E-Caller Testing Part 1: Remote Ranges

No problem CoyoteDoc1, I'll place the caller so that it goes behind the hill rather than at the bottom of the other side. That'd be a tough one to use to simulate a hunting scenario by placing it at the bottom of the hill. I may need to hold off on the testing this evening. It's looking like 30-40 mph winds with rain and possible snow. If it breaks though, I'll be out there testing.
 
I have a correction to a statement mentioned earlier. I said that there is a delay in transmission from the remotes. This is not the case. The delay is in the sound travel. The speed of the transmitters is right at the speed of light (186000 mi/sec) and the speed of sound is (761 mph). Therefore, the transmitter is getting there faster than the sound is getting back to the user. This is something to consider when you're a long ways away from the caller and you think that pushing the buttons isn't working. Give it a second for the sound to get back to you before you mash another button. I apologize for any confusion and hope that clarifies the earlier comment.
 
Quote:
I have all the callers and have never got lucky enough to get that kind of range with any of them including my favorite, FoxPro. I guess different areas give different results.



Must be sunspots in your calling area Steve. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smiliesmack.gif


/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif
 
There will be another portion of testing along with the timed volume. I'll do a time to change sounds and number of buttons or sequence that needs to be pushed. This was an item that was asked for and I'll get on the board. It's snowing here in the hills and raining on the flats. I hope I don't lose the snowcamo units. Might be a nasty night for testing. I'll give it a shot though and try to nail down the AP test, CoyoteDoc1 test behind the hill, Timed Volumes and Times to change sounds. Then if the wind will calm down sometime I'll get the loudness done. Thanks for everyone's help and input into this project. I hope that everybody gets something useful out of it.
 
This is great stuff.

River Runner has a good idea. Post your findings in one post.

Looking forward to rest of this research.
 
Last edited:
Greg,
As I go along and wrap up the testing, I'll post each section. Then I can send RiverRunner my MS Word report writeups. Then it can be added to any section and locked for viewing only if he wants. If anybody wants the MS Word docs, I can email, just send me a message. I'd like to get this information out here for people because some people are only interested in certain areas of the testing. I'm glad people like it so far. I think outdoor remote testing is out for this evening. I'll try to get the timed volumes and timed sound selection done in the garage though. I'll do some photos this evening and try to post them. It's whipping wind and snow like mad here. I'll aim for the next decent weather day. Nobody would go out hunting in the weather I'm having right now....well... ok, I might go out in it, but would probably get skunked pretty bad.
 
Just a thought on your thick timber remote test. Do you think placing the callers on the ground on the opposite side of a fallen tree--tucked up against it-- than backing off about 40 yards +/- would affect the remotes abilities? Say if the tree was like 30" or more across. Just wondering if the tree would block the signal. If you have a few extra minutes for this I'm curious. Thx for all your efforts & time.

Whatcha gonna do with the W/R when you're done with it. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grinning-smiley-006.gif /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif
 
Glen S,
At 40 yards, you're not going to see any effect on the remotes. I've tried them at that range behind a variety of items (my truck, through garage door) and they worked just fine. I didn't push it to the outer limits, but at 40-50 yards, I didn't see any effect. The largest diameter trees I can find up here are maybe 18" (White Spruce). I'm working on a project here and we have stacks of plywood approximately 6' high. I'll bring them in and test through the stack of wood. I'm going to be selling off some of the callers after I get all of the testing complete. I'd love to hold onto all of them in case something comes up or somebody wants some weird kind of information or test, but I do need to get rid of some of them eventually and try and re-coop some money from this project.
 
Snowcamoman,

I think I may know why you are experiencing differences in range in the various remotes, and especially in the trees.

I spoke with Minaska Outdoors today, and asked them what frequency range their remotes operate on. They said it operates in the 416 MHz range as I recall, which is UHF. Traditionally, UHF will not perform well in pine forests, as the pine needles are basically a quarter wave length of the 416 MHz frequencies, and they absorb the RF energy. Thereby, restricting the distance in that type of environment.

If, FoxPro, Predator, or Wildlife Technologies, are using VHF frequencies to operate their remote capability, then they will penetrate the trees a lot better in that type of environment.

After reading your report, I had to rationalize in my mind why remotes of the same power as mandated by the FCC would outperform one another. That is why I asked the frequencies being used. Likewise, 900 MHz would penetrate the forests some degree better than UHF as well due to the different needle lengths compared to wave length of frequency.

I guess when it boils down to it though, all of the callers performed adequately for hunting purposes, and it is just a matter of other individual benefits of each caller as to which one a person would buy.

Thanks for all your hard work. You are truly putting the various units involved to test in adverse conditions. Something we all need to know for intelligent decision making.

Great work! /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grinning-smiley-003.gif

Bill /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grinning-smiley-006.gif
 
Forgot to add this fact about UHF remote on Bandit:

Although the UHF remote range would be reduced in thick pine, or coniferous type trees compared to VHF. It would still perform well in a more open environment, and would not be subject to as much interference from sunspots (technically known as temperature inversion), or ambient nose levels, or manmade noise (interference from high lines.) (theoretically speaking about all of the above.)

