Jump to content

Opinions Wanted On The Future Of Detecting


Recommended Posts

Not sure where this belongs on the forum, (or if it even belongs here), but this seemed to be the best category to discuss this. Ever since information on the GPX 6000 started to trickle out, I had this nagging feeling something in detecting has changed for those of us who like the thrill of getting to know a new detector. I never would have envisioned the GPX line morphing into a simplified detector. After having the GPX 5000 for a bunch of years now, and using it for relic and beach hunting, I could not imagine relying on a machine that adjust everything for you. I get it that money talks, and when you are a publicly traded company, you go for profit first, and then deny it ūüėĄ And now that there market has switched to an area that probably has very little experience with detectors, the GPX 5000 must have been daunting for them.¬† So they cater to that market. But I was hoping that a new GPX would fix some of the issues that the 5000 had. I was naive. Minelab has never kept the good parts of their previous machines and just added the the things that needed improvements. On the E trac, the best part of it was the depth it had in finding deep silver,¬† in long tones, multi. Also the bouncy numbers helped ID deep Indians. When the CTX came out, it lost some of that fluety tone and they tried to straighten out the numbers to a number 12 line. So a two dimensional screen that worked well was transformed into a 2 dimensional screen that bunched most targets on one line. The The EQ comes out and squashes out the numbers even further. So why I thought the 6000 would not do the same is beyond me. I guess I'm disappointing that the "trend" is to make machines where the manufacturer decides on how your machine is going to be set. I hope someone in my area gets a 6000 and is willing to bring it to the beach to compare settings on deep silver. If it wins, then I will eat my words. I know I will get some slack with people saying it's a gold machine, not a relic or beach machine, but to them I would say.... you should be worried when a company controls your ability to fine tune your machine. Thoughts?

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites


I don't know what to tell you other than markets and technology move on.  I think the people at Minelab which have been there from the beginning and the new people that have been added make for a mix now that still produces quality detectors from a marketing and technological standpoint.  There are not too many people who would 'trade back' the latest detector for an old one if they have had a chance to use the new ones.  I still have all my old ones that I don't use any more ... or at least not much.  You enjoy a 'sweet spot' of using a powerful detector (the 5000) and most admit the number of adjustment on it are daunting.  I have one too.  (I also had one of the AQs like you have but sold it.  So I'm not only stuck on Minelab.)  When the 7000 came out (it was not a continuation number) I stopped using my 5000 but I'm also aware that the 7000 does not make a good relic detector.  I can't use it at the beach either.  Maybe this 6000 should have been named something else like Gold Demon then there would be 'less' expected of it as a continuation of a line of detectors.  I'm certain that the 6000 will find its fans and its gold or Minelab would not put out such a high end detector.  Their 'new' market has to be younger people than us with a few extra thousands to just take a couple of weekends a year and go out and find several ounces of gold.  It may happen.  Look at all the new finds in England this past year with the lockdowns.  The 'proof' in the 6000 will be its ability to ignore bad ground conditions.  If you can 'turn it on and go' as a high end machine like a Vanquish then they are one step closer to the holy grail.  This means it will ignore salt, mineralization, hot rocks and other impediments to gold prospectors.  I hope there is someone like you who will make it work for relics too and it can be made to ignore iron but I haven't read much about that.  Maybe with fewer adjustments it will just be a better detector for more than just gold.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My opinion on detecting now or in the future is simple.

No mater how much technology changes there will always be someone out there detecting just for the fun of it.

Through out the years there have been many changes to the design of metal detectors and there will always be changes made to them. The best is yet to come from the factories who are smaller as they are the ones that are hungry for a bigger market share. I see items being found long after I am gone with detectors.

People want to find things with any type of tool that they can get, a pick, a shovel, and even a detector.

We love the challenge and that is what makes us unique.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, mn90403 said:

I don't know what to tell you other than markets and technology move on.  I think the people at Minelab which have been there from the beginning and the new people that have been added make for a mix now that still produces quality detectors from a marketing and technological standpoint.  There are not too many people who would 'trade back' the latest detector for an old one if they have had a chance to use the new ones.  I still have all my old ones that I don't use any more ... or at least not much.  You enjoy a 'sweet spot' of using a powerful detector (the 5000) and most admit the number of adjustment on it are daunting.  I have one too.  (I also had one of the AQs like you have but sold it.  So I'm not only stuck on Minelab.)  When the 7000 came out (it was not a continuation number) I stopped using my 5000 but I'm also aware that the 7000 does not make a good relic detector.  I can't use it at the beach either.  Maybe this 6000 should have been named something else like Gold Demon then there would be 'less' expected of it as a continuation of a line of detectors.  I'm certain that the 6000 will find its fans and its gold or Minelab would not put out such a high end detector.  Their 'new' market has to be younger people than us with a few extra thousands to just take a couple of weekends a year and go out and find several ounces of gold.  It may happen.  Look at all the new finds in England this past year with the lockdowns.  The 'proof' in the 6000 will be its ability to ignore bad ground conditions.  If you can 'turn it on and go' as a high end machine like a Vanquish then they are one step closer to the holy grail.  This means it will ignore salt, mineralization, hot rocks and other impediments to gold prospectors.  I hope there is someone like you who will make it work for relics too and it can be made to ignore iron but I haven't read much about that.  Maybe with fewer adjustments it will just be a better detector for more than just gold.

