Jump to content

This Is A Post From Geotech About The AQ On Thomas Dankowski's Forum


Recommended Posts

23 hours ago, schoolofhardNox said:

I think it would have had some pluses with the mute mode when the beaches were ripped up, and all that remained were the heavy non ferrous and of course a lot of iron. I missed my first chance to use it during one time, when the headphones gave out right as I was getting to the iron patches. I would have dug low conductors during that time all day long if it let me. 😄 The second time It was the battery cable I believe (?). It's been so long now I forgot 🙄 But either way, I missed out on that feature (really the reason I bought it in the first place). Once repaired, the beaches sanded in and never returned to those conditions. Reliability is not one of it's strong points 😆 Seriously though, I realize it was a work in progress, but I wasn't expecting it to be that unreliable. That's not the way to drum up pre-production support for an upcoming machine. Joe solved the battery problem, and I'm sure that if the machine had hit the full 100 (or more) machines sold, someone else would have made batteries for it. They probably would have copied Joe's battery to a tee. 🤬

Yeah, I got one of Joe's batteries early on because of the pitiful 3 hours I was getting out of the factory battery. I too was hoping to use it for deep targets after some sand washout. That's pretty much what I use it for now....just areas with little iron and deep good targets. It's just too frustrating to use in areas with lots of junk targets, ferrous or non-ferrous.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites


I'm going to throw in a different take on the AQ since, like Steve, I've had it with First Texas.  While I agree that the AQ needs a major redesign, I blame the need for this on one thing.  "Shill field testers."  How many times have we heard about new detectors that are being tested worldwide by supposedly qualified field testers and right when the machines are ready to come out there is a sudden and abrupt halt?  The reason is always the same, something to the effect of "minor changes, adding useful features, etc."  Baloney.  The problem is that most guys who test these units are just looking to get free stuff so they rubber stamp units.  I'll give you a perfect example.  A number of years ago a very prominent metal detector manufacturer contacted me and one other detectorist in the United States to test out a new detector.  We were told that it performed flawlessly in the lab and that a team of European hunters had all signed off on the detector.   To make a long story short, it took each of us less than an hour to determine that the detector was impossible to hunt with.  It took over three months of our testing various software upgrades and changes before we were able to get it working.  All of that was done for zero compensation and no free stuff.  And it was worth it because the detector became one of the best selling metal detectors of all time.

Now don't get me wrong, I'm not beating my chest and bragging.  My point is that if these manufacturers were serious about building detectors that work they would use genuine, honest testers instead of these ass kissing shills they go to every time.  On this forum alone, a number of you would be ideal candidates.  But for some unknown reason the manufacturers simply don't seek out the honest types of testers required to really evaluate new detectors.  I mean, come on, the mechanical problems of the AQ have been visible from the start and verified by users.  First Texas could have hired Joe Beechnut to fix everything, right?

And so it goes.  I'll be honest, I think the AQ is dead.  And even if it does hit the market, who cares?  The Deus II has taken any buzz that the AQ had and squashed it.

Bill (S. CA)

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Bill (S. CA) said:

I'm going to throw in a different take on the AQ since, like Steve, I've had it with First Texas.  While I agree that the AQ needs a major redesign, I blame the need for this on one thing.  "Shill field testers."  How many times have we heard about new detectors that are being tested worldwide by supposedly qualified field testers and right when the machines are ready to come out there is a sudden and abrupt halt?  The reason is always the same, something to the effect of "minor changes, adding useful features, etc."  Baloney.  The problem is that most guys who test these units are just looking to get free stuff so they rubber stamp units.  I'll give you a perfect example.  A number of years ago a very prominent metal detector manufacturer contacted me and one other detectorist in the United States to test out a new detector.  We were told that it performed flawlessly in the lab and that a team of European hunters had all signed off on the detector.   To make a long story short, it took each of us less than an hour to determine that the detector was impossible to hunt with.  It took over three months of our testing various software upgrades and changes before we were able to get it working.  All of that was done for zero compensation and no free stuff.  And it was worth it because the detector became one of the best selling metal detectors of all time.

