Jump to content
phrunt

Qed Major Upgrade Announced

Recommended Posts

Thanks for correcting me on the fixed comment.  To me it means nothing if it works in WA so I didn't pay a lot of attention to that issue. 🙂

USB updating would probably be the key to international success with most updates being software.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just now, phrunt said:

USB updating would probably be the key to international success

Absolutely  👍

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/12/2019 at 12:50 PM, phrunt said:

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.

You are right - it was Detech. Same question sort of applies though. Dealers don't usually drop stuff without a reason. I'm not really worried about it though or trying to make anything of it, just curious.

Where the QED falls in the scheme of things I am purposefully being conservative using the old AraratGold quote because from my perspective what he said is not a bad thing at all. If that is a base expectation and the unit has improved since, great. The number one thing in my opinion that derails these new detectors is people inflating expectations, which leads to blowback. I was always a fan of undersell, over deliver. You don't remember the Garrett Infinium intro Simon, but the thing that hurt that detector most was an Aussie dealer hyping it as a Minelab killer when it was nothing of the sort. That kind of thing is very counterproductive. A good machine with quiet patience will prove itself via happy users. A good machine hyped too much will have nothing but disappointed users. Same machine, different result. I want to keep the QED discussions sane because I think truly that it is in Howard's best interests to do so.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like your reports Simon and while I understand there may be issues in extreme ground my use would be far closer to what you are doing, therefore my interest in the detector. Thanks!

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Steve Herschbach said:

I like your reports Simon and while I understand there may be issues in extreme ground my use would be far closer to what you are doing, therefore my interest in the detector. Thanks!

I hope I don't sound like I'm hyping it up, I'm very careful not to say it's better than my GPX in performance as I don't know if it is, it has it's better points like small target sensitivity which I know for me it's more sensitive and EMI resistance and clearly comfort of use, I'm not good enough on either detector to know which is better overall in performance and what's better for me may not be better for someone else anyway so I don't really like the "better" way of thinking. 

I say it how it I see it in my ground and point out my ground is mild at every opportunity 🙂  I'm not sure about ever saying any detector with similar specifications is better performing than something else as there are so many variables to consider and I'm not a skilled operator by any means.  If I find something better it's because it's easier to use or I've had more luck with it 🙂

It to me feels very much like using a VLF, same weight, same sort of performance on small targets.... No idea on bigger targets as I never find any other than 22 shells but it likes them but in saying that so does the GPX 🙂  What I like better about it are more cosmetic I guess, light weight, with very cheap batteries and not being tethered to my detector.

For someone in NZ who can't afford to spend their money on a GPX it's an obvious choice to get into the world of the PI and use the massive range of coils for the GPX.  I can't speak for someone in different ground.

I'm just happy to have both, each have their strong points for sure. I do get excited when I am happy with something though which may seem a bit hype like 😀

 

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just to clarify a few points.

Firstly QED was never sold by Coiltek, but was sold by Detech, who still provide components for one of the QED options.

Maldon Gold Centre had problems with the premises they were renting in the town of Maldon, which has eventually led to the business winding up once stock is cleared.

Before Howard announced the introduction of the DSM ground balance update it was tested here in Victoria by James Beatty and myself as well as another tester in Western Australia. The announcement was not made until positive results were forthcoming from testers.

Detech DD and concentric coils were used to test the new coil compatibility modifications with positive results.

No switch is required when changing from Mono to DD or CC coils as the QED adapts automatically, transmitting on one winding and receiving on the other, as with GPX. 

The new coil adaptability does not include discrimination or cancel.

I hope this is informative.

PS. I forgot to mention that Howard is considering gearing up production through having an Australian company manufacture here. He is adamant that there will be NO overseas production. QED will remain AUSTRALIAN made.

 

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who was the tester in WA?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

madtuna, Howard has not disclosed to me the identity of the WA tester. You would need to ask him.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Reg.

Unfortunately having been associated with ML in the past I am banned from joining that forum to ask that or any other questions I have on the QED. I have to ask here and follow all the QED threads closely.

I do look very seriously at every new product that might just give me an edge. I have to, as that is how I get my income. This include things like X coils and believe it or not Reg, the QED.

I do follow with interest how it performs in WA. Who the tester is in WA might seem irrelevant to many, but the credibility of the tester goes a long way in helping me when spending dollars on detecting gear, especially when I can't pop down to a shop and handle the product or test it myself.

 

Cheers

 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the clarification Reg. A few of my comments were conservative assumptions. Good to hear it’s had a WA test. 

And great to hear Howard is looking at a little expansion and keeping things in Oz. It might increase some pressure on him but it may relieve a few pressures too   👍

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."
      https://www.prospectingaustralia.com.au/forum/viewtopic.php?pid=341762#p341762
      https://www.prospectingaustralia.com.au/forum/viewtopic.php?pid=341951#p341951
      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,
       
      OR
       
      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...