Jump to content
Steve Herschbach

Fisher CZX Metal Detector "Ground Breaking Technology"

Recommended Posts

Nevada Brian    89

Sure, digging square nails, boot tacks and wire can be annoying, especially on a hot day when the mosquitos wont leave you alone.  But, I have on many occasions found a nugget in the same hole as iron trash.  Some detectorist in my group dig every target even though they know the target is probably iron, but by doing this many ounces of gold and a few specimen pieces have been found that was otherwise hidden by iron.  What we need is a gold magnet on the end of our picks :)

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Steve Herschbach    7,495

The dig it all theory does point to the fact that if you dig everything you can find lots of gold. I would not disagree, but I have also dug pounds of gold while running a good discriminating VLF, digging nuggets while other guys are digging nails.

It is not that we need 100% one method or 100% the other method. We need both tools available and at our disposal to use as we see fit for the given time and place. Me having a better discrimination option does not prevent me from digging everything if I have the time and patience for it.

  • Like 2

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
Digger Jones    36
On 8/27/2016 at 9:38 AM, Sourdough Scott said:

Waiting Fisher, 2016 is nearly over. 

Those rumors are over a year old. I'm beginning to think that rumors are all that they were!

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
Rick Kempf    241

If developing kick-a** new technology metal detectors was easy, then we would have them from many manufacturers every few years.

to develop a new platform from scratch, even without a new technology, costs a lot of enginerring and developmnet dollars. If I had to guess, I would estimate that it would take about 7-10 man-years of so called "non recurring engineering" or "NRE".  That can easily cost $1 - $2 million.  A big chunk of change for a company whose annual gross revenue might only be in the tens of millions.

You have to have some idea that is really exciting in terms of future sales to get management backing for a project like that.  The fact is that sometimes small teams in small companies (and all of the metal detector companies are small companies) run into roadblocks - or sometimes opportunities that can easly add a year to the project.

2016 for a new Fisher?  Well, there's always next year. Dave Johnson, Carl Moreland and the rest of the team are still on the payroll and I suspect that they aren't just designing new pink cammo schemes for kids detectors.

we'll see.



  • Like 3

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
Steve Herschbach    7,495

Minelab GPZ19 coil running late. XP DEUS V4 update and accessories running late. New Garrett ATX coils running late. CZX running late - just like everything else. Most detectorists are optimists and I guess the same can be said for metal detector engineers.

Just go metal detecting enough and time will fly!

  • Like 1

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
Rick Kempf    241

Looks like the easy stuff has been done - the hard stuff is all that's left!

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
Elbert    0

Been lurking here for quite some time. Great site with allot of information. Not many can match it.

Has there been in new news on these two detectors ?  I'm interested in both for salt water beach and relic hunting here on the Central Coast Section (Monterey Bay Area) of California.

Thanks for any info.




Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
Steve Herschbach    7,495

Hi Elbert, and welcome to the forum. No new information that I am aware of beyond the fact that 2016 is slipping by with no sign of an introduction. Delays happen for many reasons in the detector industry to the point where I think they can just be expected. Personally I like rumors and speculation but ultimately I just believe them when I see them.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
Mxt Sniper    55

Been doing some thinking on the new Fisher CZX, they say 9-1 frequency ratio, well why not build it at least say 71 khz high frequency with a low of 7.88khz frequency, so it mimics the Gold Bug 2 for tiny gold detection with its high freq, or even better do 80khz high and 8.88 khz low freq if its possible to do in the electronics. We all know the success of the GB2 over other vlf detectors due to this high khz.

Deus seems to be coming out with a high freq coil of 80 khz elliptical soon which I think is a great idea. However their detector is single freq, so the CZX should possibly  be able to walk all over the Deus for deeper gold as well as grain size  gold at the surface, between the two freqs working at the same time and the new form of ground balance they speak of.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Similar Content