Agreed. I too have moved up from the old machines, (hence trying the AQ) not just because they were new, but because they worked better. My fear is that the future will limit who decides what works better. I've noticed that when a manufacturer breaks into the market, they are very willing and eager to make the best machine possible. But after a while it seems they are more worried about market share and not as much about quality or what we are looking for.  So let me pose a question to anyone who has the 7000: Do you feel you could have gotten more out of the 7000 if it allowed you more control and more choices than it offered you. In other words, if it had some or most of the GPX controls and options, do you think it would have allowed you to gain more gold? How about if you were allowed after market coils?? I'm sure the 6000 is going to find many good homes and probably some that will not like it, but at the prices they are now going for, trying one out to see if it's good, is out of the question for most people.  Technology always moves on and that is a good thing, but limiting choices counteracts that technology in a way. I hope it is a great machine, but we can only wait and see as always. The proof comes out when some of the most experienced gold people get their hands on it. If they like the lack of adjustments, and it produces gold in worked out areas or trouble areas, then we know it's real and not just fancy advertising.

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Step back ~70 years and ask the same question about automobile transmissions (automatic vs. manual).  We still have both available although automatics dominate the market.  Auto racing experimented with automatics in the 1970's but AFAIK the current top-of-the-line racers still use manual trannies.  (Well, some of those have pushbutton shifters....)  So the new tech hasn't performed as well as the old at the very pinnacle of performance demand.

Or back ~30 years and the introduction of Graphical User Interfaces (GUI's) to replace command line processing (remember MS-DOS?).  LINUX/UNIX (with both options) is thriving, admittedly with a small market share.

One thing I've noticed from the sidelines (but it's been emphasized in other threads, by Gerry and others) is that for once we enthusiasts aren't the catered to buyers of the newest state-of-the-art detector.  ML might have been satisfied to just sell the GPX 6000 Africa -- its apparent primary market.

One big difference (of many) between autos and detectors -- automobiles have never been dominated (that is, monopolized) by a single company so competition prevented what you envision.  I guess we'll know eventually if your Orwellian nightmare becomes a widespread reality.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think in general companies strive for automation and simplicity to attract new customers rather than cater to the needs or wishes of existing seasoned customers where the sale is over. Seems like Nokta still tries to listen to customers wishes and wasn't too long ago Garrett had a questionnaire for a wish list of features. The rest of the companies, feature requests seem to fall on deaf ears and they just do their own thing.

You would think it would be wiser to listen to existing customers and put in the features they want as many new people to the hobby are attracted to the hobby from existing users and learn from them.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, GB_Amateur said:

Step back ~70 years and ask the same question about automobile transmissions (automatic vs. manual).  We still have both available although automatics dominate the market.  Auto racing experimented with automatics in the 1970's but AFAIK the current top-of-the-line racers still use manual trannies.  (Well, some of those have pushbutton shifters....)  So the new tech hasn't performed as well as the old at the very pinnacle of performance demand.

Or back ~30 years and the introduction of Graphical User Interfaces (GUI's) to replace command line processing (remember MS-DOS?).  LINUX/UNIX (with both options) is thriving, admittedly with a small market share.

One thing I've noticed from the sidelines (but it's been emphasized in other threads, by Gerry and others) is that for once we enthusiasts aren't the catered to buyers of the newest state-of-the-art detector.  ML might have been satisfied to just sell the GPX 6000 Africa -- its apparent primary market.

One big difference (of many) between autos and detectors -- automobiles have never been dominated (that is, monopolized) by a single company so competition prevented what you envision.  I guess we'll know eventually if your Orwellian nightmare becomes a widespread reality.

True. I guess if I were the manufacturer, I could cater to both sides and sell more machines. Why not upgrade the 5000 using the existing options, or redesigning of the original controls, but also put some really good presets in for those who just want to turn on and go detecting? They kind of did this with the Equinox, why not the 6000? Alienating any market is a bad idea in my book. They may not need us in this particular situation, but maybe they will need us in the future? IF Alexandre comes up with a land version of the AQ, I, for the first time in a long time, would consider it over Minelab. In the old days, I was a true White's guy. I did very well with them, until they left the door open for Minelab to enter. The only reason I bought an E trac was because their Vision (aka Spectra V3) was delayed and unavailable when I needed it. In a way Minelab disregarding sales in the US is kind of a slap in the face for all the loyalty we have shown them. Maybe it's a calculated risk or maybe they just don't care, but it's distasteful to some of us who have posted great finds with their machines.