Hardwood forests seem to not affect the UHF frequency usage. So, if you have hard wood forests near where you hunt, coverage would be far better than in coniferous forests. Again, brings you back to personal preferences on other facts and benefits of the individual callers.

Bill /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grinning-smiley-003.gif /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grinning-smiley-006.gif
 
Quote:
I spoke with Minaska Outdoors today, and asked them what frequency range their remotes operate on. They said it operates in the 416 MHz range as I recall



Bill,

Our remote is 418 not 416 MHz
 
Oops! Sorry about that. I stand corrected to 418 MHz. Everything still remains the same though with regard to performances. Thanks for correcting my misquote. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/blush.gif

Bill /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grinning-smiley-003.gif /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grinning-smiley-006.gif
 
Luv2Hunt,
That is a very good question concerning the UHF/VHF and frequencies. I'll let the manufacturer's answer that question being that isn't something I can "test". If you look on the FCC links and check under the test reports, it will tell you all of the tested frequencies for the remotes.

I performed timed volume and sound selection last night. I have the report at home and will update that this evening with photos of the remotes and what buttons or sequence of buttons must be pushed in order to operate the callers. Hopefully the wind stays away today tonight so I can get loudness testing done. Thanks for everyone's patience.
 
Snowcamoman:
I do appreciate all your efforts. I was surprised at the ranges for the remotes. I have never even tried my remote at anything further than 500 yards. The problem I have with the extended ranges is like you mentioned I can't hear the caller on lower volumes to tell if the right sounds or volume changes have been made.
A couple observations and comments on the remote usage on my W/T caller. One of my pet peeves about the remote is the fact you have absolutely no indicator there is power to the unit except the position of the rotatry power on knob. This is a very easy way to find out you are [beeep] up the next time you walk all the way to a calling area without spare batterys. That is why I always carry spare batterys for the main unit, remote and grs radio with me in the pack. Any remote that has even a small non battery consuming led would get bonus points on my score card. Some kind of backlit display would also nulify the need for a seperate light source for night ops or early morning late evening. I would suggest a very subtle red backlight that wouldn't ruin your night vision.
I also think the operating characteristics of the W/T remote leave a lot to be desired. It is confusing to me as to what button is required to select, start and pause sounds and what is required to to select and operate a different sound and then select differnt numbers for volume level change. A simple up and down button with a numeric display to tell you where you are at in case you don't remember where you last set it would be nice. Also for what they charge for there sounds you would think they could make a a card or something to refer to. I taped a sheet on my remote and base unit I made myself but they have worn off several times.
When I sent you my comments earlier one thing I forgot to mention is how do the units compare as far as water resistance? I got caught in storm during a recent moose hunt and swamped my skiff with my caller in it and it was totally trashed so I sent it back to W/T. It is a lot to ask for any electronic to survive several hours in the water but what happened to me is not that uncommon and the day to day hunting conditions where I am at are brutal at best. Bottom line is how would the units stand up in a 50 mph willawaw?
 
UgashikBob,
I'm not sure how old your WT is, but the newer unit has a small LED on it that dims as the battery dies down. This evening I'll get photos of the new remotes for all of the callers. The water resistance test would be a good one, but I'd probably end up ruining the callers. If you want your WT to be absolutely waterproof (except the speaker), put it all in a small pelican case and file a small section of the sealing rib off. Then use some silicone around the cord in that area where you filed. For the other callers, I've put them in small drybags when I've been rafting and they'll float down the river just dandy and dry. I've used the drybag technique in the spring months too when the snow is wet and sticking to everything. At the end of all the testing, I'll show some of the things I've done with the callers to suit my own needs and the conditions I use them in. I don't abuse my gear, but as you know, the conditions here in Alaska are anything but friendly on gear.
 
snowcamoman,
Nice to hear from you again. Excellent reading. Would it be possible to have a test on clarity of sound?

Also, how clear the sounds are at different volumes.

Hollowpoint 22.
 
Hollowpoint 22. A sound clarity test is a very difficult one to "measure" other than by what my ears or somebody elses ears hear. I will be posting the loudness testing this weekend for all of the callers. Then after the definable and measureable items are covered I'll do one on what my ears hear from the callers. I can try to measure the loudness where distortion or static occurs. I'll also include a topic on mute/static sounds. I'll try to cover this topic, but again, it's not something I will put under the quantifiable portions of testing. I'll have a remote post here soon and then loudness this weekend along with hopefully the AP sitting remote test, CoyoteDoc's hill remote test.
 
Snowcammoman,
Yep, I know it would be a difficult one, just your own opinion would be enough.

" I can try to measure the loudness where distortion or static occurs."

I think that would be an important one. All calls can be loud, but if they distort the sound at high volume, I think that would be a minus for the caller.

Great work mate, much appreciated, looking forward to your results. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grinning-smiley-003.gif

Hollowpoint 22.
 
Back
Top