    • By Steve Herschbach
      Looks funny but there is not far between this video and a decent beach detector at least. Just need the digger scoop arm on the back. Kind of like turning a Roomba loose on the beach!
    • By MikePfeiffer
      Steve, your a great source for unbiased information. I trust your opinion greatly.  Don't fret over what just happened. Many many people view you as a great resource.
      As you know I have been metal detecting for 30 years. I still consider myself a newbie. However, it is with the same old machine. Back when I purchased my machine we were told it will detect everything, it's a do all machine. I new of prospecting machines, but never knew the difference or seen the demand until I came to this forum. So if you have time, please answer these question. I am going to throw these out as I don't really know how to ask the correct question. What if the difference in a gold machine vs a regular machine? What makes them stand out? I know there is a frequency difference, but what make them stand on when looking for gold? Are they just not tuned for gold?
    • By mn90403
      I got my first metal detector in 1986.  It was a White's Coin Master 6000 DI Pro.  I bought it because I live near the beach and a friend of mine had a friend who was selling them.  I didn't know much about detectors and I used it on the beach in the dry sand only for about 3 years before life happened and I put it away.  I didn't get another detector until 2010 and it was a ML 5000.  Now that I had it I had to start learning about the desert and more about metal detectors.
      One of the first things that I 'noticed' about a detector is that you don't have to be directly over a target to hear it.  You get a sense for a target by coming close.  You get a bigger sense for an aluminum can than you do a quarter for instance.  I've searched and searched over the years for a way to describe this near to target sense which is much greater in the 5000 (PI) and the 7000  (ZVT) than with the Coin Master (VLF).
      Today I was reading an email from Kellyco who is the company that services most Minelabs in the United States.  They also sell most other detectors and give advice to their customers.  The email that I received led me to a reprint of an article: How Metal Detectors Work Reprinted with permission from Modern Metal Detectors.  The full article is here: https://www.kellycodetectors.com/catalog/how-metal-detectors-work#more
      In that article it uses the term Fringe Area Detection and that gave definition to what I had been trying to describe for years.  I had tried to say a coil is like a Nerf ball with many targets off the search area and you are drawn to a target like a moth to a flame.  As it turns out this is just 'fringe area detection' which lets us push our detectors to much greater finds.  I think you will see how many times we have discussed this part of metal detecting without using this term.  The fringe area on my 7000 is larger than the illustration shown.  Here is what the article says about fringe area detection:
      Fringe Area Detection
      Fringe area detection is a phenomenon of detection, the understanding of which will result in your being able to discover metal targets to the maximum depth capability of any instrument. The detection pattern for a coin may extend, say, one foot below the search coil. The detection pattern for a small jar of coins may extend, perhaps, two feet below the search coil as illustrated in the drawing on the facing page. Within the area of the detection pattern, an unmistakable detector signal is produced.
      This illustration shows the location and approximate proportional size of the fringe detection area in which faint target signals from around the outer edges of a normal detection pattern can be heard.
      What about outside the detection pattern? Does detection take place? Yes, but the signals are too weak to be discerned by the operator except in the fringe area around the outer edges of the detection pattern as shown in the drawing above. A good set of headphones is a must, if you desire to hear fringe area signals. The next more important thing, is training in the art of discerning the faint whispers of sound that occur in the fringe area. Skill in fringe area detection can be developed with practice, training, concentration and faith in your ability. Develop fringe area detection ability to a fine art and you are on your way to some great discoveries that many detector operators will miss. The ability to hear fringe area signals results in greatly improved metal detection efficiency and success.
    • By LipCa
      Every since you posted that you lose depth when you ground balance, It is in the back of my mind........
      "Ground balancing is a filter and not all that different that the way the discrimination system works. The ground signal or salt signal (or both) are identified and then tuned out. The ground effect is still there, but the detector subtracts it from the overall signal. The key word there is "subtracts". Ground balance methods work by subtracting part of the signal, and all subtractive methods create depth losses of some sort the closer any detected item gets to the "hole" created by subtracting the ground or salt signal. Signals are not perfect but spread over a small range, and so eliminating any signal usually means taking out a small range of signals. "
      I have always tried to keep my detectors ground balanced while using them.... Now I wonder if I should?
      Can you put my mind at ease......
    • By Senior Grappa
      If somebody has offered you at option: 1. to reduce the weight of your favourite detector by half 2. to increase its depth by 10% What would you choose?
    • By Jonathan Porter
      So far there has been no real “direct” reviews of the QED, in effect just innuendo clouded by politics, which is not helpful. 
      With the help of a friend I've just finished some testing of the QED and want to share our impressions here in the hopes of getting the ball rolling for some quality discussions (but maybe this is being too optimistic?) We hope and believe our tests were rigorously objective, the QED was used for general gold hunting and also comprehensively tested on buried real gold pieces of various sizes in a variety of soils, considerable care was taken to ensure no placebo/bias.*
