Wouxun KG-935G vs Wouxun KG-UV9G PRO

[pcradio]

These units are new to market. Anyone have the KG-UV9G and can explain the differences as offered by the newer KG-935G?

[MacJack]

I can not speak to KG-935G to a KG-UV9G.  I have a KG-935G on order and awaiting on it...  Why because I have a Wouxun KG-UV8H for ham use... which I can only monitors the GMRS channels no TX but do Dual VHF and UHF.  The Wouxun KG-UV8H uses the same battery, battery eliminator for both units...  PLUS my 12 yo grand daughter study buddy and I got our Ham ticket in May 2021 so we have THE BEST OF BOTH WORLDS (GMRS and HAM).  FYI tonight we will do our first Ham DMR Net night for the first time...  This is a great venture and it all started with GMRS and so take one of your kids, grand kids or other kids who what to be the study buddy like my 12 yo grand daughter and I did...  O we are make our directional antenna $26 cost this weekend as we will go on a Fox Hunt to find other radios signals... like lost people, very cool.

I have my Ham ticket but we started with a GMRS for family use and later a GMRS repeater for family/neighbors/friends.  Added to this I first purchase two KG-805G which the girls like for it small size and easy of use in being programed with CHIRP as I have a Mac and access to an old XP PC.  I also have a KG-905G which is a great radio and the custom scan is the best.  I can't wait to see how the KG-935G works.  

So all this to say, radios change and you have to make sure you are on the correct path as to how you pick your radio.  I have no regret with my first purchase of the KG-805G good starter radio and sold one of the two.  I have last one on sale on eBay..  https://www.ebay.com/itm/154568409068 with a bonus.... adding the battery eliminator $11 value. 

So as soon as I get my KG-935G, I will start a new Post to follow and new owners of KG-935G can add comments give me some new creature features and functions as I may have missed some. 

Can not wait...   

MacJack

[MozartMan]

14 hours ago, pcradio said:

These units are new to market. Anyone have the KG-UV9G and can explain the differences as offered by the newer KG-935G?

I have UV9G. I took a quick look at 935G.

Two quick differences:

1. UV9G has three PF buttons, 935G - two PF buttons
2. UV9G is pre-programmed for about 900 channels for SHTF scenario (as SHTF scanner), 935G - only pre-programmed for 30 GMRS channels

 

[mbrun]

One minor difference is that the 935G display will be a tad easier to read outdoors than the 9G. This not because of different display technology, but because of the different color schemes available combined with increased brightness. Like the 8H, the display is oriented horizontally and shows large text in the active transceiver area larger than the other area which also is of some help. While these fancy displays are not my ideal for an outdoor-use radio, at least there is some improvement here.

With regards to SHTF channels, this should be an easy thing to overcome if it is truly a need. We just need one person to create a suitable code plug and upload it somewhere for public use. I would image RTSystems will also be making software for this radio which should result in easier customization.

Having had the benefit of evaluating an engineering sample of the radio many months ago, I think many will like the feature set and improved menu system. Better organized, making it easier to use. Related functions are more closely grouped together and more commonly used functions grouped earlier in the menu rotation.

The radio takes the same form-factor as the 905G which means that batteries will be interchangeable. That will certainly be a consideration and benefit for some.

The 9G MAY have slightly better receive performance than the 935G, but that will need to be confirmed against production units. Subjectively speaking, the 9P (on which 9G is based) seemed to have a slight edge over the 935G when listening to signals on the absolute fringe of reception. As always, the real test is in how it performs in a higher-noise environment than where I live.

One thing that should be obvious now is that Wouxun seems to be taking the GMRS market seriously which I think is good news for those of us using the service. I anticipate, and I am hopeful for, even more and perhaps even higher performing products in the future.

On an off-the-subject note, can anyone explain why Midland has chosen to stay out of the repeater capable GMRS HT market? OK, don’t answer that. That is speculation that belongs in a different thread.

Perhaps I will have more to share after I have received a production unit.


