Jump to content

Recommended Posts


Amazingly detailed report JP - there are few who have the knowledge and expertise to produce something comparable.

The fact you would not choose the QED as your primary detector should not be surprising. Just like with the Infinium and later TDI it is unfair to expect relatively inexpensive machines to go up against much more sophisticated and also much more expensive detectors and beat them hands down. The key in my mind is to look at performance offered for a price, and to sum up your report as "Good value for money" is all one can ask of any detector.

This quote in particular "The QED struggles compared to the SDC in the more mineralised soils, however the QED does seem superior to the ATX" says a lot to me because I consider the ATX to be a very capable detector personally, underrated even.

Some people who would never have thought you would ever report on anything but a Minelab must of had their heads explode reading this. Thank you for choosing this forum to do so!

Based on your report I would have to say congratulations to Howard are in order. This may not be the Minelab company destroyer the Minelab detractors were looking for but it would seem it is a very capable machine for the money, if one is prepared to master it.

 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Many thanks JP, your post has answered the questions I was seeking to find answers to.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for detailed report report JP ,

I have  seen Dean from Gold Search Australia  use the QED and  a NF 8x6  sadie coil , in soil around Dunolly Vic picks up micro gold .

And yes well done Howard and  congratulations

ROD

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

JP - you have suffered 'the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune" so often - on the supposed grounds of being "other than unbiased" for a certain Australian firm.

Now, here you go and mess with our minds by showing yourself to be - oh crap - a real person, who looks, evaluates and says what they have so concluded.

thank you.  i am a suspicious and basically cynical person, I guess being a buyer for 35 years left its mark.  Nice to see my preconceptions exploded.

cheers.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well... I enjoyed reading that review JP' sounds like you guys had a bit of enjoyment playing around with Howards hand built magic stick, sounds like it works ok?

Any chance of testing it with large gold like that chunk in your Avatar photo?

dont mind what detector you compare it to but I'd enjoy another review from you before the forums bombarded with everyone else's input.

cheers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just a reminder JP is busy so patience please regarding answers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can someone in the USA purchase this detector and if so from where?

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 hayesman76
      Now that I've got your attention ...
      One interesting alternative I've seen to traditional walkin' 'n swingin' metal detecting is called the Hot Foot Rug. I'm sure many reading this have heard of it. Basically, from the looks of it it's a search coil apparently embedded into a flexible, rectangular carpet-like piece of material measuring from 18" to 6'. The carpet must, of course, be attached to a box, which the user can keep by their side or clip to a belt.  The carpet itself can either be attached to a harness and pulled while walking or dragged behind a vehicle, enabling detectorists to cover a lot more ground -- and with less walking required -- than traditional "stick" detecting. The only thing that makes me not even consider buying one is what I consider to be the excessively-high price (then again, in my opinion MOST metal detectors and search coils are way overpriced.) 
      Especially when dragging the carpet behind a vehicle I would assume the user absolutely must use a good set of noise-canceling headphones.
      I'm very surprised that the device mentioned above is about the only one of its type I've seen for sale. In my opinion -- and especially with so many detectorists being middle-aged and/or retired folks who aren't as mobile as they used to be -- you'd think there'd be quite a variety of such carpet-like search coils available.
      Does anyone here prospect with such metal-detecting rugs? My main interest is in prospecting for large, deep nuggets and this technique -- especially with my bad knee -- really appeals to me, as the rug search coil can be several feet wide, which dwarfs even the largest traditional round/oval coils. Any feedback or information on such carpet-type detectors would be appreciated. 
    • By Jin
      I was reading the Australian Electronic Gold Prospecting Forum today and noticed a post about detector depth. I was wondering what others think about today's detectors compared to what was available 25 years ago. I read somewhere that (Woody) the guy that does mods to detectors thinks that for outright depth the sd2000 still goes the deepest. I wouldn't know as I've never owned a sd2000 or a gpz7000. Anyway, i found the comments at AEGPF interesting and wonder if anyone here has actually done a depth comparison between the zed and sd2000. Heres the snippet from AEGPF 
      Quote from AEGPF: "The deepest Pi detector ever developed in my opinion was a prototype  SD2000  that BC modified for the late Jim Stewart.BC slowed down the clock speed to give a very long pulse and made some other unknown changes to the circuit to cope with higher currents etc. At the time the SD2000 came out BC stated that it was at about 95% of the maximum potential depth that any handheld PI could ever achieve (and still pass emission standards). However, the deepest PI that has ever been made for gold was Corybns detector which detected a  nugget of around 10oz? at 3 feet in depth in WA. Somewhere on the forum is a reference to it and I will try and find the link when I have time.
      "What is interesting is that the deepest nuggets ever detected by a Pi  was by a detector used in the early 1980's in WA-Corbyn's  wheeled detector! Pictures of it  and the depths of some of nuggets he found with it can be seen in Mike Wattones book: Quest for gold.NO Pi detector today could match the depths Corby got on at least one nugget! (4cm nugget at over 36" in mineralized ground)"
    • By Steve Herschbach
      There is finally a page on White’s website dedicated to the new MX7 https://www.whiteselectronics.com/product/mx7/?lang=us
      And a new video with Steve Howard showing the various MX7 settings options.
       