      We deliberately tested on only frequently detected but historically very productive public fields, not private property in which it can be relatively easy to find gold using any technology due to only ever seeing a few detectorists.
      First and foremost, important details of the QED's method of operation that are different to other detectors which needs to be clearly understood:
      Unlike Minelab detectors, the QED has a “dead zone” that can be varied using the Volume control. The threshold is set using the Bias control and has 2 different audio threshold settings, an upper and a lower value. When the Bias is turned down in number below the threshold lower value, OR, turned up in number above the upper threshold value, the “Threshold” audio increases as per usual.
      Suppose for example, the lower audio threshold bias value of the Bias control happens to be 50 and the upper threshold bias number happens to be 60. Then if the Bias is turned down below 50 OR turned up above 60, the audio “threshold” level increases as per usual. For these threshold examples, 50 and 60, small gold (fast time constant targets) “in effect” produce signals less than 55 (half way between 50 and 60), and larger gold “in effect” produce signals more than 55.
      If the Bias is set at the lower threshold limit, 50 for example, then the detection of small gold will give the usual INCREASE in audio level response, and larger gold will give a BELOW threshold level response,
      If Bias is set at the higher threshold limit, 60 for example, then the detection of larger gold will give the usual INCREASE in audio level response, and smaller gold will give a BELOW audio threshold level response.
      Similarly with ground noise; some ground noise will in effect produce signals below 55, so that if the Bias is set at 50, this ground noise will give an increase in audio sound, but if the Bias is set at 60, this ground noise will give a below threshold audio response. Conversely, if the ground noise is in effect above 55, then if the Bias is set at 50, this ground noise will give a below threshold audio, but if Bias is set at 60, this ground noise will give an increase in audio level.
      Signals in effect BETWEEN 50 and 60 are in the “dead-zone,” for which the audio is below threshold. Signals in effect below 50 OR above 60 give an increase in audio.
      So if threshold is set at the lower threshold of 50, then faint signals from small gold will give an above threshold audio, and large targets a below threshold audio. Whereas its the opposite for the upper threshold of 60, faint signals from large gold will give an above threshold audio, and small targets below threshold audio. So for shallow small gold select the lower threshold limit, for big deeper gold select the upper threshold limit. Bigger target signals will produce above threshold signals regardless of whether they are small or larger targets.
      However the Volume control controls the dead-zone width; the gap between the upper and lower threshold Bias settings, that is, the dead zone gap is increased by turning the Volume down, or decreased by turning the Volume up.
      In fact the QED can be set to operate with NO dead-zone (like the usual Minelab PI audio).
      To do this:
      a.    Vary the Bias between the upper and lower threshold. Note the gap.
      b.     Increase volume a bit.
      c.    Re-do a. and note the decrease in the gap.
      d.    Continue to repeat a, b, c until there is no gap.
      (This will allow some feel for true ground noise etc.)
      However the QED audio has a very low level signal EVEN if below threshold, This below threshold faint audio signal is just the pitch signal only, and detects all signals, ground noise, target signals, whether long time constant or short, and EMI. But this below threshold pitch sensitivity is not as acute as the audio set at threshold per point 2 below, and it is very soft.
      Yet even further, if a target or ground noise (or EMI) does drive the audio below threshold, the nature of the audio is that it has the usual “re-bound” response once the coil has moved over and past the target or ground noise. I refer to the lower pitch audio following the initial target higher pitch audio (“high-low”) or the opposite; the higher pitch audio following the initial target lower pitch audio (“low-high”) effect known from Minelab PI's. So for moderately weak target signals that cause the audio to dip below threshold once the coil moves beyond the target and the audio then rebounds above threshold. To recap; for these targets, as the coil passes over the target the audio goes first below threshold THEN above the threshold. 
      However for the fainter of these target signals (the important signals one listens for in thrashed ground), this rebound signal is hard to discern compared to the same signal that would occur if the Bias had been set at the alternative threshold setting for which the audio signal then would have given an initial increase in threshold as the coil passes over it and then a below threshold rebound. Therefore, it is important to understand that you EITHER need to set the Bias to chase the faint small targets in shallow ground (Bias at the lower number setting), but lose out a bit on the faint large target signals OR set the Bias to chase the faint larger targets in deeper ground (Bias at the higher number threshold setting) but lose out a bit on the smaller targets.
      The QED has a “motion” audio response; meaning the coil has to be moved to hear a signal. It can be operated both quickly, and also, remarkably slowly. If the coil is moved “remarkably” slowly it is possible to hear the average audio detect a very faint target above the audio “background random chatter”, considerably more readily than if the coil was moved at a typical realistic operational speed. When depth testing and when you know where the target is, beware that you do not slow down the coil swing to an artificial unnatural swing speed to enable the detection of a deep target at its known location.*
