Jump to content

Recommended Posts

If this question has been addressed elsewhere, I apologize in advance and hope someone can give me a link for it.  I have noticed that other companies besides Minelab are coming out with PI detectors for less than $3K.  How do these detectors compare to the best Minelab detectors for Gold and also relic hunting?

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

This thread lays it out in great detail.

You are talking about ground balancing PI detectors. Non-Minelab models made so far:

Garrett Infinium (discontinued)

Garrett ATX

White's TDI (various versions, discontinued)

Australian QED

Due to various bad reports on QED build reliability, I do not recommend the machine, leaving only the Garrett ATX as a current contender.

Garrett purchased White's, so we may see a TDI or other PI variant from them someday. Nokta/Makro is working on a PI for release next year. So is First Texas - the Impulse Gold. No one can say how detectors not produced yet will compare.

So basically at the moment there is not much in the way of genuine competition. The Fisher Impulse Gold will probably be the next contender, sometime by end of this year.

Garrett ATX vs Minelab GPX 5000

garrett-atx-waterproof-pulse-induction-metal-detector.jpg

  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

I  can’t say too much about relic hunting even though gold prospecting is a form of relic hunting at most of the places I hunt. I do know that using a DD coil with several of the Minelab GPX series with an iron discrimination setting is preferred by some. I just use a DD coil and listen for two successive low/high tone sequences which works for shallow and medium depth elongated iron targets and don’t worry about iron discrimination.

I use the same for gold/non ferrous and ferrous target identification for shallow targets with clear, no doubt signals gold prospecting when the targets are big enough whether using a Mono or DD coil. Otherwise, I dig all faint sounding targets.

Right now, you can buy GP Extremes, GP3000 and GP3500s for around $1200 used in the USA with a working battery and multiple coils. I haven’t seen any GPX 4000s for sale lately. Used GPX 4500s and 5000s are between $1800 and $2200 depending on condition and accessories. These have enough power and settings to work with any sized compatible coil. These are private sale prices, not used dealer prices.

I know nothing about the Garrett ATX or the new Fisher AQ aside from what I have read on this forum.

The Whites TDI Pro/OZ, TDI Pulse Scan and TDI SL are decent PIs if you can find them. I have only had good experiences with these detectors using smaller coils under 12”. They are a bit hard to ground balance, have finicky threshold tones (except for the SL) and are underpowered for deep targets in my opinion and also are not very sensitive on really small .5 gram or less targets either. They do very well on shallow to medium depth coin sized targets.

The QED is technically only available in Australia and New Zealand.......... I have one and so does one other USA forum member. For some reason, mine was not setup to handle 60 Hz electrical interference from populated areas and large power lines before it was imported to the USA. That seems to be kind of normal with the QED manufacturer. Some of the problems Steve is referring to above seem to center around the PL3 August 2019 software updated ground balance system which frankly is hit or miss depending on how well each QED was calibrated before sale or during the update. I really can’t tell if mine ground balances correctly or not since 60 Hz EMI continues to interfere. Until I can get to an area miles away from power lines and towns, I just can’t get a good read on my QED and what it is really capable of.

I have been able to do some SDC 2300/GPX5000/QED PL3 head to head testing using similar sized coils. I have two large plastic containers with about 6” depth of dirt from northwest of Phoenix and from a site here in Colorado where I have detected gold nuggets. The Arizona dirt in moderately mineralized and will pull down Minelab Equinox target IDs into the upper iron range on .1 gram or smaller gold nuggets. Larger gold nuggets will retain their non/ferrous qualities on the Equinox down to 6” or more. The Colorado dirt can turn any non-ferrous target the size of a US penny or smaller into a ferrous target even sitting on the surface and definitely if it is 1” or deeper.........so definitely PI dirt.

My stock SDC with 8” mono coil had no problem with .25 or larger targets in the Arizona dirt. Smaller targets deeper than 1” were next to impossible to hear due to the unstable threshold. It had similar results in the hotter Colorado dirt but the threshold was even more unstable. My GPX 5000 has no problems with either test dirt using an 11” Commander Mono or NuggetFinder Sadie coil on .15 gram sized targets down to 3” or so using Enhanced and moderate settings. .25 gram up to 1 gram nuggets are no doubters in my test dirt. The QED had similar results as the GPX 5000 using 11” Commander or smaller coils even though EMI is still a problem.

