Jump to content

Important Update On Miccus Sr-71 Headphones


Recommended Posts

11 hours ago, Chase Goldman said:

Found them on Amazon for about about $50...https://www.amazon.com/Monoprice-BT-300ANC-Wireless-Over-Headphones/dp/B07JZKJ8MR/ref=cm_cr_arp_d_product_top?ie=UTF8 so not as good a deal as Tometusns

Problem is they say APTX in the Q&A but not in the specs and also not explicitly APTX LL.

Tom, can you verify that they connect to Equinox in true APTX LL mode (i.e., with bluetooth symbol showing a "+" sign next to it on the Equinox control panel).   Thanks.

 

Chase, I agree with you 100% about it not being in the description and that's why I we sceptical about those. I don't think they are exactly like these but couldn't say that for certain. Here's the description on these in the pic. This is the description of the second pair I bought.

I took my minelab headphones and hooked them up wired while running my wireless at the same time. One ear covered with each phone and couldn't tell any difference in speed of sound. But I don't see a plus sign next to the Bluetooth symbol...? Tom

Screenshot_20200423-094144.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites


1 hour ago, Tometusns said:

Chase, I agree with you 100% about it not being in the description and that's why I we sceptical about those. I don't think they are exactly like these but couldn't say that for certain. Here's the description on these in the pic. This is the description of the second pair I bought.

I took my minelab headphones and hooked them up wired while running my wireless at the same time. One ear covered with each phone and couldn't tell any difference in speed of sound. But I don't see a plus sign next to the Bluetooth symbol...? Tom

Screenshot_20200423-094144.png

Thanks, Tom.  That means they are not APTX LL.  Just means you can't guarantee the worst case latency of APTX LL.  In some cases APTX latency is very noticeable and unusable.  It is just important for people to know that their mileage might vary and the latency of aptx ll can't be guaranteed for these phones and that could be a deal breaker for some folks.

Below is a good post comparing the various bluetooth protocol latencies.  APTX LL is 30 - 40 ms, while APTX is 60 - 80 ms.  I have a pair of vanilla APTX headphones and they are unusable for me due to the amount of lag.  You basically get two different "beep" positions as you sweep he coil back and forth over a single target.  It is maddening..

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Chase, you're right. I sure wouldn't want to mislead anybody and them get something that wouldn't work for them. I'm very happy with these and like I stated in my previous post. I wasn't able to tell any difference between these and my wired minelab phones on lag time or if there was it was so close I couldn't really tell. I think I got lucky maybe. HH Tom

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I had both the Minelab stock phones and the Miccus phones working very well with my 2 year old 800.  I liked the Miccus ones (2 years old also so I'm pretty sure they had the bluetooth 4.1 version) a bit more because they were more comfortable and had a slightly better sound.  Then last month my control pod started acting weird.  About every 10th time I cranked it up it would go through the start sequence then shut itself off.  I could always get it going after a few tries, but decided to send it in as we are going to go quarantine ourselves for a few months  in the Middle of Nowhere, Montana.  Obviously, a dead Equinox 50 miles from civilization would be an unmitigated disaster. 😄  So it took a couple of weeks, but I got a new pod from Minelab.  So far, so good.  Until I tried to pair it with my favorite Miccus phones.  No luck no matter what I did.  It will pair with my stock phones just fine.  I have tried everything.  Factory reset on both phones and detector.  Installed and and then rolled back the Minelab updates. Turned off my cellphone and did a reset on the headphones. Turned on the detector first.  Turned on the headphones first.  Threw headphones on the floor and stomped on them.  Ok, not the last option, but I was close. 😉

So this would seem to indicate that the first Equinoxes from 2 years ago have a different bluetooth version than the ones they are cranking out now.  But if they do then why will they pair with the original headphones?  Any suggestions?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/26/2020 at 9:26 PM, Steve Herschbach said:

The Minelab ML-80 headphone is made by another company and sold under other brand names. The Miccus Stealth SR-71 has been a popular alternative. Unfortunately an update has possibly made the latest version of these headphones incompatible with the Minelab Equinox. From this ad:

"IMPORTANT NOTE FOR METAL DETECTOR USE: The current SR-71 Bluetooth 5.0 release DOES NOT work with metal detecting equipment. The reviews are citing earlier 4.2 versions of the headphones."

