Minelab Competing With Minelab

[Norvic]

On 5/15/2016 at 10:29 AM, jasong said:

I had the same results with 3 large nuggets. The first was a 3/4 oz chunk and I was hitting it about 3-4 inches deeper with my GPX + 17x13 Evo no matter what setting combo I used on my GPZ. And I run with a ton of stabilization on my GPX too so it was like running in High smoothing. So it's not just small nuggets.

I didn't feel like incurring the wrath of the public by mentioning it though (I remember a few guys in Oz being almost run off forums early on for saying things like this) so I reported it directly to Minelab instead and gave an open invitation for them to come test it themselves (this was like 4 or 5 months ago now), which they can verify. In the following weeks I found 2 more nuggets, both over 1/2 oz, that peformed similarly - about 10-15% less depth on the GPZ no matter what I tried. I'm thinking I probably missed more last winter too for the same reason.

Some people want to murder me for saying it (ok, overexageration, but still, it feels like it), but there are definitely holes in what the GPZ will hit deeper than a GPX with the right coils. Just like there are definitely some types of gold the GPX misses that the GPZ sings on no matter what coil. I'm just hoping it'll go less noticed in a thread about GPX's haha, because it should be said. 

Anyways, a good reason to always be testing things.

That 17x13 hit on those nuggets noticeably and repeatably harder than the the 17x11 did which is another reason its become my favorite coil. Harder than would account for just the slight increase in size. I'm sure the Elites are great too, but I don't like rounds for general use hunting, just my personal preference though because I hunt a lot of places I need to get into tighter spaces and the ellipticals are easier to pinpoint with IMO especially for in situ nuggets in deep holes.

link to original post

 

Above is a quote from Jasong, from another thread that hits the nail on the head. Somewhat a forbidden topic on OZ forums, which I guess says a lot about social media. This matter has been touched on by others when speaking about the "new age" coils on the Xs in other threads. While I`m a confirmed and dedicated Z user, I recognise because I`ve experienced the ability of these coils and how they have closed the gap( in the field on undisturbed gold), plus in some cases exceeded the Zs ability. Saying that I`ve also experienced more cases where the Z exceeds the Xs ability.

But it is interesting and really says it all about the dominance of ML, their only true competition to their latest serious gold detector is their model it replaced. This has been so for how many years?  What are the other detector manufacturers doing? And why is it sort of "taboo" to post about this subject?

[Steve Herschbach]

42 minutes ago, Norvic said:

And why is it sort of "taboo" to post about this subject?

That question is why I created this forum. Keep a level head, stay on topic, stay factual, respect others... do that and then we can discuss topics that go off the rails elsewhere in short order.

I find it thoroughly unremarkable that a GPX with a 17" x 13" coil can find some targets deeper than a GPZ with a 14" x 13" coil. Why that would upset anyone is beyond me but there are many people hiding who they really are and what their real agenda is on the internet.

As far as other companies go, they are in the business of selling metal detectors to make money. It is not all about gold nugget detectors. Garrett and First Texas both are selling lots of metal detectors and doing quite well. They just are not making exactly what we want is all. The reality is Minelab did lock up some key patents early on that let them pretty much run away with the show when it comes to high end prospecting units. The other companies always discounted the size of the prospecting market and got caught flat footed when gold prices ignited a world wide gold rush.

[jasong]

Just to be clear though: the point I was making was not about a slightly larger coil hitting nuggets over a slightly smaller coil. As I said, the GPZ hit all but 3 nuggets equal or deeper than the GPX w/17x13 even with the coil size difference, I was clear to point that out. 

My point is that there is an anomaly here on certain types of gold between the 2 machines. We know the GPZ hears stuff the GPX just can't hear. And I have seen the GPZ struggles a bit on certain types of gold that the GPX hits just as hard as any other similar weight nugget.

And it's not just the GPX comparison, disregarding my GPX results entirely - these nuggets are hitting 10-20% shallower on the GPZ compared to other nuggets of similar weight on the very same GPZ. But only those 3 nuggets. It's the gold, not the coils.

It's an anomaly, and is remarkable to me at least as a field detectorist. In the sense that it's worthy of remarking and attention. And I believe it should be remarkable to engineers who look for ways to improve their product and who can't possibly test every type of target in every type of condition themselves.

[Steve Herschbach]

My remarkable comment was not intended to belittle your observations Jason. My intent was to comment on people getting overly worked up about observations like yours.

Which part of Norvics post was a quote from you where?

[jasong]

Steve, it was something I wrote in the coil advice request thread.