So, I am fairly satisfied with the QED PL3 I have. It is more sensitive than any of the Whites TDIs I have owned and used and despite its present EMI shortcomings, is easier for me to hear smaller targets than the SDC 2300 due to the SDC’s wavering threshold. Until the 60 Hz EMI issue is fixed I will stick to smaller coils so I have no idea about overall depth/sensitivity using larger coils on the QED. I doubt that would be the best use for this diminutive detector.

I am going to send my QED PL3 back to Australia for the latest update which is supposed to fix the unreliable ground balance problem, 60 Hz adjustment and for anything else it might need internally.

 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

I hunt gold on dry land hillsides with generally low mineralization but some very mineralized fossil black-sand bearing sandstones and wet clay after (very infrequent) rain. My GB2 struggles with these and I figured I needed a PI. I agonized long and hard over whether to buy the ATX or the GPX 5000 and in the end got the ATX (in 2019) given the large price differential and low performance differential between the machines. I had not seen Steve's 2014 review until this post but his experience mirrors mine exactly. It's a great machine but the bad ergonomics are a huge downside  particularly if you are patch hunting; to the extent that I usually leave it in the back of the truck and default to the GB2 with the 10" DD coil. It comes out of the truck for the clay and the fossil black sand and then it's a pleasure to use compared to the GB2 that in fairness isn't designed for such stuff. I will persist with the ATX and out of curiosity I'm looking for an Infinium 10" DD coil that is compatible with the ATX, lighter and can get closer to the big rock strewn ground I have to deal with. I'm not expecting miracles but it'll be interesting. Also, in fairness I've got maybe 25 hours on the ATX and several hundred on the GB2 so the jury is still out but, in hindsight, buying a used MineLab might have been a better decision for me. Having paid $2.2k for the ATX I was then offered a used GPX5000, here in Africa, for $3k (Arghhhhh!). Such is life. In foresight I'll be very interested to see how the upcoming Fisher PI works out

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow....thanks for the detailed responses.  I'm amazed at the wealth of knowledge to be found in this forum. 

I am not an engineer, but, based on the price of the Minelab detectors, I would guess there is a huge profit margin.  This situation usually breeds competition in a big way.  Are there patents that are blocking development of PI detectors that are comparable in quality and performance?  I guess MineLab is being smart, unlike most US companies, in not outsourcing manufacturing to Asia, which would make the detectors cheaper short term, but would ultimately, probably destroy the brand.

I understand that the market for detectors is relatively small compared to a multitude of other electronic devices and that situation always supports a higher profit margin.  Maybe the high price is a good thing, since only the serious detectorists will be the ones out there hoovering up the last of the decent gold to be found?

I am involved in detecting for the excitement of discovery, not for profit.  I'm not sure many of us are in it trying to make a living, but it would be nice to at least have a fighting chance at making enough $ in found relics, jewelry, and gold to pay for the detector before the warranty expires.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, AUgetter said:

Wow....thanks for the detailed responses.  I'm amazed at the wealth of knowledge to be found in this forum. 

I am not an engineer, but, based on the price of the Minelab detectors, I would guess there is a huge profit margin.  This situation usually breeds competition in a big way.  Are there patents that are blocking development of PI detectors that are comparable in quality and performance?  I guess MineLab is being smart, unlike most US companies, in not outsourcing manufacturing to Asia, which would make the detectors cheaper short term, but would ultimately, probably destroy the brand.

I understand that the market for detectors is relatively small compared to a multitude of other electronic devices and that situation always supports a higher profit margin.  Maybe the high price is a good thing, since only the serious detectorists will be the ones out there hoovering up the last of the decent gold to be found?

I am involved in detecting for the excitement of discovery, not for profit.  I'm not sure many of us are in it trying to make a living, but it would be nice to at least have a fighting chance at making enough $ in found relics, jewelry, and gold to pay for the detector before the warranty expires.

 

I forgot to say welcome to the forum!!!  My bad....