Michael
WRHS965
KE8PLM

[pcradio]

I think the KG-935G looks very good and very serious. Its nice to see user experience being taken in to consideration for how the products will actually be used.

[wayoverthere]

2 hours ago, pcradio said:

I think the KG-935G looks very good and very serious. Its nice to see user experience being taken in to consideration for how the products will actually be used.

Agreed. I think it's a couple vendors that are working with wouxun and going the extra mile to get user feedback and get that incorporated into updated/future products. I know I see buytwowayradios active in r/gmrs, and fairly sure I've seen someone associated with bettersaferradio active as well.

 

[pcradio]

It appears that the KG-935G is SoC and does not make use of a superheterodyne receiver. How important a distinction is this? Notarubicon states that it helps the squelch to work, I suppose in noisy environments.

[OffRoaderX]

1 hour ago, pcradio said:

It appears that the KG-935G is SoC and does not make use of a superheterodyne receiver. How important a distinction is this? Notarubicon states that it helps the squelch to work, I suppose in noisy environments.

If there isnt a lot of RF noise/weak signals in your area you wont notice.. I'm a "SuperHet Snob" but I've been using my 935G for a few days now and abostively love it, SOC or not.

[TOM47]

7 hours ago, OffRoaderX said:

If there isnt a lot of RF noise/weak signals in your area you wont notice.. I'm a "SuperHet Snob" but I've been using my 935G for a few days now and abostively love it, SOC or not.

Just ordered one today to test!  said to ship 091021.

[pcradio]

I would prefer the KG-935G on appearance and function. Can someone test it back to back alongside the KG-UV9G so we can see the benefits of the superheterodyne? Inquiring minds want to know. Let's see the difference in action.

[WRNA236]

On 8/30/2021 at 8:42 AM, pcradio said:

It appears that the KG-935G is SoC and does not make use of a superheterodyne receiver. How important a distinction is this? Notarubicon states that it helps the squelch to work, I suppose in noisy environments.

tl:dr:

Some CCRs are really bad clinkers while others work reasonably well.  That's the same situation as anything coming out of China, though.  They'll make anything you ask them to make at whatever price point you want it to meet.  So read reviews and test reports on this (or any) radio.  If they work alright and seem well built then don't worry about the architecture.

 

Long answer:

Don't get wrapped around the axle about SoC or similarly the terms direct conversion, direct sampling, SDR, hybrid, double conversion, heterodyne, etc.  The words are thrown around indiscriminately.  Basically a good radio is a good radio no matter its architecture while a bad radio will be bad regardless.  The RDA1846 chip that most of these radios use can perform adequately if the design is sound otherwise.  It's one particular frequency agile wideband RF chip but not the only by far.  There's tons of them now, some that cover HF to SHF.  One I'm familiar with is an Analog Devices part that can TX and RX on 2x2 MIMO from 70 MHz to 6 GHz.  It's not something intended for cheap consumer HTs though.  The chip is $300 alone and a drop-in SoM (System on a Module) is $1,600...

You might generalize saying it's easier to make a straight superheterodyne radio that performs fine but is less expensive.  Mostly it's reliability and build quality that suffers.  After decades of engineering churn there's not much fat left to cut in the fundamental architecture to significantly improve performance so all you're left with is using cheaper components.  So it won't last as long being tossed around but the actual RF performance is indistinguishable otherwise.   But such a radio is inflexible and doesn't lend itself to adaption to something else.

DSP techniques are still evolving and proprietary.  So there's a lot more ways to screw up a direct conversion radio.  Algorithms and firmware are where established companies (Motorola, Harris, Yaesu, Kenwood, whomever) can really distance themselves from competitors.  Motorola is probably using direct conversion in the XPR7000 and EVX models and it works well.  But then again no one other than Motorola knows really what is inside their ASICs to know for sure.

But the guts don't matter, they aren't able to bend the laws of economics, physics or engineering.  What matters is where the rubber meets the road - does it work or not?  And if they can do it other companies can, too.  In fact Harris builds most of the high performance, high reliability radios for the military and one portable example, the AN/PRC-152 (Falcon III), is a highly frequency nimble (covers 30-512 MHz and 762-870 MHz without gaps) 5 watt TX SDR that can do several analog and digital modes, some of which (like APCO-25, amongst other things) were added with a firmware upgrade after the radio was accepted and put into service. 