Now don't get me wrong, I'm not beating my chest and bragging.  My point is that if these manufacturers were serious about building detectors that work they would use genuine, honest testers instead of these ass kissing shills they go to every time.  On this forum alone, a number of you would be ideal candidates.  But for some unknown reason the manufacturers simply don't seek out the honest types of testers required to really evaluate new detectors.  I mean, come on, the mechanical problems of the AQ have been visible from the start and verified by users.  First Texas could have hired Joe Beechnut to fix everything, right?

And so it goes.  I'll be honest, I think the AQ is dead.  And even if it does hit the market, who cares?  The Deus II has taken any buzz that the AQ had and squashed it.

Bill (S. CA)

Very honest and truthful. I thought I was reading about what is currently going on with the Legend. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I respectfully disagree.  Cobill was trying to sell an AQ Limited.  The only reason that I did not try to purchase it was that the Warranty was not transferrable.  I would have purchased it with a 2 year warranty inspite of all it's issues.  I will buy the finished product if it ever comes out, because I am looking for a waterproof PI that punches deep in the ocean.  Joe Beachnut has proven that the AQ will accomplish that task.  Dew and Cliff have proven that the Tarsacci can do that in a VLF.  Time will only tell if the Deus 2 can also perform that task.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, Bill (S. CA) said:

I'm going to throw in a different take on the AQ since, like Steve, I've had it with First Texas.  While I agree that the AQ needs a major redesign, I blame the need for this on one thing.  "Shill field testers."  How many times have we heard about new detectors that are being tested worldwide by supposedly qualified field testers and right when the machines are ready to come out there is a sudden and abrupt halt?  The reason is always the same, something to the effect of "minor changes, adding useful features, etc."  Baloney.  The problem is that most guys who test these units are just looking to get free stuff so they rubber stamp units.  I'll give you a perfect example.  A number of years ago a very prominent metal detector manufacturer contacted me and one other detectorist in the United States to test out a new detector.  We were told that it performed flawlessly in the lab and that a team of European hunters had all signed off on the detector.   To make a long story short, it took each of us less than an hour to determine that the detector was impossible to hunt with.  It took over three months of our testing various software upgrades and changes before we were able to get it working.  All of that was done for zero compensation and no free stuff.  And it was worth it because the detector became one of the best selling metal detectors of all time.

Now don't get me wrong, I'm not beating my chest and bragging.  My point is that if these manufacturers were serious about building detectors that work they would use genuine, honest testers instead of these ass kissing shills they go to every time.  On this forum alone, a number of you would be ideal candidates.  But for some unknown reason the manufacturers simply don't seek out the honest types of testers required to really evaluate new detectors.  I mean, come on, the mechanical problems of the AQ have been visible from the start and verified by users.  First Texas could have hired Joe Beechnut to fix everything, right?

And so it goes.  I'll be honest, I think the AQ is dead.  And even if it does hit the market, who cares?  The Deus II has taken any buzz that the AQ had and squashed it.

Bill (S. CA)

This certainly could be the case with AQ, which I had high hopes for but as we've watched this dumpster fire flame out, it's been a tragic comedy of errors at best.  

Shill field testers could happen on other machines too, but I've also seen examples where the field testers made dramatic improvements to a detector (Equinox was delayed because of a highly qualified field tester find and we all greatly benefited from it).  I've worked with engineering and testing prototype electronics all my life, and the more I think about it, the more I generally disagree that people are just field testing for free detectors.  As you know, anyone that does a decent job field testing spends far more hours testing the detector then they could've simply applied those same hours to generate income and purchase one, so it's not really a "free" detector.  Couple this with the fact that 99.9% of the public has no idea what's being tested and what changes were made from prototype to general availability release.  Don't confuse field testers with YouTube personalities, a lot of the hard core field testers we don't even know about.