This also for the Miccus website:

"Are different brands of Bluetooth products compatible? Yes. Bluetooth manufacturers are required to make their Bluetooth products compatible with all other Bluetooth devices; failure to meet this requirement means products cannot legally display the Bluetooth logo. Just because a device is Bluetooth enabled, however, does not mean it supports the A2DP stereo music profile. All Miccus Bluetooth products support A2DP and will only work with other Bluetooth devices that support the A2DP profile as well."

miccus-stealth-71-headphones.jpg

as an aside to this. I tired to get the SR-71 headphones to work with Equinox and Vanquish. Will not work as Steve indicated, SR-71 is bluetooth 5.0 and the Equinox and Vanquish are bluetooth 4.2

Someone on a forum clued me into the Trond TD-BH01 headphones. Both work perfectly with the Vanquish and Equinox detectors that support wireless headphones. Plus they have very good audio compared to the Minelab ML-80 headphones which to my ears sound bassy and seem to have lost out on the higher freqs. I  like my high tones on high conductors to sound high and not muddy.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, maxxkatt said:

SR-71 is bluetooth 5.0 and the Equinox and Vanquish are bluetooth 4.2

There has to be more to it than that because the official Bluetooth spec is backwards compatible. The difference between 4.2 and 5.0 is not enough alone to be the cause of the issue. More perplexing is it works for some people and not others. Don't know, but as with many new technologies some of this stuff is a bit of a crapshoot.

I'm still just using my Minelab supplied phones with no issues.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is not Minelabs issue - kinda ?

Well they picked the headphones .

Might have to find another supplier / manufacture of metal detectors , someone who will not leave customers in a deep dark hole ?

Especially when they jackup the price by 2-3 times ?

Anybody else a little or more unhappy .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, KD0CAC said:

Anybody else a little or more unhappy .

I'm not because I have found no less than 7 BT headphone models that pair up just fine with Equinox in low latency mode (including BT 5.0 phones) ranging from $30 to $100, plus there is always the WM08 receiver option for the 800 that accommodates any wired MD headphone.  People just need to be smart and read the specs when shopping for a replacement.  I would rather have options on choice of headphones that comply with a commercial standard (BT APTX LL) rather than be locked into a MD manufacturer's limited proprietary wireless model that cannot be used for any other purpose.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/23/2020 at 11:48 AM, Chase Goldman said:

Thanks, Tom.  That means they are not APTX LL.  Just means you can't guarantee the worst case latency of APTX LL.  In some cases APTX latency is very noticeable and unusable.  It is just important for people to know that their mileage might vary and the latency of aptx ll can't be guaranteed for these phones and that could be a deal breaker for some folks.

Below is a good post comparing the various bluetooth protocol latencies.  APTX LL is 30 - 40 ms, while APTX is 60 - 80 ms.  I have a pair of vanilla APTX headphones and they are unusable for me due to the amount of lag.  You basically get two different "beep" positions as you sweep he coil back and forth over a single target.  It is maddening..

 

 

On 4/23/2020 at 10:28 PM, Tometusns said:

Chase, you're right. I sure wouldn't want to mislead anybody and them get something that wouldn't work for them. I'm very happy with these and like I stated in my previous post. I wasn't able to tell any difference between these and my wired minelab phones on lag time or if there was it was so close I couldn't really tell. I think I got lucky maybe. HH Tom

I have taken the last set of headphones I bought and tried them out to see about lag and they are terrible!! Also did more testing with the first pair and there is a slight difference in lag on them. They are usable but there is a little lag. The second pair I bought remind me of what Chase was referring to when he said they wouldn't work on your detector and these won't!! I checked all the numbers ect. on each set and they're the same but not even close on lag time. Sorry for any confusion I might have caused. Thanks and HH!

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Chase Goldman said:

I'm not because I have found no less than 7 BT headphone models that pair up just fine with Equinox in low latency mode (including BT 5.0 phones) ranging from $30 to $100, plus there is always the WM08 receiver option for the 800 that accommodates any wired MD headphone.  People just need to be smart and read the specs when shopping for a replacement.  I would rather have options on choice of headphones that comply with a commercial standard (BT APTX LL) rather than be locked into a MD manufacturer's limited proprietary wireless model that cannot be used for any other purpose.

