Jump to content
Steve Herschbach

Fisher CZX Metal Detector "Ground Breaking Technology"

Recommended Posts

I can say the new CZX  will have me hooked if it will meet or beat my TDI SL.

I've dug a lot of nice barbers since getting my SL.  Most are pounded areas and void of all good targets, or so I thought.

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On ‎6‎/‎1‎/‎2015 at 3:49 PM, Steve Herschbach said:

CZX - Fisher and Teknetics

  • This machine is ground breaking technology
  • Turn on and go
  • 2 frequency - 9:1 ratio
  • No need to ground balance or adjust the detector to the environment
  • It automatically senses the ground and makes changes accordingly.
  • First detector birthed from this platform is a gold unit priced around $1000, but deeper than current VLF, this detector will also see through red dirt, and highly mineralized soil.
  • From this platform other machines will develop. We intend to develop the CZX and MOSCA platforms to offer more machines in the $1000 to $2000 range than have ever been available.
  • Target release 2016
  • We have senior engineer Dave Johnson on this project

Still hoping for this to be released this year.  Two feature are a must for me, "see through red dirt, and highly mineralized soil" Can't imagine that will be accomplished (they had to start somewhere)with a VLF machine, but I can hope.  I've found a lot of nice gold and silver with my TDI SL and many times over with nails, so discrimination is a must for me.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem is First Texas is missing a window of opportunity if it takes too much longer. The new Minelab Gold Monster 1000 just took a big chunk out of the "turn on and go" gold detector market.

Presumably as a two frequency detector the CZX will bring something new to the table. So far engineers have chosen single frequency due to its ability to deliver more punch on targets in a specific conductive range. Dave's previous offering in this area, the CZ models, run at 5 kHz and 15 kHz, a 3:1 ratio. The CZX is claiming 9:1 and if the low end remained 5 kHz the upper end would be 45 kHz, a solid gold frequency.

So I am imagining a "hot CZ" but with the GM1000 at $799 with two coils and the TDI SL just reduced to $989 it's going to have to either reject ground better than the GM1000 or hit small gold better than the TDI SL. Nothing at all has been said about the discrimination capability of the CZX, if any. I took the announcement above as implying the first version might be all metal only with the mention of discrimination going missing like it is. This information is now so old however we really have no idea as to what final unit features may look like.

Time will tell, but hopefully not too much more time. Like you Mark I hope we see this detector this year. The First Texas model shuffling and price reductions seem to indicate this might be in the cards, but that could just as well be an attempt to keep the sales afloat while the new models undergo further refinement. Although this year would be nice my bet is now on 2018. Unless the project stalled entirely. Some good ideas just never come to fruition and the recent hire pointing to a renewed push by First Texas in the area of pulse induction might indicate this is just not working out.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ive been waiting for this beeper to come to the play field for sometime now-hopefully soon :blink:-when fisher puts something out its usually rock solid and hopefully upgrades will be offered like they did on the F75 series-Come on fisher :wink: Mike C...:ph34r:

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Any word from these projects?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sadly, no. I have bumped this from the "hopefully in 2017" to the "hopefully in 2018" column. There is however still a possibility of a late announcement in time for Christmas. The window is closing fast there however and if nothing happens by October then its probably game over for 2017.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sounds to me like Minelab is out to curb any sales by Fisher and new the CZX or other possible coin/jewelry machines coming out new in their product line in the near future, Minelab is releasing a new detector in UK in Sept, they claim this new machine will obsolete all current VLF detectors??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Mxt Sniper said:

Minelab is releasing a new detector in UK in Sept, they claim this new machine will obsolete all current VLF detectors??

That's a shame. Seems like I just got my Gold Monster and it's already obsolete.

The Nokta Impact is also "the most powerful all-around metal detector ever made!"

Nothing like over the top marketing :laugh:

Timing is everything however and there is no doubt Fisher being late to market has left room open for the Garrett AT Max and whatever Minelab has up their sleeve. There appears to be nothing else on the horizon for the fall.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Shame for sure.  This market seems to be more complex than first thought.  If a company releases something far better than the norm it will take the market by storm.  Now that is what I'm hoping for from 1st Texas.

Minelab must have a huge engineering department to put out new products so quickly in response to their competitors.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Metal detector models are years in the pipeline, so companies are responding to each other far less than people imagine. Things more often than not appear simply because they finally got done enough to release, nothing more.

First Texas has a large engineering staff, and if you add Bounty Hunter, Fisher, and Teknetics up they have not been lacking for "new" detectors. Admittedly however most seem to just be older models under a new label i.e. Fisher F70 rebranded as Teknetics Patriot. 

2006 - Teknetics T2

2007 - Fisher F75

2008 - Fisher F70

2010 - Fisher Gold Bug (Digital)

2014 - Fisher F19

Most models since 2006 seem to be variants of these and other existing models.

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
      Subject came up elsewhere so I thought I would run a little poll. The poll only gives you two choices but if you want to post about what you think your number one most comfortable detector model has ever been that would be great. It could be a lousy detector in every other way, all I am looking for it what detectors feel best on your arm when held for long hours. There are no right or wrong answers - this is a personal preference thing, determined in large part by hand and forearm size.
      The "S" rod grip is where the grip is just part of the rod itself, not a separate element. The Post grip is a separate post attached to the rod. Lots of people call this a pistol grip, but that really is more about the shape of the grip. I have seen good pistol grips in an S rod design. There are also Post grips on S rods so it is not the S that makes for the S rod grip but the fact it is integrated into the S. The photos here make it more obvious. There is a difference simply between curved shafts and straight shafts but that is actually a separate subject so I will make a separate poll on it.

