Jump to content

GPX 6000 And Audio Boosters - What Is Your View?


Recommended Posts

Simon, I think the internal speaker is ok actually until you get winds up over 20mph. Or maybe 15mph for those who have a bit less noise tolerance than I do. I got by using it all winter in Arizona, never touched the headphones until recently. Just have to noise cancel frequently. If the NZ wind situation is heavier than that though...yeah that speaker will be useless.

Hmm that Pro Sonic is a consideration, I totally forgot about that thing. If it's even slower than the headphone latency though, that's no good IMO. The 6000 headphones juuuuuust barely verge on usable to me, due to their delay, and apparantly they are less delay than normal BT headphones?

I agree though, I think Minelab really should release a WM14 or something that works with the 6000. There is a clear deficiency with the product there IMO both with the speaker and the headphones, and it definitely affects the usability of it. It's not like it makes the detector useless, but it's big enough that my personal opnion is it needs addressed, and I think others would agree when they get into conditions that make it almost impossible to use without buying an Avantree Torus or something else that doesn't come in the box/stock. I didn't realize it until I tried those headphones out for the first time and got into some serious wind. When the gusts start hitting 30-40mph, I have to stop detecting entirely. Not an option when I make a whole trip out as most place I go take a day to drive and a day to drive back at minimum.

Not trying to sound like a whiner, I really believe this is something that should be addressed as a big part of the philosophy of the 6000 seems to be simplicity, streamlining, quickness, and the onboard speaker was a major factor in my purchase for these reasons too. It's insufficient, the headphones don't solve the insufficiency, and the speaker definitely is making the detector less stable.

It's enough all combined to merit ML addressing with fix or workaround (WM14 or better headphones) IMO at this point.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites


I was in no rush to buy a 6000 once people started pointing out the speaker EMI issue.  I was screaming from the hilltops for a built in speaker on a gold detector since I purchased my GPX 4500 and was disappointed with my audio options with it after using VLF's and using nothing else but their built in speakers.  The simplicity of the built in speaker was appealing for someone that dislikes headphones.

The 6000 came out with it's speaker and I was happy they did that, then within weeks of people buying one they were noticing the EMI problems attributed to using the speaker which went away when they used headphones.    I thought I'd sit on the sidelines for a while and see if Minelab secretly fix the problem with a new revision PCB like often happens in electronics products, the early adopters would be stuck with their v1 PCB and I'd be able to buy the new revised v2 PCB with the problem fixed silently in the background. 

An example of this is my Gold Bug Pro, it has a revision 3 or 6 PCB, I can't remember which, either way there were obviously v1 and v2 PCB's before it, they fixed or changed something between PCB revisions, PCB v1 owners will never know what was changed or improved in newer versions, they won't even know newer versions exist, it's never advertised or acknowledged this stuff takes place, sometimes its component changes due to part sourcing, often its due to design improvements, this is coming from an IT background not detectors.

The 6000's been out long enough now and the problems been known from virtually the first week it hit the market with owners piping up about it quickly so I would think by now if it was something they could fix they would have, the ones being sold now are certainly not from the first production batch anymore yet still have the same issue.  The thing that made me think it's something that can't be fixed is the problem seems too obvious those testing the 6000 before release surely would have pointed it out the Minelab during the year or however long the thing was being tested, so it would have been fixed then if it was something they could remedy.

This rules out me wanting to use the internal speaker, I don't want to use it if it's going to cause any performance degradation or make the detector even more unstable with its threshold than it already is.

The Pro Sonic does have some lag compared to aptX low latency, so a newer version of it would be good, it'd also not need the transmitter for the 6000 so just a receiver/speaker WM14 unit, so ideally that would be the best solution for me for the 6000 audio.

I hope Minelab reads this and decides to upgrade the dated Pro Sonic to a newer model with aptX LL instead of their custom attempt at wireless audio.  The idea of it is to add wireless audio to their detectors without it like the GPX 4500/5000, and with so many people still using those detectors the Pro Sonic atpX model would sell, and 6000 users would possibly buy it too, I know I would.  The quicker every company moves off their own custom versions of wireless audio the better, thankfully the trend is starting already.

So please Minelab, a WM14 aptX Pro Sonic would be great, and a discounted version for GPX 6000 owners that don't need the transmitter side of it would be great, a nice gesture for selling a detector with a speaker that isn't really ideal for general full time use.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/28/2022 at 7:45 AM, GotAU? said:

I hate headphones and the internal speaker really isn’t all that desirable, so I “boosted” my audio with the Avantree collar speaker - I can still hear the significant changes in tone with it, even in a pretty noisy environment. So I saved my money for the larger coil instead.

