Qed User First Experience & Review

[Reg Wilson]

Excellent advice from phrunt. You did have a bad beginning with your QED experience, in that due to a backlog in mail just before Christmas your detector took an awful long time to get to you.

The broken part was replaced as far as I know, but if you are still requiring a part or parts just let me or Howard know and this will be quickly attended to. Being in the Dominican Republic can mean some time taken in getting your software updates, but the new DSM ground balancing system will make a world of difference to your machine.

PS I have sent you an Email in regard to update.

[principedeleon]

Thanks Phrunt and Reg for ya advice.

i was faced with finding lots of iron so took a trip  to a more remote area that gold have been found and Then i end up getting lots of Ghost signals instead of iron.

well i guess when everything Returns back to normal that i might be able to ship it back to AU to get it updated and probably fixed right.

i understand  alot of people have open country where they drive in and detect and their detectors looks forever NEW. in my case i have to take long hikes then metal detect in heavy bushes worrying about anything getting caught up and trying to break.

i was thinking of when i get it fix of removing the menu box from the shaft handle and placing it inside of another compartment just for more protection.Using NO Stand or Speaker holder since its made of the same matterial that is veryy brittle and if you drop it it will crack instead of Bending ..

i know the company started working with what they had but i hope they construct it more rugged for those who do more hardcore detecting.

 

 

[principedeleon]

1 hour ago, phrunt said:

Every metal detector likes iron more than gold 🙂 The new upgrade greatly improved it's ability to handle variable ground and made it easier to ground balance.  I recommend you get the update done, it is free.    People have said they can run lower modes / high sensitivity (mode 1 being the most sensitive) on the new firmware over the older firmware while maintaining ground balance. I was always able to in my mild soils so I didn't notice this improvement.

Goldman has done some pretty good videos lately on using the QED, you would likely benefit from watching them

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCu4yiQk1UUilnMfGFqfaxfg

It has a learning curve if your other detector is something like a Gold Monster that's for sure.  I think if you get the update done you'll find it easier to use due to the better ground handling which may explain your ghost signals.

You'll see in particular with this video if setup incorrectly for what you're hunting you can dramatically lose depth on the target size.

 

i just watched the video.. and you see how the detector  is behaving at the end of the video  thats just how mines will act when i have it in Max sensativity. but its too noisy to actually detect that way specially in a hot ground. meaning you have to go up null or go up mode whice is even worst.

when you get it totally quite or quite enough you could tell ground signal from Target Or ghost signals it will be way less sensitive.

 

[principedeleon]

I have that same coil and here i have ran it in some areas with mode one and gain of 8-10. But with a GB of around 280.  

Which lowers the sensitivity. 

I did get to run well.  In some area but that Ghost signals did get me frustrated because i wouldnt mind finding junk but finding nothing is worst then finding iron.  I dug about 4 ghost signales in one area. 

This was in a more remote area in the mountains . not sure if is because of the mineralizion in the clay.  

But overall i did get a feel of undertanding it..

[Reg Wilson]

Advice is given in some of the QED instructional videos. 

Should you encounter a 'signal' that sounds as if it could be a deep target there are ways to test it. Firstly, if it sounds quite strong, tilt the coil just a few degrees and sweep over the supposed target. A real target will not decrease a great deal, whereas a ground noise will often show much less response with the coil slightly tilted. This method is not conclusive, but with experience it can be a guide as to whether you are hearing a real signal.

 Upon hearing a possible signal note the ground balance figure. For instance, lets say you have been detecting with a quiet, stable GB of 120, now reset that figure to 130 and listen for any noticeable change in response. Now take your GB down to 110 and once again listen for any change from not only your original GB of 120 but also your first alteration to 130. Should each of the 3 signal responses be for all purposes be the same, then there is a high possibility that you are hearing a real signal, however, should there be a definite discrepancy in responses then there is a high probability that you are hearing a ground noise.

Until you have confidence in your detectors responses you should stick to the rule; 'when in doubt, dig it out.'

[principedeleon]

Thanks Reg. Its this with all detectors ? Or just the QED. ? 

I have gotten ground noise with the others VLF machines i have had but normally there would be a black patch while digging which is pretty obvious and the signal disappears. 

 

[Reg Wilson]

Every detector I have ever used has been able to be fooled by ground noises, or should I say that the detector user is able to be fooled.

When using a detector with auto ground tracking many people swear by using the manual ground balance function, believing that very faint signals are more audible in this setting. A 'suspect' signal will not alter under the coil when it is swept back and forth over the target in manual setting, however by switching into auto and sweeping the target repeatedly the response may lessen to the extent of becoming very faint or completely inaudible. This is the detector ground balancing out the section of mineralized ground. If you move a couple of meters away from the suspected target, re ground balance, and then sweep back over said target you will find that the signal has returned. 