You are definitely new to the forum and possibly detecting too, based on your above post. You might want to do your own Minelab research online.

Many on this forum easily pay for their detectors with their finds. Most who do are either very experienced and/or detect nearly everyday, and/or have great locations and connections to locations, which means they put in the time and they get results. A few very fortunate people are just lucky............I am not in that category unfortunately.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, since Minelab is made in Malaysia.... lots to learn. Minelab employs over 20 engineers and physicists, and is at least a couple generations ahead of everyone in the technology. They ARE the cutting edge, they do patent prolifically, and protect fiercely. Minelab invested millions and worked a three year product cycle, while the competition pocketed the profits, and worked a ten year cycle. A couple decades of competition being asleep at the wheel leaves us where we are now. A company with a massive lead.

If you do not care about profit then the finds are secondary, and you can use whatever detector you please. Many here are turning profits with detectors, entire countries full of prospectors, so you are more the odd guy out. It is better to have a $6000 detector that finds gold at $500 a week, then a $1000 detector that finds $20 a week. I'm making a single trip this year tat should recoup the entire retail price of a GPX 6000 and then some, in less than three weeks. The big money machines' looked at properly, are the best allocation of funds, if you actually want to make the finds. Machines are normally sold eventually, recouping 50% or more of the purchase price, and it is the difference between that and the original purchase price, that is the true cost of the detector. 

I'm grateful Minelab invested millions where others were not willing, and they deserve to profit from that risk that nobody else would take. Nobody has to pay, but you do get what you pay for when it comes to gold prospecting machines. beware false economy.

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I am not dissing Minelab.  In fact, I am applauding them for making the best detectors around.  I'm only wishing that there was some stiff competition to pull the price down a bit.

JM...I'm not new to detecting.  I have been scuba detecting for about 5 years using a Garrett Sea Hunter Mark II.  Fairly successfully, I might add.  Granted, what I do is a niche in this world.  Once retired, I plan on getting into gold detecting more underwater and on land.  My choice for land will be the GPX 6000.  Underwater, I'll probably just get another detector for shallow use that will enable me to find smaller targets, especially gold.  Right now, I'm seriously considering the Gold Kruzer.  The only thing that worries me about it is potential leakage from long term underwater use.  Most of the small stuff in scuba is found at under 10 feet, but in poor vis it's easy for a diver to get distracted and end up at 20 feet, which would probably mean bye bye Gold Kruzer.  I'm also seriously looking at the Minelab Excalibur II, but It's way more $ than the GK and at it's lower frequency selections, I'm not sure how great it would be on the small stuff. Either way, I'll not ditch my Mark II.  It has been great for me and I KNOW it...it's limitations and advantages.  What I really wish is that Garrett would upgrade the PI on the Mark II while charging $1K/unit or less.  THAT would be a stupendous thing for me.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, AUgetter said:

I am not dissing Minelab.  In fact, I am applauding them for making the best detectors around.  I'm only wishing that there was some stiff competition to pull the price down a bit.

JM...I'm not new to detecting.  I have been scuba detecting for about 5 years using a Garrett Sea Hunter Mark II.  Fairly successfully, I might add.  Granted, what I do is a niche in this world.  Once retired, I plan on getting into gold detecting more underwater and on land.  My choice for land will be the GPX 6000.  Underwater, I'll probably just get another detector for shallow use that will enable me to find smaller targets, especially gold.  Right now, I'm seriously considering the Gold Kruzer.  The only thing that worries me about it is potential leakage from long term underwater use.  Most of the small stuff in scuba is found at under 10 feet, but in poor vis it's easy for a diver to get distracted and end up at 20 feet, which would probably mean bye bye Gold Kruzer.  I'm also seriously looking at the Minelab Excalibur II, but It's way more $ than the GK and at it's lower frequency selections, I'm not sure how great it would be on the small stuff. Either way, I'll not ditch my Mark II.  It has been great for me and I KNOW it...it's limitations and advantages.  What I really wish is that Garrett would upgrade the PI on the Mark II while charging $1K/unit or less.  THAT would be a stupendous thing for me.