That sort of flexibility is why SDR is where it's at.  The reason these CCRs proliferate is once a basic design is done they can adapt it to just about anything.  That comes with up- and downsides.  They can just make them faster and cheaper or they can add interesting form factors or features, whatever.  And even heterodyne architecture have DSP, so the line isn't really that distinct to say this-or-that.

If you're still interested after that diatribe you can start digging into the engineering behind various architectures and RF generally here: https://analog.intgckts.com/wireless-receiver-architectures/

[TOM47]

32 minutes ago, WRNA236 said:

tl:dr:

Some CCRs are really bad clinkers while others work reasonably well.  That's the same situation as anything coming out of China, though.  They'll make anything you ask them to make at whatever price point you want it to meet.  So read reviews and test reports on this (or any) radio.  If they work alright and seem well built then don't worry about the architecture.

 

Long answer:

Don't get wrapped around the axle about SoC or similarly the terms direct conversion, direct sampling, SDR, hybrid, double conversion, heterodyne, etc.  The words are thrown around indiscriminately.  Basically a good radio is a good radio no matter its architecture while a bad radio will be bad regardless.  The RDA1846 chip that most of these radios use can perform adequately if the design is sound otherwise.  It's one particular frequency agile wideband RF chip but not the only by far.  There's tons of them now, some that cover HF to SHF.  One I'm familiar with is an Analog Devices part that can TX and RX on 2x2 MIMO from 70 MHz to 6 GHz.  It's not something intended for cheap consumer HTs though.  The chip is $300 alone and a drop-in SoM (System on a Module) is $1,600...

You might generalize saying it's easier to make a straight superheterodyne radio that performs fine but is less expensive.  Mostly it's reliability and build quality that suffers.  After decades of engineering churn there's not much fat left to cut in the fundamental architecture to significantly improve performance so all you're left with is using cheaper components.  So it won't last as long being tossed around but the actual RF performance is indistinguishable otherwise.   But such a radio is inflexible and doesn't lend itself to adaption to something else.

DSP techniques are still evolving and proprietary.  So there's a lot more ways to screw up a direct conversion radio.  Algorithms and firmware are where established companies (Motorola, Harris, Yaesu, Kenwood, whomever) can really distance themselves from competitors.  Motorola is probably using direct conversion in the XPR7000 and EVX models and it works well.  But then again no one other than Motorola knows really what is inside their ASICs to know for sure.

But the guts don't matter, they aren't able to bend the laws of economics, physics or engineering.  What matters is where the rubber meets the road - does it work or not?  And if they can do it other companies can, too.  In fact Harris builds most of the high reliability radios for the military and one portable example, the AN/PRC-152 (Falcon III), is a highly frequency nimble (covers 30-512 MHz and 762-870 MHz without gaps) 5 watt TX SDR that can do several analog and digital modes, some of which (like APCO-25, amongst other things) were added with a firmware upgrade after the radio was accepted and put into service.  That sort of flexibility is why SDR is where it's at.  The reason these CCRs proliferate is once a basic design is done they can adapt it to just about anything.  That comes with up- and downsides.  They can just make them faster and cheaper or they can add interesting form factors or features, whatever. 
 

WELL STATED!

[plarkinjr]

I have a KG-935G and wonder if I'm missing something.   It seems you can only scan on the "active" band/area.  What I would like to do is put area "B" into scanning, and then switch to area "A", making it "main" and then changing channels, transmitting, maybe even scan a different group, etc etc, all while area "B" keeps scanning.   This does not seem possible.      Is such a thing possible with the KG-UV9Gpro?

[WyoJoe]

4 hours ago, plarkinjr said:

I have a KG-935G and wonder if I'm missing something.   It seems you can only scan on the "active" band/area.  What I would like to do is put area "B" into scanning, and then switch to area "A", making it "main" and then changing channels, transmitting, maybe even scan a different group, etc etc, all while area "B" keeps scanning.   This does not seem possible.      Is such a thing possible with the KG-UV9Gpro?