Regarding US detector companies - here is another bit of personal experience I had. I grew up thinking White's was the only real detector company, its all I'd see in the parks, my dad had one at home. I got obsessed with detecting 15 years ago and I discovered White's was just across the interstate from where I was going to school - coincidentally I was studying pulsed power and EM field modelling through something very much like a metal detector coil (a solenoid). I asked if I could intern (for free), they said they didn't accept interns. Despite being a stone's throw from 2 universities. After graduating I asked who I could submit a resume to and they told me they weren't hiring and not accepting resumes. They never availed themselves of the open research partnerships the electrical engineering and physics departments offer to local businesses (including Intel and HP, both projects I attended conferences on personally).

Maybe this has changed now, I don't know. This was 15 years ago. But I haven't seen much new come out since then from Sweet Home worth talking about. That's just my opinion persoanlly though, I saw how many views the MX Sport thread had.

I look at ML's videos and work force and I see a lot of younger faces, I have to assume they are at least taking advantage of the domestic workforce their universities are training. Those guys end up learning from and growing up to be the Bruce Candy's of the future in Australia. In the US they end up being righands.

It's not just US detector companies, it's a US philosophy in general with many different industries, and I'm speaking first hand as a guy who has never been able to get hired in a field he was actually trained in and loves. Literally the only places interested in hiring US native electrical engineers, physicists, etc are oilfield and mining industries and we end up with a bunch of guys throwing chain or strapping pipe that should be designing metal detectors instead.

If you don't have friends or family working at these sorts of companies you'll never get a job at them no matter what. And the products show that and while it's not the only reason Minelab dominates the market, I think it's a part of it. No offense intended to the companies, just my experience.

*But I do want to say thanks to the White's field tester who I met 15 years ago in a park and who gave me a free modified pinpointer and some advice on where (not to) go as I was still learning. Forgot his name but that was hella nice and I still remember even if I forgot about White's as a company.

[Steve Herschbach]

OK, not keeping up like I should lately. I modified Norvics post to make quote obvious along with link back to original.

[Norvic]

Many thanks Steve for editing my original post to show where Jasongs post came from. As you can see I just copied and paste after trying to move quote across threads, I`ve gotta get more 4M literate for sure.

I am fully aware this 4M is one of the few one can post "taboo" subjects, no way would I try this elsewhere.

Jasong, All of the experienced gold detector operators I have detected with to my knowledge, use the GPXs and earlier PI`s plus the auto tracking VLFs of yesterday in manual GB, resorting to auto tracking at times to get the GB right. This from experience results in more gold, because the tracking takes out gold especially deep gold. To a lesser extent this is also so with the Z, I am just wondering with interest how you folks over the pond operate, whether you mainly detect with auto tracking turned on or off.

 

[Steve Herschbach]

True story I never used tracking on any detector until I got the SDC 2300, which forced me to use tracking. It worked so well and obviously does not want to track out tiny bits, that I just went with tracking as a rule on my GPZ. I will be out and about with it soon and go to fixed just to see what if any difference I can note. I have been using tracking in places where I probably should not.

[jasong]

I usually run my 4500 in manual except in cases where the ground changes every few feet and I don't have patience to stay in manual its quicker for me to just flip to auto and slow down the swing and let the tracker work so I can pay more attention to everything else and not my growing concern about wether my green button will last out this trip. Or where there is a lot of buried burned brush it's quicker for me to run in auto than wear my arm out in manual every 3 ft.

I started running my Z in manual more once I got to Arizona. But honestly, when I'm out swinging with hours between nuggets and just looking for new places (which is most of the time), I just popped it into auto and didn't care if I missed a minute peep here or there that got tracked out. The Z tracker tracks a lot faster than the X tracker IMO, and locks more accurately.

I'm a pretty lazy detectorist compared to a lot of guys out there though. I hate (and actively avoid) digging trash, I hate sweating the small stuff (nugget crumbs). I just like maximizing the ground I cover so I can find more patches and those are the only places I really spend time thinking about things like manual vs automatic gb.  Just what works for me and my short attention span personally.

[Steve Herschbach]

Ha, ha, Jason, you and I are similar in that regard. I never claimed to be any kind of technical wizard or expert, nowhere in the class of somebody like JP. Any success I enjoy I put down to being on decent ground and putting in lots of hours, not any particular detector magic I am working. My theory is that rather than constantly worry about getting that last half inch of performance, how about I just detect another hour? That extra hour is going to do far more to put gold in my pocket than whether I am running in manual or tracking. At least that's my story and I am sticking to it!