35 minutes ago, kac said:

I think in general companies strive for automation and simplicity to attract new customers rather than cater to the needs or wishes of existing seasoned customers where the sale is over. Seems like Nokta still tries to listen to customers wishes and wasn't too long ago Garrett had a questionnaire for a wish list of features. The rest of the companies, feature requests seem to fall on deaf ears and they just do their own thing.

You would think it would be wiser to listen to existing customers and put in the features they want as many new people to the hobby are attracted to the hobby from existing users and learn from them.

If I were Nokta, Fisher or Garrett, I would be introducing something soon and take advantage of the opportunity to gain back some market share.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, schoolofhardNox said:

If I were Nokta, Fisher or Garrett, I would be introducing something soon and take advantage of the opportunity to gain back some market share.

They know this too and, as far as rumors go, all 3 are in the process of doing just that.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are controls for controls sake the desire? I thought we wanted performance? If performance can be had with fewer controls, why would you want more controls?

In my opinion the premise is flawed i.e. more controls equals better performance. If that were true that machines were being dumbed down and less effective, it would be a scary thought, but I do not accept that it is true. A machine can have fewer controls, be more powerful, and get better results, than a machine with tons of controls.

The 5000 is an excellent example of people getting poor performance due to complexity, because half the people running the detector are using various timings, with little or no understanding of what they are doing. They are using Fine Gold because they think it’s the best mode for fine gold (it’s not), or because somebody on the internet gave them canned settings. Using a machine that is not set properly is not a good thing, and few people could swear the settings they have with the 5000 are correct. In fact, they cannot be correct, as no one setting in the 5000 captures the gold in one pass, that takes multiple passes with multiple settings. I do not find that desirable, but a time waster. The GPZ was a big step in both reducing the number of controls, while vastly improving the number of targets found on the first pass.

Count me in for more power and performance, but I do not vote for more controls, but fewer. In other words, this photo below is not what I think I want, but if more controls are better, this is a real winner. Or how about a Whites V3i? It has way more controls than a GPX 5000, so it must be more powerful, right?

Long story short, as a guy involved in the development end.... no, we are not trying to figure out ways to add more controls, and make the detectors more complex. That would be going backwards, not forwards. But do not worry. You will be able to buy detectors with as many controls as you want for as long as you want them. No matter which way the wind blows, machines will get better at finding stuff, not worse.

Not the goal as far as I am concerned....

463A0790-09F4-460A-BFBF-0FB510B7C454.jpeg

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with better performance with less manual controls. 

However, to the dedicated detectorists... the more manual adjustments, the easier it is to separate a seasoned and experienced detectorist from a "Newbie" or "Weekend Warrior" (with no offense intended to those just starting out or those that are only able to hunt occasionally).  Everybody wants to turn on the machine, swing twice and find a gold cache.  For those who have taken the time and extreme effort to learn the more complex machines (some mentioned above..  Blisstool, CTX, V3i, etc), finding the correct combination of settings, is almost as great a reward as finding that valuable target that nobody else has.  

The gateway is the question "what settings are you using", which in some is an attempt to make a manual control machine... more automatic (I am guilty of asking this question, though, I have tried to use that is information in my own research, rather than just plugging and going).  We all know, every region, every site, every target, is a little different... so a hunter really needs to understand the settings to tweak accordingly.  These tweaks are being made in the more automated machines, eliminating the need for a user control.  

I am guilty of both, so I guess I can be criticized from both sides.   I want an easy machine (at times), but I also enjoy learning a complex one (and really feel rewarded by finding a valued target at a hard hunted site with a more manual machine).  But the advancements in technology really should create "bigger,better,faster" with more automation.  

So, to the original question... the future of detecting is most assuredly more automation, less controls, and better performance.  

  • Like 1
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 diggindaboot
      THIS !! All the people boo hooing will be in line to get one at that price point. It will also force the hand of ML with their price structure. ML raised their price on the 800 and NM absolutely crushed that price point. The Legend doesn't have to be better, just equal to turn the fortunes in their favor. ML and their arrogant "obsolete" charge is foolish. Obsolete by definition means no longer produced or used. Many detectorist and their single frequency machines are still out there making great finds and having fun. Furthermore, single frequency detectors are still being made and sold. NM build quality is far and away superior to the Nox detectors. 
       
