QED Review

[Reg Wilson]

goldenoldie, since Howard increased the mode range, there are few nasty ground situations that the QED cannot handle, and very little in sensitivity has been sacrificed to achieve that. Howard thought it best that I should have the latest production model, so that anyone wanting to try the QED should have the available one to test rather than my old prototype. My prototype looks perhaps a little rough the way I have set it up, but I like it that way, and I guess I am used to it, and have become fond of it the way it is.

[Guest AussieDigs]

Please bare with me as im only new to detecting.

If the QED is best on small gold in ground in less mineralised, would this not be in the realm of the VLF? Would there be a VLF that would work equally as well as the QED in the environment JP suggests is best for this detector? I understend that generally the VLF isnt known to be as capable as the PI in noisy ground but it’s suggested the QED can struggle a little in this environment so is there VLF’s on the market that come close to bridging the gap?

My thinking (which could be way off) is that the PI can punch deep in mineralised ground, not so much the tiniest of gold. I would want a PI to use for searching beyond the mullock heaps and worked ground but more in between worked leads on hillsides. Working a large area to reasonable depths. Is the QED not suitable for this scenario? My thinking is this was the reason behind the introduction of PI technology, punching deep leaving the smaller shallow gold for the VLF.

Please dont think im doubting the QED’s worth, jusst trying to work out where it is placed in the scheme of things.

Thanks.

Al.

 

[Steve Herschbach]

In general if ground is quiet enough I prefer a VLF. Apparently I coined the phrase “use a VLF when you can, and a PI when you have to”. If you use a VLF you will run into ground where you NEED a PI. When it happens you will know it.

Modern PI detectors are getting close to VLF type performance on small gold, and once you consider minerals can do better on small gold than a VLF. The ability to hit small gold with a PI is a good thing since minerals can destroy what advantage a VLF may have in theory.

All detectors struggle in bad ground, even a PI and yes that includes Minelab's. Otherwise Minelab would not have been able to release so many models over the years adding settings for more and more types of ground. So saying PI might struggle in some ground is just the truth and applies to all detectors.

By all accounts the QED is a decent PI so I would not overthink it too much.

[Northeast]

On 5/28/2019 at 10:55 AM, AussieDigs said:

f the QED is best on small gold in ground in less mineralised, would this not be in the realm of the VLF?

Evening all.

Thought I would give an update as to how my QED adventures are going having spent a good few days in the NE and the GT of Victoria using a few different coils and also visiting the Coiltek test site at Maryborough.

I am also posting this across 3 forums that I frequent with varying amounts of input.  Prospecting Australia, Detector Prospector and Australian Electronic Gold Prospecting Forum.  Apart from my recent findings there have also been a few questions and comments across a few of the forums about various QEDisms and hopefully this may answer some of those queries for the people that posed them and others who may be looking at a QED with interest.   

There are some people that like to fire shots across the bow of others on the forums I mentioned above.  I’m not interested in that and please don’t start that in response to this post.  People across all of these forums have been most helpful to me and I am posting this to try and be helpful to others, not to start arguments.

Have I found gold yet?  YES!!!!  One tiny, teensy little piece not far from home.  That was with the 11” Detech Ultra Sensing coil.

The 5 days recently spent in the GT were hard yakka and I didn’t find any gold.  But neither did Mitchel (from DP with his GPZ) and Elusive (DP and PA with his SD2200).  Elusive did take home some consolation prizes with his SDC of 2 species and another small piece of gold.  Apart from 1 spot we mostly covered flogged ground.

With the recent rain I was apprehensive about how the QED was going to handle the mineralisation.  My personal feeling is that wet mineralised ground ‘lights up’ the mineralisation and makes ground noise issues greater.  For example, my GPZ hated wet, red clay but would play nicely in the same ground when dry.  The QED is not much different I find.  A depression in the clay that has allowed water to sit and moisten the clay, surrounded by hard packed, dry clay would give the QED issues.  The mineralisation and also the variability between the density of the ground creates problems in my opinion (for the QED and the GPZ).

