Jump to content

Qed Major Upgrade Announced

Recommended Posts

Great news for all the QED owners, it was announced today the QED has been updated with new ground balance firmware along with support for DD and CC coils like the new Concentric coils from Detech that have just been released.

Here is the official announcement from Howard, the God of the QED.

Interfacion Pty Ltd is pleased to announce that the QED has been modified to allow the use of DD (double D) and CC (Concentric Coplanar) coils. This change involves a simple change to the electronics within the control box.

The firmware has also been upgraded to include a further improved Ground Balance.

All detectors being delivered to new customers from Monday 5th August 2019 will already have the above upgrades included.

As a show of commitment to all QED owners, the hardware modification to allow use of the DD and CC coils will be provided at no cost.

Of course and as per the QED warranty, the firmware update is provided free of charge, except for P&H.

Any QED owner who plans to attend the Laanecoorie Bash is encouraged to bring their detector along and have it upgraded at no cost.


Awesome news, I'll be sending mine off ASAP. 

You can find out more about the QED on their official website here http://www.qedmetaldetectors.com.au/


  • Like 4
  • Thanks 1

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

James Beatty and I have been testing the new DSM (dynamic spectrum modulation) over the last few weeks. It is basically a ground balance within a ground balance and is a big improvement in stability and smoothness. It now has a much wider ground balance range, and once set the GB rarely needs adjustment. A bonus of this improvement has seen an increase in ground penetration and stronger target response. This is noticeable as larger signals give an overload response more readily than previous.

Ground tracking has been made unnecessary with this new development which is unique to QED. Other functions are unaffected by this change, although lower mode and higher gain may be possible over some ground types.

An adjustment to hardware now makes it possible to run DD and concentric coils, and all new QEDs will have both new functions as standard at no extra cost.

  • Like 4

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the info Reg, does it now have a switch on it to select the coil type?

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

The QED is sounding more and more interesting by the day.  I hope to see it get a foot-hold in the US.  At its price point and weight and now features i might be willing to trade in the GPX for the QED.  Time will tell currently.  

Keep us updated on features and finds!

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

I’m not so sure I would trade a GPX for a QED but going from nothing to a QED would be a big step up! Since I have no PI currently it’s on my short list of potential buys next year. :smile:

Upgrades/service do concern me though. I guess I could send the control box only to Oz and back. It would lower the cost but still not be free.

  • Like 2

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

True, regardless its interesting to watch its progression.  

I occasionally like to drool over other detectors, but i put in a ton of research before i pull the trigger, which often dissuades me from changing my current setup.  


  • Like 1

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

This quote from http://golddetecting.forumotion.net/t25836-the-qed-pl2 sums it up as well as anything I have read so far:

“Claims that the QED is a " SDC Killer " are probably a little exaggerated. I also don't believe it to be quite as good as a 4500 either. However, it is a damn good machine for the money!”

Basically I am looking for something with more power than a White’s TDI SL but which weighs less than a Garrett ATX and sell for under $2000. The QED so far is the only detector I see that comes close to beating the challenge below, although the upcoming Fisher Impulse may be in the running.


Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Question? Why can’t QED get solid dealer support? I thought Coiltek had them on their website at one point. Gone now, or am I missing it? And Maldon Detector Center had them on their website. Gone now, or am I missing it? Edit: found the dealer list, there are now two dealers http://www.qedmetaldetectors.com.au/dealers

Coiltek and Maldon no longer handling apparently, and it does make me wonder why.

Is there anyone out there who has used the QED and any variant of the White’s TDI, who would care to comment on how the two compare? The machines are in the same weight and price class and so I think this is a fair apples to apples comparison. Not having used the machine but based on reports from others it seems to me QED would rate above TDI but slightly below GPX 4500 for across the range performance under all conditions.

GPX 4500 at US$2699 and 5.3 lbs is outside my challenge limits (see above) but in my opinion still represents the most bang for the buck PI option available. Though with Minelab rumored to be discontinuing it soon it may be off the table altogether as a new with warranty option very soon anyway. If that is the case it will leave the field wide open for QED with next up option the GPX 5000 at $3999, over twice the price of a QED.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

That quote from AraratGold is quite old, there have been updates since and now this fresh round of updates to improve it.  It is an issue the QED will face though, because it's constantly being updated people may base their opinions on an older revision and the updates are usually resolving issues people point out and improvements to performance.  I am about to send my QED over to get updated to this latest version, all he needs is the little box under the arm cuff with the batteries removed so postage will be cheap and simple.