Sure would like to find some of those , every one I've check has been sold out , or other issues and costing excessive .

Also most of the comments leave lots of doubt , lack of enough to confirmation , that makes it a toss up ?

Link to comment
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 Dug2gld
      Got the tarsacci out today to get things charged up and redoing the zlink wires differently. I love the z link and Garrett headphones. But hate the connector that’s needed.  Wish I could figure out something different for that.  Will be in Culpeper in about 3 weeks for the DIV and will only be using the tarsacci there.  
    • By mungass
      Who has run the sp01 on their  6
      I had a crack , with my cogs as well , but found the cables a pain in the arse ...
      Also with the 6,s headphones on 70% volume on the phonesand the detector backed off a tad  I hear the feint murmurs ok I reckon anyway 😃
      I
    • By greg801
      Hello, I am looking for a solution on how to vibrate the Equinox 600/800 detector for a deaf person who will use it underwater. As you know, a deaf person wears hearing aids that are not waterproof and cannot be immersed under water, and in these headphones he is not able to hear the signals, too much hearing loss is about 95dB.
      I did a few attempts with a small amplifier and vibration motor from an old cell phone, but there are problems:
      - after connecting the system to the Nox800 on the cable, the motor makes a slight buzzing noise but does not react to the metal signal in the coil,
      - after connecting the system to the WM08 wireless module, the vibration works great on signals, but unfortunately after the detector is submerged under water, it loses the wireless connection.
      - if I connect the headphone (computer) cable to the Noxa800 and at the end of the handset (the signal is heard in the headphones) I cut the cable and solder it to the system, vibration works great on the signals.
      Why is it that the vibration does not work directly on the cable and it works through the headphone cable?
      Is there anyone on the forum who will cover this topic?
      One more thing. The deaf person uses an induction loop instead of headphones, which works with the hearing aid above the water and on the ground.
      This loop connected to the detector via the cable is perfect, but when it is connected to the WM08, a buzzing can be heard in the background. How to do it to eliminate interference?
    • By Steve Herschbach
      These poll results will be seen at Minelab, in hope of guiding future product development. Please take the poll seriously, and if you wish, provide extra commentary via the posts section.
      This poll is designed to reveal how owners of the Minelab Equinox, Vanquish Pro Pack, and GPX 6000 are using, or not using, the included ML80 and ML100 headphones. Please, only owners of these models should respond to the poll directly, though others are welcome to add commentary via posts. Again, I request you take the poll seriously, and think about answers or commentary provided, as reflecting on the quality of forum membership. Thank you for your time and responses.
    • By aerospace guy
      I bought these headphones and used them in the ocean last week in the Kauai (up to my neck).The dealer is always busy or on a trip so I thought I'd throw this out there to get some feedback. I had a few instances where the audio cut out completely and I jiggled the cord and it came back. My question is, should the end of the headphone cord have an o-ring like a lot of my scuba equipment does? The EQ800 still seems to work fine so I don't believe any water made it's way inside detector.
                         As to my success ..well let's just say I understand why my dealer goes to Cancun for his jewelry hunts and not where I went where the waves are 3,4,5 feet. I quickly looked for beaches with "breakwaters" that you can safely take children to and I did find lots of coins and 1 silver diamond ring..but man, it was still 'surgey' as heck and not easy to lift one foot up to push scoop into sand while keeping your balance! Anyone have any experience in using the EQ in the ocean? I saw online sand scoops with a "cross" handle (like on a small shovel) where when you scoop you can keep the scoop from twisting sideways...thoughts..usage?The scoop handle would have to be a "breakdown" type to be able to pack for air travel. The scoop I took has a straight shaft that easily turns sideways when scooping.
    • By Tony
      I’m after a durable and lightweight set of headphones for warmer weather. I run a speaker with my 3500 but have the need for headphones sometimes. I want an “on ear” set. I’m looking at getting the Telex Airman 7 Listen Only headphones. The link is below…..love to hear any pros or cons. Impedance is 150 ohms…..thanks.
      https://www.sportys.com/telex-airman-7-listen-only-headset.html
×
×
  • Create New...