The important thing though is how did the QED (and the operator) deal with with these problems.  Well, this time around I dealt with it a lot better.  Isn’t it funny how the more you use a detector and get used to it the easier it seems to be  ?  Most of the ground noise that showed up gave a wide response and also a variable response - meaning that it wouldn’t always be in the exact same spot like a genuine target should be.

Using the GB change of 4 points up or 4 points down also confirmed things for me.  4 down would often soften the response greatly and 4 up would sharpen the response greatly.  I have been very scared using this method as I really do not wish to walk away from a genuine target and due to this I dug (or at least scratched a few inches off) every target I got.  Not a single time in 5 days did this technique fail and I end up popping a genuine target out of the hole.

I tried to remember to do this on targets that I was sure were targets before digging them and the response might change the very slightest amount but essentially they sounded the same.  I didn’t always remember to do this though as I was excited to dig what seemed a genuine article.

Lead shot/BBs/.22 bullets/lead fragments - if digging these is a sign that a detector is working then the QED was purring because these little **&%$$##%&* absolutely pop.  There is no mistaking that they are a target.

Ground Balance - the settings I used on the 11” and the ground (especially around Bendigo) meant that a spot on GB only had a variation of 1-2 points.  So, the unit may be ground balanced at 110 but just out at 111 or 109.  Getting a GB is now quicker with more use and recognising when it is out of GB is also becoming more innate.  It is now at a point where a quick, on the fly re-GB is not an inconvenience.

THS-A, THS-B   -   Have now found happy settings for these with the 11” and sticking with them until such a time that I need to change.

Gain - still having issues getting a stable threshold with a setting of 2 or above and I forgot to discuss this with Reg when I was with him.   I have occasionally punched the Gain up to 3 or 4 to find a really, really, tiny target as it brightens the signal but it also ratties up the threshold so it can’t be kept there.

Mode - Adjusted this better over my GT trip in response to the ground conditions and it allowed improved handling of various ground conditions.  Again, learning the features of the unit and when to utilise them (and remembering to utilise them!) has helped a lot.

Goldman’s QED Tips thread on the AEGPF has been quite useful in getting an understanding of the finer points of using the QED - so thanks to Goldman.

There was a comment on DP forum that related to Jonathon Porter’s review of the QED back in 2017.  It was something like the QED is ‘best suited to small targets in less mineralised ground’ and the question posed was if this is the case then why not just use a VLF?  This was in 2017 and there have been several more modes added to the QED since then.  The belief is that this has given the QED a greater range of ground conditions that it can effectively work and my opinion would be that the QED is quite well suited to a variety of gold sizes in a variety of grounds.

This is in no way a slight on JP’s review as I believe he simply ‘called it as he saw it’ at the time.  The advances in the number of Modes available may lead JP to a different view now.

I would like to back up my statement of “the QED is quite well suited to a variety of gold sizes in a variety of grounds” by showing some wonderfully large and small nuggets but unfortunately I can’t.  All  can say is that I have dug some quite deep .22 bullets and other rubbish and a visit to the Coiltek test site proved quite interesting.

I gave the 20” NF Advantage Spoked coil (bundle wound) and the 11” Detech Ultra Sensing coil (spiral wound) a run here.

The 20” picked up the smallest target of 3 grams, the 2 ouncer and the 5 ouncer without any worries.   I think the other 2 targets are 7 grams and 15 grams and it got the slightest hit on one of them but not enough to stop me out in the field and no hit on the other at all.

The 11” really surprised me.   It got a hit on the 3 grams, 15 grams, 2 ouncer and 15 ouncer.  It missed the 7 gram though which was interesting.  However, the Coiltek fella that was there said many detectors had trouble with that particular target.