Since this is the Advice an Comparison Forum, you can say just about whatever you want about Minelab or any other detector manufacturer.

When you mention gold in your posts, are you referring to gold jewelry or gold nugget hunting and mostly fresh or saltwater? 

Personally, if I was diving I would look very closely at Nokta/Makro’s Pulse Dive for a backup to your Mark ll. It comes with two different sized coils, has vibration on targets and by all accounts is a great, inexpensive, miniature pulse induction handheld detector.

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 GB_Amateur
      This is a topic relevant to every(?) form of detecting -- ground coverage.  I'll list several questions concerns I've had but any replies of course aren't limited to these, nor do they need to address  any of them.  Just tossing out some ideas to prompt further discussion.
      1) What methods and efforts do you apply to ensure full ground coverage in the cases where that is one of your goals?
      2) Is your sweep a straight line path or an arc?
      3) How long is your sweep?
      4) How much do you overlap consecutive sweeps in the direction you walk?
      5) How much do you overlap side-to-side swings when following parallel paths (e.g. when walking two side-by-side swaths in the same direction how much does the left end of one path overlap the right end of the next path or vice-versa)?
      6) Have you ever measured your coverage?  How well do detectors with GPS (e.g. Minelab GPZ-7000 and Minelab CTX-3030) monitor ground coverage to this detail?  Have you used other devices to measure ground coverage.  E.g. I can imagine a drone with camera could provide useful data.  Are there smartphones app that would help quantify coverage?
       