    • By Steve Herschbach
      When I started the GPZ 7000 thread at http://www.detectorprospector.com/forum/topic/1230-minelab-gpz-7000-the-controversy-ends/ it was for owners of the detectors who have had time on it to air their opinions. It became apparent lots of other people wanted to weigh in with their opinions.

      I am therefore starting this thread for everyone else who owns anything else or not to voice whatever opinions they have on the detectors or companies themselves. Say anything you want, no holds barred really, but it would be nice if it was kept constructive.

      I prefer myself to keep things upbeat and positive. It is just who I am and I have tried to keep the forum as a whole along those lines. But I do not want people to feel like certain opinions or viewpoints are not welcome and so this is the place for whatever opinions you may have about any detector manufacturer or their products. I am not going to get involved as long as people do not get personal.

      This in no way is my relenting on my overall expectations for the forum as a whole. There is a time and a place for everything however and going forward this is the thread on which to air suggestions, complaints, issues, or just plain gripes. Again, all I ask is keep it civil. Thank you.

      Just to get you going here are some new metal detector bumper stickers for you....

      First Texas - Even we don't know how many we make or what they're for!

      Garrett - We already made a flagship detector so quit asking for one.

      Minelab - The most hated name in detecting!

      Tesoro - Search for the past with detectors from the past.

      White's - Anything happen while we were sleeping?
    • By Steve Herschbach
      What we are discussing is usually called "Recovery Speed" by most manufacturers. From the White's XLT User Manual:
      "Recovery Speed - Speeds target responses, so several targets that are close together can each respond.
      When a metal is detected, it takes a fraction of a second for the detector to process the signal before it can respond to another metal target nearby. The time it takes to process the first metal target signal so that the second metal target signal can respond is called RECOVERY SPEED.
      There are advantages and disadvantages to fast (high numbers) and slow (low numbers) RECOVERY SPEEDS. Faster RECOVERY SPEEDs work well in high trash areas. However, they will have some difficulties with very deep targets as well as double responses on shallow targets. Slower RECOVERY SPEEDs do not work very well in high trash areas. However, they will have better responses on very deep targets. Slower speeds also have more definitive discrimination sounds. A custom setting needs to be found that suits the preferences of the individual and the conditions in the area. As a general rule, the closer together the metal targets are in an area, the faster the recovery speed should be. The more spacing between targets, the slower the speed should be. Don't use the fast speed if you don't need to.
      In very trashy areas it is recommended to switch to a loop smaller in size than the standard 9.5 inch black loop. Smaller loops offer better separation between targets. However, larger loops detect deeper and cover more area with each pass. RECOVERY SPEED combined with a smaller loop can be used to search severely trashy areas."
      Just to confuse people White's decided to call it "Recovery Delay" on the V3i. A low recovery delay equates to a fast recovery speed.
      From the White's V3i User Manual:
      "Recovery Delay - 1 – 200 200 = slowest. Additional and separate (beyond filtration) selection for the signal response time. Short response time benefits performance in high trash by providing better target separation. A longer response time allows a larger window to detect deeper targets. Ideal Recovery Delay is dependent on Ground Filter selection, ground mineralization, trash density, and your average sweep speed (how quickly you move the search coil)."
      It would seem detector manufacturers abhor standard terminology, even the same manufacturer! XP has decided to call Recovery Speed by an even newer term - Reactivity. From the Deus User Manual:

    • By Decanfrost
      Hi,
      Regarding the VLF detectors.Can someone answer for me what constitutes a VLF with good discrimination?.I feel to discriminate that speed is a factor as well.Otherwise no matter how good,if a target is next to iron it will read off a good hit.
      The Deus has fast reactivity,so is this now a good discriminator.Between ferrous and non ferrous?. How does this compare to say the Nokta Impact for speed discrimination.
      Thanks in advance
      Ash
    • By mn90403
      While looking around on the Minelab site I came across this article by Bruce Candy.  It will certainly be a re-read for some but for me it was a first.
      There is much more than just Minelab in the article.  It included ground balancing, discrimination, gold detectors, coin detectors and a host of other related issues with knowing some of the technology about target detecting.
      It doesn't yet include ZED technology but does explain why it is so hard to have a gold detector that discriminates.  (When you discriminate you lose targets!)
       
      http://www.minelab.com/__files/f/11043/KBA_METAL_DETECTOR_BASICS_&_THEORY.pdf
    • By Steve Herschbach
      This is an informal survey, just out of curiosity. For those of you who have been out prospecting in the last year (back to Sept 2014) and actually have found gold nuggets, what detector or detectors did you find the gold with? The poll is not meant to prove anything. I am just wondering what detectors are most commonly in use now for finding gold nuggets by those who are actually finding the gold.
       
      I am posting this on the most of the active US forums so please do not post your answer in more than one place. In a week I will compile all the answers from all the forums and post the results back to each one. Thanks in advance for you participation.
       
      I own a number of units but so far in the last year my gold was found with the Minelab GPZ 7000, SDC 2300, and a few nuggets in trashy areas with the Makro Racer.
×