 

 

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Bill (S. CA) said:

I'm going to throw in a different take on the AQ since, like Steve, I've had it with First Texas.  While I agree that the AQ needs a major redesign, I blame the need for this on one thing.  "Shill field testers."  How many times have we heard about new detectors that are being tested worldwide by supposedly qualified field testers and right when the machines are ready to come out there is a sudden and abrupt halt?  The reason is always the same, something to the effect of "minor changes, adding useful features, etc."  Baloney.  The problem is that most guys who test these units are just looking to get free stuff so they rubber stamp units.  I'll give you a perfect example.  A number of years ago a very prominent metal detector manufacturer contacted me and one other detectorist in the United States to test out a new detector.  We were told that it performed flawlessly in the lab and that a team of European hunters had all signed off on the detector.   To make a long story short, it took each of us less than an hour to determine that the detector was impossible to hunt with.  It took over three months of our testing various software upgrades and changes before we were able to get it working.  All of that was done for zero compensation and no free stuff.  And it was worth it because the detector became one of the best selling metal detectors of all time.

Now don't get me wrong, I'm not beating my chest and bragging.  My point is that if these manufacturers were serious about building detectors that work they would use genuine, honest testers instead of these ass kissing shills they go to every time.  On this forum alone, a number of you would be ideal candidates.  But for some unknown reason the manufacturers simply don't seek out the honest types of testers required to really evaluate new detectors.  I mean, come on, the mechanical problems of the AQ have been visible from the start and verified by users.  First Texas could have hired Joe Beechnut to fix everything, right?

And so it goes.  I'll be honest, I think the AQ is dead.  And even if it does hit the market, who cares?  The Deus II has taken any buzz that the AQ had and squashed it.

Bill (S. CA)

 

You talking about the AT Pro? 😁

But seriously, I wonder why any company would develop a detector like that. I'm guessing poor management...

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The biggest problem I have with the AQ is those tiny fragile M-8 connectors on the battery, headphone and that cable. It's a 1/4" OD fitting with 4 or 5 micro-sized pins. Surely the unit Le Jag was using in France did not use those fragile fittings on his remote battery setup. FTP engineers (Carl) must have been laughing & rolling on the floor when they saw this design...have you seen the way detectorists handle their equipment with their mountain-man & woman hands and over-tightening knobs & threads? Spend a few more bucks and do it right!

Right now I'm trying to find a mod to fix this, 

Bill 

IMG_0520.jpg

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Cal_Cobra said:

This certainly could be the case with AQ, which I had high hopes for but as we've watched this dumpster fire flame out, it's been a tragic comedy of errors at best.  

Shill field testers could happen on other machines too, but I've also seen examples where the field testers made dramatic improvements to a detector (Equinox was delayed because of a highly qualified field tester find and we all greatly benefited from it).  I've worked with engineering and testing prototype electronics all my life, and the more I think about it, the more I generally disagree that people are just field testing for free detectors.  As you know, anyone that does a decent job field testing spends far more hours testing the detector then they could've simply applied those same hours to generate income and purchase one, so it's not really a "free" detector.  Couple this with the fact that 99.9% of the public has no idea what's being tested and what changes were made from prototype to general availability release.  Don't confuse field testers with YouTube personalities, a lot of the hard core field testers we don't even know about.

 

 

I may be all wet, but, I find it hard to believe that a detector manufacturer would knowingly use shill yes-men to test their gear if they really wanted an honest appraisal, but I've been wrong before. Paying for a professional analysis would be in their best interest to get all the bugs worked out. All the yes-men will do is give them a false impression of the detectors' performance and piss off all of us that are lifelong detectorists, leaving a sour taste in our mouths about anything that the company may produce in the future. Believe me, there's no way I'll jump on anything Fisher comes out with until it's been out in the hands of the public and thoroughly thrashed in real life....and maybe not even then if another company has a similar product. The old "shame me once....." adage comes to mind here.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, cudamark said:

Paying for a professional analysis would be in their best interest to get all the bugs worked out.

The bests interests of the company and end useres, yes. But the best interest of a particular manager? Maybe not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It seems to me that it would be in the best interest of both of them. If you piss off your customer base, those responsible will get fired, or the company goes bankrupt.

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
×
×
  • Create New...