       
    • By Gerry in Idaho
      I thought I was pretty damn good, but this technology has me beat.
      https://www.nbcnews.com/science/environment/mining-gap-companies-push-find-raw-materials-electric-vehicle-boom-rcna5077
      Might be time to invest?
    • By mcjtom
      Metal detectors often seem to have a 'Depth Gauge'.  How is it calculated? Is it the strength (or inverse of it) of the amplitude of the return signal?  So, for instance, everything else being equal, the 'deep' target would mean either a stronger target at greater depth or a weaker shallow target?
    • By GB_Amateur
      While we're all abuzz with the announcement and advertised feature and performance characteristics of the XP Deus II, I'm wondering about tests that distinguish between detectors' target separation abilities.  'Word on the street' is that in trashy iron sites, the original Deus is still the best available.  Presumably those reports are based upon in-field testing, which of course is the real proof.  But the downside is, (AFAIK) these are qualitative observations, not quantitative.  Subjectivity involved?  Unfortunately, yes.
      We do have Monte's Nail Board Test for a special case -- iron nails near a single coin, all in the same plane and typically all on the surface of the ground.  Add depth combined with some mineralization (burying the MNB) and you've included another real world dimension.  But in the field, multiple nearby targets are seldom in the same plane.
      So you hopefully see the purpose of this post.  Has anyone seen/tried other methods to better simulate actual in-field conditions to differentiate between competing detectors to best be able to handle trashy sites?
    • By Rick N. MI
      I mostly hunt in lakes and the bottoms are mostly all sand. A test on a sandy beach with the Equinox 800 and Xp Orx, both hit hard on a 14k 3.7 gram gold ring buried at 14". For mild ground I don't see a need for multi frequency. I do like the multiple frequencies on the Orx.
      Is there an advantage to multi frequency in mild ground?
    • By Steve Herschbach
      We have the Deus 2 just announced, Nokta/Makro Multi on the way, possibly the next generation Equinox from Minelab, and maybe even another Garrett multifrequency model to follow Apex, all coming in 2022. I guess we should even toss First Texas in there, as they just officially discontinued the CZ-3D, with the possibility something new will replace it soon. If this does not mean we are moving past single frequency, I don’t know what does. Or are we? There will no doubt always be a place for a finely tuned single frequency detector. However, if you consider Deus as selectable frequency, and Equinox as selectable/multi, then very many of us have already moved past a simple single frequency detector as our primary detectors.
      This is the thread to speculate on what is coming, where we are, and where we are headed. 2022 is shaping up as the year SMF (simultaneous multifrequency) finally takes off for real. In some detectors, it’s just companies chasing the latest marketing catchword. Multifrequency is only as good as the way it is implemented, otherwise we’d all have been swinging White’s DFX ages ago. It’s not enough to make a SMF detector, it also has to have genuine performance advantages. About the only given is that any multifrequency machine will outperform a single frequency on a saltwater beach. The rest, however, is very much up in the air.
      For some detailed explanation of the technology, and a history of past selectable and simultaneous multifrequency detectors, see my write up on Selectable Frequency And Multiple Frequency
      Where it all started, Fisher CZ-6 and Minelab Sovereign, both released in 1991. I think Fisher wins claim to being first, since Minelab takes a swipe at them in their Sovereign introduction. Notice how the misdirection on transmitted versus received and processed started on day one. 

      Fisher CZ-6 Quicksilver. The technology: Dual frequency Fourier Domain Signal Analysis. Patented state-of-the-art analog/digital electronics transmit two VLF signals (one 5 kHz, one at 15 kHz) deep into mineralized soil. The receiver circuitry had two ground compensated target signals to analyze, compare and identify. The result? Deeper targets, more accurate target identification. Wet sand is no problem for the CZ-6, it compensates for salt and ground mineralization simultaneously! Source Fisher CZ-6 Datasheet
       
       

      "The Sovereign" is the first of the latest generation of metal detectors from Minelab featuring Minelab's new technology called Broad Band Spectrum or BBS for short. This revolutionary new technology which is unique to Minelab has already been awarded patents in the USA, Canada and Australia and has several pending. Unlike other metal detectors which operate at just one frequency, or even the "newest" two frequency machines, "The Sovereign" actually transmits over a wide spectrum of frequencies. The resulting signal that is received from a target buried in the ground is processed by a microprocessor that removes interference caused by ground mineralization which limits the depth at which targets can be found, and often results in inaccurate target identification. The remaining signal can then be analysed to determine the actual composition of targets even if they are deeply buried, or if the ground is mineralized or salt water is present. Thus it is the only detector that can simultaneously reject both salt and mineralization while at the same time accurately discriminating the target, making it ideal for black sand beaches and many desert areas. In many areas that are highly mineralized and have been heavily searched in the past, "The Sovereign" will prove that many of the valuable targets are still there waiting for a Treasure Hunter with the proper detector to locate them. Source Minelab Sovereign Instruction Manual
×
×
  • Create New...