      Important recommendations:
      1.     It's very important to get the threshold (Bias) spot on for optimal results, If the threshold level is too high, then faint signals get drowned out, but if the audio threshold level is too low then only the residual very faint pitch signal remains, but this faint pitch only signal is less sensitive to target signals than the audio set optimally as per point 2 immediately following.
      2.     The threshold must be set so that it is just audible; in effect just immediately below the “real” audio threshold signal, so that what you are hearing is just between only the pitch signal and actual above threshold audio.
      3.     Note that the effective principal threshold control (Bias) is temperature dependent and requires reasonably frequent adjustment over time as the ambient temperature changes to get best results. Therefore there is NO actual specific optimal Bias number setting, rather it entirely depends on temperature. It can be as high as 70 in very hot conditions 
      4.  Once 2. and 3. are optimally achieved, you will find that the GB setting has to be spot on for best results. If you find that it is not critical, you really need to re-address points 2. and 3.
      5.  The QED does produce ground noise that sounds on occasion like a target. If you aren't digging some ground noise you do not have it set up properly, especially in variable soils. With ANY detector (automatic GB or Manual) altering the GB setting slightly to eliminate a faint “deep target-like signal” will result in eliminating the faint signal whether it is ground noise OR in fact a deep real metal target.
      6.  You need to listen to the soft “subliminal” threshold of the QED very carefully, quality headphones are a must.
      7.  “Gain” acts as a sensitivity control as you would expect.
      I suggest that the QED is best used as a specialist very fine (Small) gold detector. It produced a reasonably clear but quiet response to the extreme small gold (of the order of 0.1 g), we managed to find 5 tiny pieces in well-worked ground in all totaling 1 gram, although the SDC would have picked 5 of the 5, but not so well in one location due to power line noise (This could be remedied somewhat by lowering the Gain of the SDC and using minimal threshold). However, we purposely went over exactly the same ground with the SDC with the SDC set at a lower threshold and 3 on the gain, and then found 3 more pieces of gold; we are 100% sure we had already passed the QED exactly over the target locations so we put this down to QED ground noise masking targets. The QED struggles compared to the SDC in the more mineralised soils, however the QED does seem superior to the ATX.
      To get the most out of the QED, use a small coil such as an 8” Commander mono, and set the Mode as low as possible so long as the ground signals do not become too intrusive. Usually 1 or 2 is OK for Minelab coils, but some other coils may produce too much ground noise at this setting so you may need to increase the Mode to 3 or above dependent on the ground.
      Further, we got some very thin aluminium foil and very gradually trimmed it down until the SDC could no longer detect it. This represents particularly fast time constant targets (“extremely” small gold), and found that the QED did still detect it, but only within several mm of the coil surface, not further. But this does mean that the QED will detect extremely small shallow pieces that the SDC will not.
      Alternatively we suggest the QED is also a suitable lightweight low-cost patch hunter when used with a large coil with the Mode turned up so that there is less ground noise.
      For the sake of completion, to answer questions posed of the QED depth for an Australian 5 cent piece compared to the Zed  both using the same sized coils. We measured this carefully and we are not prepared to give exact figures to avoid any trivial arguments, other than to say that the QED detected between 60% to 2/3rd of the depth of the Z. 
      The QED susceptibility to EMI in areas remote from mains compared to the 5k on EMI noisy days? In one word: “Good.
      The QED susceptibility to mains in urban areas compared to the SDC or Zed? In two words: “Typically Bad.”
      The QED’s main strength is its cost, light weight, ergonomics, and simplicity of use, and yes it IS definitely simple to use, but a bit “fiddly.” It has no “magic settings” once you understand exactly how it operates as described above. Going back to the SDC really highlighted the difference a light weight detector can have on general comfort and enjoyment of detecting, and our experiences with the QED underscored Minelab's poor ergonomics.
      In our opinion the QED fits a market where people are looking for a cheap detector capable of finding small gold in thrashed areas, and are wanting more coil choices without the specialised "one size fits all" approach of the SDC. Good value for money.
      Its main weakness is its underlying ground noise, which although having the advantage of being “hidden” in the dead zone, nevertheless limits depth compared to lower ground noise capable detectors, for targets other than the very fast time constant targets. In summary it works relatively best in the less mineralised soils for small gold.
      Beyond the scope of the above suggested prospecting (very small gold & patch hunting mainly in relatively unmineralised soils), I choose not to comment further, other than we will not be using the QED for purposes other than secondary activities, and still intend to use other well-known detectors for primary prospecting activities because of their other advantages. 
      No doubt others with QED's will disagree with us. We welcome this, and would be happy to be proved wrong.
      Ultimately, time tells the truth by substantial gold finds or lack thereof in well-worked ground.
      *Note: because of the subtle audio, it is easy to imagine you are “hearing” a target above the general background ground noise when you know where it is. We endeavoured to avoid this tendency.