Now, some detector operators will adamantly claim that the detector has balanced out a faint gold signal when used in auto, but having dug an untold number of 'suspect' signals to try and prove that my detector is fooling me, I have not been able to do so. I have found that when using GPX detectors that the number of sweeps in auto required to give a good analysis of the target is about six, where as the number is about double that when using the GPZ. I do not claim that this method is infallible, and no doubt many will disagree with me, but for me it has worked well. One thing that is imperative is that the detector coil sweep should be steady and at a constant height.

The QED method is most effective, but occasional patches of charcoal can fool any detector, and for some reason tree roots can confuse GPZ detectors.

[principedeleon]

2 hours ago, Reg Wilson said:

Every detector I have ever used has been able to be fooled by ground noises, or should I say that the detector user is able to be fooled.

When using a detector with auto ground tracking many people swear by using the manual ground balance function, believing that very faint signals are more audible in this setting. A 'suspect' signal will not alter under the coil when it is swept back and forth over the target in manual setting, however by switching into auto and sweeping the target repeatedly the response may lessen to the extent of becoming very faint or completely inaudible. This is the detector ground balancing out the section of mineralized ground. If you move a couple of meters away from the suspected target, re ground balance, and then sweep back over said target you will find that the signal has returned. 

Now, some detector operators will adamantly claim that the detector has balanced out a faint gold signal when used in auto, but having dug an untold number of 'suspect' signals to try and prove that my detector is fooling me, I have not been able to do so. I have found that when using GPX detectors that the number of sweeps in auto required to give a good analysis of the target is about six, where as the number is about double that when using the GPZ. I do not claim that this method is infallible, and no doubt many will disagree with me, but for me it has worked well. One thing that is imperative is that the detector coil sweep should be steady and at a constant height.

The QED method is most effective, but occasional patches of charcoal can fool any detector, and for some reason tree roots can confuse GPZ detectors.

Well i have always thought just finding a whole bunch of iron targets was a enough for me.  But digging tree roots and charcoal in the ground is on another level. As well also those ghost signals where you dont find no tree root or charcoal.  

Here in DR there is gold but we have to dig to get it out.  It isnt laying around for most part. There is a lot shallow ground but is like the rain has washed off and deposited in benches and in the creeks.  

I have been to places where there is shallow gold but there are veryy few places like this. Finding one out here raw prospecting would have someone die of hunger.  

Right now im inbetween building a motorized winch which i would use in our dredging operation in the river and probably some surface mining openning cuts with a scape bucket to the virgen gravels. This is when i could see myself using a Metal detector. But walking like a crazy guy up and down acres of land without knowing im walking right over the gold.  

Lucky those who are in those geological condition. 

[Norvic]

There you go Reg, I`m one of those users that "adamantly" believes auto ground balance takes out some faint good signals, although I`ve found the GPZs auto is much less likely to do so then the VLFs and PIs that had auto ground balance. Mostly if I`m seeking deep gold thus in deep ground more then likely the ground will allow the use of manual GB easily which with the Z to GB is simply a few up and downs  with the QT button pressed wheras the PIs required more up & downs.  Hunted that way mostly throughout the Auto GB VLFs, PIs and after a year or so of using the Z in Auto.  I say mostly simply because in some ground conditions or if I am feeling a wee lazy, then Auto GBs the go. Could be the ground I detect in but I doubt it as from my experience all over OZ, FNQ ground can go from benign to highly variable. Wedderburn had some of the most challenging ground I come across in Victoria for the 6 months I spent down there with a 2200 and 2100, I preferred the 2100. But you can have your weather, first stop in Vic was in the Whipsticks, lovely cool clear morn, found a lovely little patch then the sky fell down, shredded the camp. But the following days clean up of the patch eased the pain somewhat.

Like you probably I consider the results speak for themselves, which is why most our detectors have many settings options that come down to settings that are personalised. Each to their own

[PhaseTech]

I like having the choice, and even though I mostly use the GPX in Fixed, there are times I use tracking. I find Slow Tracking is very unlikely to track out a genuine target, especially if you use wide sweeps across the suspected target area, getting the coil across lots of ground as well. At the end of the day, if something's pulled you up, you should have a dig at it. 

I know a spot where I used to take small groups out for training, where the surface of the ground looks pretty uniform, but the soil underneath is very variable, red clay, to white clay to pink/schisty type stuff all within 3 metres. I had buried a target for demo purposes some months before. Setting the detector to Fixed, ground balancing and then sweeping across the ground to the target I got a signal which was a bit drawn out, and not too exciting sounding. I went back to where I started, put it in Tracking and started swinging towards the target. Whammo, clear, crisp response.

The thing I learned with Smooth timings especially, was that just because your detector isn't giving you false signals, doesn't mean you're perfectly ground balanced. And even being slightly out of balance will cost you signals. So when running Fixed, I always re-balance as part of my sweep technique - don't wait until your detector is upset, as then it's too late....how much ground have you waked over with a less than optimum ground balance?? If you are lazy, you'd be much better off in Slow Tracking.