put background music, even reducing the volume of it, its still annoying. Issue have been found for the video going on, but its sad for this one :(
Informative, pleasant review. Well done.
Good job on the compare.
Thank you for the methodical comparisons. Im left thinking that the units are very close in terms of performance. I might have bought a LR LX if they had been introduced before the Garmin, but that $ has already been spent. I started playing around with chronos in the late 80’s when i built my own but never took it to market. LOL, I used a Z80 processor!
Thanks for all your work on this. I'd be more interested in knowing which one is more accurate. They both provide "Calculated" muzzle velocity based on where it began tracking the projectile. I feel like something like the Magnetospeed is more accurate than either of these because it is actually measuring the physical projectile as it passes over the sensor. And it's doing it AT the muzzle so there is no algorithm involved.
Well, not really. The magnetospeed also have a margin of error, considering how parallels the sensors have to be vs bullet trajectory to give an accurate data. So far, all units tested (old Lab, Lx, Garmin, Magnetospeed) are giving, when mounted the same way, results within the margin of error claimed by their manufacturer when you compare one to the other. So when they have 2 to 3 fps difference, it is hard to tell which one is really closer to the reality. But ballistic speaking, your BC consistency will have more effect on the trajectory then this speed margin.
@canadianprecisionshooting9597 That is true about the margin of error on the magnetospeed. Once it is set up perfectly, that margin is minimal, and the results will be more accurate. Even the original labradar is questionable even if you review the csv files. You can set your v numbers, and they won't even agree with the raw data. Then, depending on which algorithm you use, you can get different velocity values. NONE of these radar units are what they appear to be, sadly.
@@Rico11b I'm more then curious to see thoses wrong numbers. I've been looking into the raw data and even more further with the noise that is not available for everyone, and it always line up perfectly. If you have real data that shows inconsistency please share it to me so I can pass the info, but as they are trued to give the same accuracy as the huge units that are also use to get BC and custom curves at distance way over 3 miles... I have really high doubt that the algorithm might be off
@@canadianprecisionshooting9597 First determine the max distance your labradar will track a given projectile. Then setup the V numbers in the Labradar and shoot a session. Then download the data and take a look. You'll see that the labradar uses an algorithm to "estimate" the approx. velocity at those different number. Now compare them to the raw data trying your best to pick the closest range to the different V numbers you've preset. For example V25. I set one of the V numbers to 25 yards, I then compare it to the raw data captured at 25.31 yards, and the difference can sometimes be 10 fps or more different, then when looking at different ranges the variance could be less or more. So labradar says that in 0.31 (11 inches) of a yard the speed drops by over 10 fps, but from 30 to 31.21 yards it only drops by one or two FPS at most. I have even found the results reversed. The raw data says it tracked a projectile at 20.16 yards and the speed was 11 FPS faster than the speed it tracked at 18 yards. How can this be? Labradar just like all the radar chronos out there are all HEAVILY dependent on algorithms to provide you numbers that are "estimated". That sucks for people who are striving to get super low SD and ES. At some point the whole things seems like a questimation based off an algorithm. Heck it can't even track the projectile at the muzzle. The closest I've ever been able to get the labradar to track a projectile is 6.15 yards and even then the signal to noise ratio isn't great. I still think the Magnetospeed are more accurate. They're just NOT convenient and easy to use like the new radar chronographs.
@@Rico11b Thanks for this reply. Could you send me a message either by email or FB and sending me your data file for analysis please?
There is a HUGE difference between what is available in the CSV and all the data that are collected. The algorithm on the doppler is only use to get a speed at the muzzle of the rifle, the rest of the trajectory is given directly by the reading itself, not estimated. You have to see the software and the raw draw trajectory, you can see it at any distance (0.xxxxx1cm if you want), then from this draw numbers are taken to give you a reading. If there is no reading at X distance because it lost the projectile, it will show nothing. Same goes for the LX, just reading at shorter distance. But I agree, radar need a strong algorithm to be reliable compare to just sensor at the muzzle. but given as accurate number as we have now (when you compare Lab, Garmin and magneto) they are so close one to the other, under 0.03%, algorithm have to be robust
nice
So, you decided to re-upload the video for a second time?
Yeah after some comments on the music background being too loud, I lower it down 30db. RUclips doesnt let you just change an existing video, so I had to re-upload it
Can you try the labradar with 177 air rifle?
It does work without any issue. Actually the Labrador's interior shooting range where they test their unit use 177 air rifle (under 500fps) and Airsoft guns.
Amical Bonjour de France.
Vos vidéos sont très intéressante.
Pouvez-vous faire une version française.
Sportivement
J'aimerais beaucoup. Pour le moment c'est le temps qui manque pour le faire, mais ce serait bien au courant de la saison. Entre temps il y a toujours la traduction des sous-titre, même si ce n'est pas extra
@@canadianprecisionshooting9597 Merci et continuez de réaliser vos vidéos bien interessantes.
Cordialement
That ding a linging sound in the background is HUGELY DISTRACTING !!!
Yeah Ive had issue with the mic, giving some background noise I cant get to cancel so I had to put background music, even reducing the volume of it, its still annoying. Issue have been found for the video going on, but its sad for this one :(