Mitchel’s GPZ got all targets except the 5 ouncer.  We did try a few different settings but couldn’t get a peep on it.  I have seen other’s on PA say they have got all targets there with their GPZ’s and I can’t help but think there was something in Mitchel’s settings that was limiting it.  As a previous GPZ owner (who loved it!) I have seen it pull some ridiculously deep stuff and find it odd that it couldn’t pick that piece up.

The Coiltek fella had an SDC and it couldn’t get anything which only surprised me on the first target - I thought it might/should have got it.

A few things to point out.

I keep comparing the QED to my GPZ and although that is not a fair comparison I have not used anything else that does compare.

I respect Howard for the progress he is making with the QED and the fact that it is an Australian product makes me a proud purchaser.  However, please don’t feel I am making comments on the QED as a means of persuading anyone to make a purchase.  Having layman’s reviews of any product may help those in the market decide if a particular item is going to work for them.   I probably align myself with a comment from Ararat Gold recently that he is not brand loyal.   I will buy what works for me at the price point I can afford regardless of brand.  (If that product happens to be Australian then all the better ?

Previously I have felt that I am reasonably happy with my QED purchase.  The 5 days in the GT has increased that feeling of content and I am quite confident in approaching different areas/tasks with the QED in hand and getting the job done.  The variety of coils available is a new joy and headache for me and the new ‘X coils’ might be a really interesting development for the QED.

As always though, it doesn’t matter what you swing you have to get your coil over some yellow first.

[fredmason]

Northeast;

thank you for your comments!  You are a happy buyer of the QED and that is all that really matters. Learning the fine points of a machine will always enhance one's success with it. So, practice does make things better. Here in the USA, if I am finding lead bird-shot with my 7000 I figure it is working pretty good.

While I always listen to anything that Jonathan Porter or Steve have to say, comments from people like you have great importance to me. THANK YOU.

You can't get gold if it ain't there...good luck

fred

[Steve Herschbach]

Thanks Northeast. I hate all the drama surrounding detectors. I don't see why every new option is not welcomed. The only thing that interests me in general is "how do we get the best out of this detector". All detectors are not created equal, but neither do they all cost the same or suit all people. Fine, now let's move on to the "how do we get the best out of this detector" part. I appreciate your efforts in doing that and sharing your thoughts here. I try hard to keep the trolls at bay just because I appreciate people like you and want to hear from you. Thank you. 

I am no better at anything than people like Northeast, maybe less so. There are many excellent metal detector operators and prospectors out there that know more and have better skills than I. It pays to pay attention to everyone. My advice is always be patient, gather info from many sources (all with a grain of salt no matter who they are), and then make a decision based on a broad based consensus. I am a data guy and to me everything just boils down to averaging data sets. The less input from the fewer sources, the weaker the case.

[Northeast]

1 hour ago, phrunt said:

This Coiltek test site sounds interesting

It is interesting but in the end the targets are planted pieces of lead so need to be taken with a grain of salt. 

2 hours ago, phrunt said:

Sometimes my GPX is a bit heavy

Although I haven't weighed them, the QED with the Sadie coil on feels about the same as the Equinox.  It is still light with the 11" Detech but it is a heavier coil and it makes the QED a bit nose heavy.  

2 hours ago, phrunt said:

I wonder if you can just buy the bits of a QED you need

I think you can but Reg would be able to give you specifics.  

2 hours ago, phrunt said:

I wonder if it can run my X-coil

Being a mono that is suited to the GPX units my guess would be yes.   I have been a bit excited by your initial x coil tests as you have mentioned good sensitivity and less EMI issues.  If an X coil allowed me to up my Gain a little that would be nice.  

2 hours ago, phrunt said:

I'd like to buy one

You don't need anymore detectors ?

[Jo11]

First time posting on a forum. Credit to everyone with positive & productive info & thanks so much for the reviews & insights shared. It is the reason I finally come out of just lurking. Much appreciated.