I have the KG-UV9G Lite, and can scan from either or both A and B "bands" at the same time.

[TOM47]

34 minutes ago, WyoJoe said:

I have the KG-UV9G Lite, and can scan from either or both A and B "bands" at the same time.

SO CAN MY KG-935G!  JUST TO BE SURE I TESTED SCANNING BOTH A & B AT THE SAME TIME JUST NOW START THE SCAN FOR EACH BAND AS ACTIVE.

[plarkinjr]

1 hour ago, TOM47 said:

SO CAN MY KG-935G!  JUST TO BE SURE I TESTED SCANNING BOTH A & B AT THE SAME TIME JUST NOW START THE SCAN FOR EACH BAND AS ACTIVE.

OK, so what is the magic incantation?   I'm on "B", press & hold "*" to start scan, then press [BAND] to switch to "A", but all that happens is "scan stop" on "B".  Press [BAND] again to switch to "A", then "*" to scan.   Press [BAND] to switch to "B", but it only does "scan stop".     How do I switch from "A" to "B" without stopping the scan?

[WyoJoe]

21 minutes ago, plarkinjr said:

OK, so what is the magic incantation?   I'm on "B", press & hold "*" to start scan, then press [BAND] to switch to "A", but all that happens is "scan stop" on "B".  Press [BAND] again to switch to "A", then "*" to scan.   Press [BAND] to switch to "B", but it only does "scan stop".     How do I switch from "A" to "B" without stopping the scan?

On my KG-UV9G Lite, this happens if the TDR option is selected. If I press TDR to turn it off, then it will allow me to scan the active band, and when I press the "Band" button, I can then scan the other (now active) band while the first band continues to scan.

[TOM47]

4 hours ago, plarkinjr said:

OK, so what is the magic incantation?   I'm on "B", press & hold "*" to start scan, then press [BAND] to switch to "A", but all that happens is "scan stop" on "B".  Press [BAND] again to switch to "A", then "*" to scan.   Press [BAND] to switch to "B", but it only does "scan stop".     How do I switch from "A" to "B" without stopping the scan?

I HAVE NO IDEA WHY YOURS DOES THAT!

[DownEastNC]

6 hours ago, plarkinjr said:

OK, so what is the magic incantation?   I'm on "B", press & hold "*" to start scan, then press [BAND] to switch to "A", but all that happens is "scan stop" on "B".  Press [BAND] again to switch to "A", then "*" to scan.   Press [BAND] to switch to "B", but it only does "scan stop".     How do I switch from "A" to "B" without stopping the scan?

I'm here just to say my KG-935G does the same thing. The user manual says that pressing any other key except the Up / Down keys will stop the scan. I'm thinking that the intentions are to allow a scan in one area and just a single channel in the other area, with the scan area being the "Main" area. If you get some chatter on your single channel, switch the Main to that area thus stopping scanning, take care of business on the single channel, then switch main back again to the scan, re-initiate the scan, then go again.

[IanM]

The 935G and UV8H do not have dual scan; I don't believe the product literature says it does anywhere. No way to switch to a different slot while scanning, since, as mentioned, pressing any key stops scanning. Bit of a pain. Some LMR radios will let you set a channel to default to on PTT while scanning, and the dual-display would otherwise be a nice way to replicate that.

But I believe the UV9 series is the only one that allows you to scan in the 'background' so to speak. Something mentioned specifically on the sales pages as an upgrade over the UV8 models.

 

One workaround is to set the top soft key as PTT on the secondary frequency. It'll still stop scanning but let you switch back to the static channel a little quicker.

[SemperFiGuy]

I have both of these radios and find both to be formidable in the world of GMRS Handie Talkies.  There are a number of good posts above explaining some of the physical and cosmetic differences between the radios.  Probably the most significant difference between the two is the fact that the 935G uses SoC (radio or software on a chip) technology, while the 9G utilizes dual superhetrodyne technology, thus making it much more sensitive especially on receiving signals.