    • By MikePfeiffer
      First, I want to say this is one of the best forums I have ever seen. Steve has put together a GREAT website. The knowledge base on the forum is just phenomenal. I have learned so so much more about metal detectors from all of you.
       
      So let me explain assumed.
       
      I assumed:
      White's and Garret were the best metal detectors.
      Carl Moreland was still working for White's
      Metal detectors were 10 years behind technology of today. (just my thought)
       
      After making the assumptions, I realized how wrong I was thanks to this forum. I realized White' and Garrett have been a sleep. Carl Moreland either quit or was fired. White's and Garrett detector are whats 10 behind.
       
      When I got back into metal detecting last year. I was looking for a new machine. I looked at White's and Garrett with the assumptions. I thought about building my own detector. So I read Carl Moreland's book. (Great book) I realized that it would take me 2 to 5 years to develop my own detector. So I scrapped this idea. I could not understand why White's or Garrett had not built a detector with what I expected. I thought that with today's technology there should be a sweep frequency oscillator for the coil-s and an easy to read display. That being said, White's closest model was the V3i. Garrett had nothing. I quickly realized that I needed to look at everything. Because of the forum, I found Minelab was being discussed. When I found the Minelad Safari, I quickly realized it had what I was thinking of building. I don't like their LCD display. It does not look clear a crisp to me. However the machine looks promising. Then I looked at the E-track and CTX-3030. These also look to be very promising machines. Just the price is higher that I want to pay for a -2 times a month hobby. I really wish the best for White's and Garrett. They have their work cut out for them.
       
      I want to thank John, Chuck, Tom and Terry and many others I do not know their names for the knowledge your provided and a special thank you to Steve H for his superior knowledge and the wonderful website he has provided.
    • By MikePfeiffer
      Just found this on the web:
      http://md-hunter.com/garrett-at-concept-new-2016-or-a-fake/
      Looks interesting.
    • By Steve Herschbach
      The following information is from an apparent leak from a First Texas distributor meeting? The link is posted at http://www.detectorprospector.com/forum/topic/555-new-fisher-pulse-induction-multi-frequency-detectors/?p=10571 as part of the thread about upcoming Fisher products that have been circulating for a couple years. These leaks seem to jive with previous statements by Tom Mallory of First Texas.

      The main one of interest to the people on this forum would be a new CZX model aimed at gold prospecting. Here is the text from the posted screen shot:

      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 The "Mosca" platform referred to is further described and apparently is aimed more at being a general purpose non-prospecting detector (coins, jewelry, relics). Again, here is the text from the posted screen shot:

      "Mosca" Fisher and Teknetics
      Waterproof up to 10' (3 meters) Wireless headphones - Waterproof loop and connectors for headphones 2 frequency - 7:1 ratio Hobby/Treasure Market - Great for Saltwater, Relic, Coin Auto Ground Tracking Single Pod Design LCD Pad, control buttons, 2 AA batteries Arm Pad in rear Retail target - $1200 - $2000 Target release 2016 We have dedicated engineers on this project
      OK, so a gold unit around $1000 that goes deeper than current VLF designs. I also have high hopes that knowing the proclivities of the engineer, Dave Johnson, that it will be relatively light and ergonomic. Dave also prefers simple and the design statements reflect that.

      We seriously need something that brings gold detector weights and prices back to earth and so hopefully this will be it. I have stated over and over again I would be very happy with ATX equivalent performance in a less expensive lightweight package. Garrett so far seems disinclined to make that unit but they have a year at least before it may be a moot point. The CZX would have to obsolete the White's TDI as it is aimed squarely at or below the same price point and unless it beats TDI performance would be dead on arrival.

      We will not have long to wait - 2016 is coming fast!
×