The Aussies that tried the QED in WA had some ground balance issues it seems with the variable ground from what I've read, it appears those problems are fixed now but to me that means nothing, I can run it without ground balancing at all just in the default setting and it's balanced already in a majority of places.  This means my views on it are likely useless to someone in different soil.

I've never used an SDC but I'd rate the QED above my Gold Bug Pro for it's pellet finding ability and just below my Gold Monster.  In between the two somewhere.  Certainly finds a lot more pellets than my GPX with my GPX cranked right up with the same coil.  The QED finds the absolutely tiny pellets, not just the normal size ones... I know nothing about shooting so I don't know pellet sizes 🙂 

Keep in mind in our mild soils detectors like the GBP and GM1000 do very well for depth and target size so the comparison to them to an Aussie with hot soil is probably not favorable but in our mild soil being able to compete with them is pretty damn good. As targets get bigger in "testing" the QED surpasses the VLFs for depth.

It was Detech selling the QED on their website recently, not Coiltek from what I've seen? Maybe Coiltek was before I had an interest in it.  Don't know why it stopped with Detech.

I'm not qualified to compare it to my GPX as I'm not 100% confident on either detector but for small bedrock gold I'd rather use the QED as I know it finds smaller... I have no idea when things get bigger and deeper.  It's EMI handling can't be beat which is why I wanted one.

At one spot I go to regularly it is riddled with pellets, millions of the things so I wanted to buy a GPX to avoid digging so many pellets and get the deeper gold, so I got a GPX but the GPX is too badly effected by high voltage power lines there so I got a QED and it works great with the power lines but now I'm digging all the pellets again that the GPX missed.  :laugh: 

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, phrunt said:

it appears those problems are fixed now

Not sure they are fixed but may certainly be improved.  Don’t think anyone has had a chance to run the new updates in WA yet. 

I’ve never used DD or concentric coils on a PI so that is a bonus. Are both of these likely to decrease responses to hot rocks?  A place I went on Sunday I found gold but also dug a lot of hot rocks with the QED. 

An American dealership with a service centre would certainly be helpful if the QED was to be a success in the States.  Increased numbers of QED units is probably going to see Howard needing to get bigger, get some automation, maybe get some bits of the manufacture done offshore - will be interesting to see how it all transpires. 

In the meantime I look forward to trying out the new updates and the extra capability it brings.  

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

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 Reg Wilson
      The new compact, super light PI from Ballarat, Australia. This machine uses any Minelab PI compatible mono coil and is dynamite on small as well as larger gold. It is almost totally unaffected by  EMI enabling it to be used near or practically beneath power lines. All hand built, on a limited production scale, this little beauty is creating great interest in Australia, where it can handle the highly mineralized soils.

    • By Steve Herschbach
      I wonder how it would do on Florida beaches? Very light weight, super hot on small stuff, can use Minelab compatible coils.
    • By Steve Herschbach
      AussieMatt pointed out on another thread that lo and behold, the QED has appeared. I am not going to mess with all the long back history. Instead, it looks like we may finally have a new detector model from an independent designer after so many false starts over the years. If nothing happens to upset the cart reports should be coming in from Australia in the near future.
      Anyway, congrats to bugwhiskers and company. I truly do wish for it to go well for all involved.
    • By Steve Herschbach
      "Righto, this is based on my last 4 or 5 trips combined. Today was the 2nd time I've been able have 2 QED,s on the ground as well as a GPX 4500 and a souped up GP 3000 to compare."
      QED Thread On This Forum
    • By Reg Wilson
      Lanny, there is a super light weight PI built here in Australia, at a good price. I use one and love it. Unfortunately it is not yet available in the USA. It is called the QED. It is being constantly improved by the dedicated inventor. Hope one day you will be able to get one.
    • 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.

  • Create New...