I am very happy with both radios and essentially use them interchangeably.  When I'm in the house at night I put on my Nagoya 771G antenna, and continue being able to receive/transmit to my two nearby (15 miles away) local repeaters.  (The 935G has a female receptor for the antenna so you need a male sma connector on the Nagoya 771G for this radio).  (The 9G has a male receptor for the antenna so you need a female connector on the Nagoya 771G antenna).  What ever happened to uniformity ?  

In any event, you cannot make a mistake in owning/running either of these radios.  As mentioned earlier, they are formidable.  See WRNA236's post above.  Good analysis there.

[mbrun]

Having measured the sensitivity of the KG935G and KGUV9P I can and say that the base sensitivity of my subjects was about the same. But in side-by-side real-world practice, the weakest signals always seem to be reproduced with less noise and audio a bit more clear on the 9P. I bring up the 9P because I believe it to be identical to the 9G except for the part 95e firmware. I will take the menus, keypad and display of the 935 over the 9.

For what its worth.


Michael
WRHS965
KE8PLM

[gman1971]

On 9/2/2021 at 1:21 PM, WRNA236 said:

tl:dr:

Some CCRs are really bad clinkers while others work reasonably well.  That's the same situation as anything coming out of China, though.  They'll make anything you ask them to make at whatever price point you want it to meet.  So read reviews and test reports on this (or any) radio.  If they work alright and seem well built then don't worry about the architecture.

 

Long answer:

Don't get wrapped around the axle about SoC or similarly the terms direct conversion, direct sampling, SDR, hybrid, double conversion, heterodyne, etc.  The words are thrown around indiscriminately.  Basically a good radio is a good radio no matter its architecture while a bad radio will be bad regardless.  The RDA1846 chip that most of these radios use can perform adequately if the design is sound otherwise.  It's one particular frequency agile wideband RF chip but not the only by far.  There's tons of them now, some that cover HF to SHF.  One I'm familiar with is an Analog Devices part that can TX and RX on 2x2 MIMO from 70 MHz to 6 GHz.  It's not something intended for cheap consumer HTs though.  The chip is $300 alone and a drop-in SoM (System on a Module) is $1,600...

You might generalize saying it's easier to make a straight superheterodyne radio that performs fine but is less expensive.  Mostly it's reliability and build quality that suffers.  After decades of engineering churn there's not much fat left to cut in the fundamental architecture to significantly improve performance so all you're left with is using cheaper components.  So it won't last as long being tossed around but the actual RF performance is indistinguishable otherwise.   But such a radio is inflexible and doesn't lend itself to adaption to something else.

DSP techniques are still evolving and proprietary.  So there's a lot more ways to screw up a direct conversion radio.  Algorithms and firmware are where established companies (Motorola, Harris, Yaesu, Kenwood, whomever) can really distance themselves from competitors.  Motorola is probably using direct conversion in the XPR7000 and EVX models and it works well.  But then again no one other than Motorola knows really what is inside their ASICs to know for sure.

But the guts don't matter, they aren't able to bend the laws of economics, physics or engineering.  What matters is where the rubber meets the road - does it work or not?  And if they can do it other companies can, too.  In fact Harris builds most of the high performance, high reliability radios for the military and one portable example, the AN/PRC-152 (Falcon III), is a highly frequency nimble (covers 30-512 MHz and 762-870 MHz without gaps) 5 watt TX SDR that can do several analog and digital modes, some of which (like APCO-25, amongst other things) were added with a firmware upgrade after the radio was accepted and put into service. 

That sort of flexibility is why SDR is where it's at.  The reason these CCRs proliferate is once a basic design is done they can adapt it to just about anything.  That comes with up- and downsides.  They can just make them faster and cheaper or they can add interesting form factors or features, whatever.  And even heterodyne architecture have DSP, so the line isn't really that distinct to say this-or-that.