    • By nebulanoodle
      Just dreaming...
      What'dya think? Minelab technology going on the next moon mission?
      X6 must be space-worthy.
    • By JCR
      On the Anfibio Multi (and I think Kruzer & others) there is a definite step in sensitivity between 39&40 Gain and again between 69&70 Gain. Is this a change in the Internal Threshold? In a way this would be the inverse of the way the F75 adjusts sensitivity according to Mike Hillis.  Regardless, it is a very good set up in difficult sites. Most NM users know about the difference in response speed between 89 & 90 Gain on 3DI. This is different. I had read about these steps in a forum post that quoted Alper of NM. I can't seem to find that post now that I want to re read it.
    • By jasong
      https://patents.google.com/patent/WO2021016649A1/en?assignee=minelab&scholar&oq=minelab&sort=new
      This is the most out of this world Minelab detector patent I've ever read. There is so much here, some very sci-fi like, I don't even know where to start. My takeaway is they seem to be positioning themselves for a drone based detector eventually (main details in this patent could be easily transferred to a drone based platform - IMU, GPS, magnetometer, heads up display, FPV, remote control, robotic/vehicle mount, etc) . That is 100% a guess. But in the meantime, there is some interesting, novel items in the pipeline that we might actually see on a machine in closer future?
      No clue if this is a coin machine or gold machine or if it's something they are actually working on right now or just trying to get control patents on such things for the future which may or may not arrive. One thing is for certain, Minelab is BUSY in the engineering department. A few of the highlights:
      Heads up display over glasses/head mounted display (aka augmented reality). Settings, target visualization, shading of detected/not detected areas (I asked for this specifically 5 or 6 years ago here, awesome to see it in a patent now). Plus a camera showing the coil (why would you need that if not operating remotely as from a drone?) The detector has a camera, IMU (accelerometer) and magnetometer to determine position with accuracy. The IMU tracks the position of the coil in real time in relation to both the ground and the target, and combined with the camera video feed will provide a "visual" of the target in the ground through the glasses/head display, as in form of a heat map which increases accuracy with each pass of a coil over the target. A GPS tracks the machine position to properly map the IMU/coil visual target data on the ground and let's a user see the mapping as they detect. This data is recorded for future historical use and can be shared.  Centimeter accuracy with the visual target heat mapping. Potential operators/users include entities other than humans such as "robots" and "an AI (artificial intelligence) using a metal detector" and this line: "The metal detector may be handheld, mounted on a robotic arm of a vehicle or a robot."  Wireless connectivity to computers and phones, transfer of files containing settings configurations from instructors or expert users Remote control of the metal detector through apps on laptops or phones Ability to upload maps, including detecting data, historic human activity, buildings, or other items that seem to indicate custom mapping capability Internet connectivity, potential control through the internet (again, why if not for a drone type device?) "Teamspeak" to other detecting members in the area wirelessly Visual/spatial discrimination Accurate depth measurement Synthesized audio mode, eliminating noise completely and allowing the detector to "recreate" a synthetic audio stream based on data from prior swings Delayed audio processing (enhanced audio) mode or real time audio mode, ability to seperate multiple close targets, reason for this I venture a guess why below ---> This patent actually seems to be describing a completely new method of RX in a detector. Which is actually similar in some ways to the wacky idea I had years ago of reducing EMI/ground noise by emulating a radio telescope array. But in this case they appear to be describing a fairly ingenuous method of doing something similar with only one coil by monitoring RX of the same target at different points in the swing (with the IMU tracking these points) and combining all those RX signals. In this way (and this is my guess, the patent doesn't explain this), you can form a sort of comparator, gradiometer, or interferometer to seperate the wheat from the chaff, so to speak. If that's what they are doing, then I find it to be brilliant. If not, then I just gave them one hell of an idea to patent for the future. 
      That probably sounds like jibberish to non-engineers. But I want people to understand the brilliance in simple terms. Consider this: EMI is random. At any given point in your swing you'll get noise here, but not there. So if you compare two points in the same swing, you will hear noise one point but not the other point because the "zap" already ended. But you might hear a good target at both points in the swing since it's not random like EMI, it's always there in the ground. So, you can effectively eliminate EMI by comparing what signal is not there at two very close points in the swing, and keep the target since it's always there.
      Similarly, with ground, the ground changes as the alluvium changes since soil is inhomogeneous. But a target is still the target. So, a similar method can be applied to the ground.
      In theory, you could use ideas like this to essentially get rid of the Difficult type timings and keep your gains boosted high, and deal with EMI/ground in this way instead which does not require reducing sensitivity. A totally new, novel approach to RX in a metal detector. The audio processing is very slightly delayed because they are using that time to compare measurements at a few different coil positions before letting the audio processor signal that there is a target present. That's my guess. If that isn't what they are doing, then someone else should patent that and thank me for it later when Minelab buys it. Either way, they have something totally new in the RX department here. And the future of detecting looks bright and interesting to me still.
    • By WhiteRabbit
      Hello, now here’s an opener that might just get me banned on my first post!
      Bear with me, my intentions are pure :)
      Does anyone know if it would be possible to jam an MD signal? The reason I ask is to combat the evident problem we have in the UK with “nighthawks”, illegal detectorists.
      Over here, any landowner can grant permission for detecting on their land (with caveats, known historic sites are protected by law). What often happens is that such a permission is granted and a detectorist innocently sets about his / her business. Someone less scrupulous spots this person and assumes there may be something important there, so shows up at night with a couple of friends and the landowner awakens to a field / lawn full of holes, then bans metal detecting.
      Historic sites are also looted.
      Just an off the wall question, how tricky would it be to build a device to block this on a piece of land? Anyone any ideas?
    • By ColonelDan
      99% of my detecting is done on central Florida beaches. Since it’s impossible to establish a well stocked test garden at a public beach, I sorta brought the beach home with me and developed my own private beach garden!
       
      I cut slots in two large empty chlorine tablet buckets at various depths as shown from 2 -16 inches. I then filled one with New Smyrna Beach sand and the other with soil...for the few times I land hunt around here.

       
      I embedded numerous examples of ferrous and non ferrous targets into paint stirring sticks. I also have several blank sticks I use for gold and silver jewelry as well as artifacts that I don’t want permanently attached to a stick.

       
      I then insert the target(s) in the slots, each at its desired depth, and start scanning.
       

      This allows me to rapidly change the targets, depth and relative position of each.  I can now test for sensitivity at depth as well as separation of ferrous and non-ferrous targets in a variety of scenarios using actual beach sand where I do my detecting.
       
      If I want to test in wet salt sand, I just soak the bucket sand with authentic sea water that I also brought home from New Smyrna Beach...and the Atlantic Ocean never even missed it.  😉
       
      Works for me.....
×
×
  • Create New...