If you're still interested after that diatribe you can start digging into the engineering behind various architectures and RF generally here: https://analog.intgckts.com/wireless-receiver-architectures/

Yes, the XPR Generation 2 and above use Rodinia, a direct conversion architecture. Comparing the XPR direct conversion with CCR direct conversion seems a bit too much of a stretch. That is misleading beginners into thinking that they will be getting something close enough in performance to an XPR, when in reality, it couldn't be further from the truth, you get a CCR not an XPR. The same thing applies to the AN/PRC-152, those radios are not to be compared to CCRs just because they might, or might not share just one premise in the architecture design, but the rest is still just that, a CCR.

The EVX-5xxx radios from Vertex Standard use a dual conversion superheterodyne architecture, but the 2nd stage has components from the Rodinia architecture. The EVX-S24 uses Rodinia lite architecture, but what exactly that means, it is anyone's guess.

Totally agree with your statement: "once basic design is done, they can adapt it to just about anything" which is has lead us to where we are now. A bunch of equally mediocre radios.

All CCRs are in generally very low performing radios, some less than others, and as such they used to be priced accordingly. However, now the prices have gone up, but the performance hasn't changed, which is expected from radios that probably cost a few dollar to make, at the most. So, buy at your own peril, but given that CCR prices are rising, I would strongly advice to find used Motorola/Vertex/Kenwood/Icom LMR gear on places like eBay and use that for GMRS... don't be afraid of buying used equipment, it works too!

G.

[gman1971]

8 hours ago, mbrun said:

Having measured the sensitivity of the KG935G and KGUV9P I can and say that the base sensitivity of my subjects was about the same. But in side-by-side real-world practice, the weakest signals always seem to be reproduced with less noise and audio a bit more clear on the 9P. I bring up the 9P because I believe it to be identical to the 9G except for the part 95e firmware. I will take the menus, keypad and display of the 935 over the 9.

For what its worth.


Michael
WRHS965
KE8PLM

Sensitivity is only part of the story, which is abused to sell inferior radios like Wouxun, et. all, under the guise of impressive numbers. All manufacturers usually post this figure, trying to fool people into believing their radios have the same or better Motorola sensitivity figures, like the XPR in DMR has 0.14uV at 5% BER, and in FM has 0.16uV at 12dB SINAD. So the CCRs are quick to post equally impressive numbers... but that isn't much different than GMRS bubble pack radios claiming 36 mile range... empty claims. What really separates a piece of trash CCR radio from a top performer like the XPR is the ability to keep such sensitivity levels during normal daily operation under as many different RF environments as possible without either desensing (losing sensitivitiy) or causing intermod (other signals are mixed into your desired signal).

That figure, what determines how good a radio really is, its called receiver dynamic sensitivity, or effective sensitivity: which is how much the advertised sensitivity decreases when other radios, equipment, LED fixtures, solar PV panels, electric motors, power supplies, angry RF firebreathing 1400 foot towers ... are blasting RF energy nearby. Most CCR trash will lose about 40 dB of that sensitivity just by being turned on, why? because even if you don't see it or hear it on the radio, b/c you are not tuned to these frequencies, these strong RF signals still exist, and the radio receiver is getting overwhelmed with all these super strong RF signals, so, its like being at a rock concert near the speakers without any hear protection, so what do you do? you cover your ears so your eardrums don't explode, and thus you can't hear anything... the Motorola radios have ear protection built in, so they can hear you just fine. Turns out that ear protection, or front end filtering as its called, costs a lot of money! who knew. 

Then there is intermod, which is usually present in super-heterodyne conversion receivers due to the mixing of frequencies and lack of filtering, so we are back to the hear protection analogy, so how much narrow/wide filtering is on the intermediate stages of the conversions?, and since most of those cheap pieces of trash dual conversion super-heterodyne radios don't have any, you have your friendly local NOAA popping or getting mixed randomly in your channel. 

In the end, none of this matters, we can repeat the above paragraphs until pigs fly... people will still buy trash radios under the premise they are getting a good deal, but then it seems it might be better to just tell people to keep buying the garbage radios so I can keep buying the good ones from auction sites at ridiculously cheap prices... works for me!

Cheers.

G.