Another vote here for the avantree. Normally have the volume of the 6000 low and the avantree at full. Works for me so far and you hardly notice they are there, i lift the collar of my shirt up. Very good battery life as well.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dont forget you can always plug in the cord on the 6000. No latency issues there and less emf beaming through the noggin.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My 2 bobs worth, ML with the 6Ks audio have broken through that perception users "consensus" have formed that detectors have crap audio, seems this user "consensus" has responded to this increased audio response labelling it a fault, EMI etc etc it isn`t a fault to me its a powerful feature. Behind that 6K audio response there is still those repeatable almost ghost like signals that reveal the 6K is not a surface skimmer but like the Z and PIs before has depth. I guess we could exploit those "almost ghost like signals" by using a booster and going for that extra response, but for me those "ghost like signals" are magic they are and have always been since year one detectors. 

  • Like 7
  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Norvic said:

My 2 bobs worth, ML with the 6Ks audio have broken through that perception users "consensus" have formed that detectors have crap audio, seems this user "consensus" has responded to this increased audio response labelling it a fault, EMI etc etc it isn`t a fault to me its a powerful feature. Behind that 6K audio response there is still those repeatable almost ghost like signals that reveal the 6K is not a surface skimmer but like the Z and PIs before has depth. I guess we could exploit those "almost ghost like signals" by using a booster and going for that extra response, but for me those "ghost like signals" are magic they are and have always been since year one detectors. 

Two seperate and totally different things. The speaker induced EMI is random and not repeatable in the same sense a subtle target is repeatable, and a noise cancel doesn't make actual target signals go away. The speaker induced EMI is unrelated to targets or the coil position relative to the ground. And it gets so bad that the entire detector loses stability until a noise cancel is performed, it's nothing like "ghost signals". It's random, meaningless noise.

It is replicatable though, and I'd be happy to demonstrate it to Minelab if they would like. Which I doubt they will, because every 6000 I've used has the exact same problem so they surely know about it already.

I have a feeling where the problem is. Things are way more complex (and secret) than this in the detector obviously, but to simplify an example processing workflow if I had to guess, the FPGA or MCU doesn't have enough power to run full real time Fourier analysis along with the rest of the detector functions, so it takes a series of discrete "snapshots" of the atmospheric EMI as it runs, to analyze with it's noise cancelling algorithm. EMI is random, sometimes there might be 5 different sources, sometimes it might just be the speaker. But the speaker EMI is always there.

I'm guessing when a snapshot is taken with just the speaker EMI, things are ok (and in a lab, it would appear ok as well). But in places like the US where there can be 10's or hundreds (or more) sources of EMI randomly turning off and on, occasionally a snapshot is taken with too many sources when added on top of the speaker EMI. The algorithm can't find a happy balance and keys in on a noisy channel, and the detector looses stability.

The noise cancel process might just manually reset this whole process and starts from a fresh snapshot, which hopefully was taken with less EMI sources, except just the speaker again.

Something like this would also explain why it apparantly seems much more common in very EMI-ridden locations like the US and less so in Australia or other parts of the world. And even within the US is much less common in more remote places, and much more common in noisier locations.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually that brings up another topical question. Has anyone actually run a booster on their 6000 yet and does it affect the detector stability if it's attached to the side of the detector? Or do you have to separate it and carry the booster on your person instead?

I know I could keep my phone on with the GPZ if I kept it far enough away. But with the 6000 I definitely can't keep my phone on while running certain apps and features on the phone or it eventually causes an instability chain reaction, and if I place my phone close to the control unit (as with the GPZ), I can actually hear the interference right away.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I usually use a LL bluetooth receiver into a B&Z booster then into my noise cancelling ear buds, but last trip out I dropped the booster for just the receiver and earbuds. I found this more than enough as the audio from the 6000 gives great feedback compared to other detectors.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, jasong said:

Actually that brings up another topical question. Has anyone actually run a booster on their 6000 yet and does it affect the detector stability if it's attached to the side of the detector? Or do you have to separate it and carry the booster on your person instead?

I know I could keep my phone on with the GPZ if I kept it far enough away. But with the 6000 I definitely can't keep my phone on while running certain apps and features on the phone or it eventually causes an instability chain reaction, and if I place my phone close to the control unit (as with the GPZ), I can actually hear the interference right away.

I’ve hung the SP01 connected with a 3” cable to the side of the aftermarket fabric cover and directly connected the 6000’s headphones hardwired into the SP01 that actually worked with no lag or interference from the SP01.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, 1515Art said:

I’ve hung the SP01 connected with a 3” cable

Thanks Art.  As you continue to use the SPO1, I am wondering if you are using it simply to boost audio or is there some performance benefit?  Being able to run the detector audio lower means a smoother machine?  The filters on the SPO1 are helping with deciphering the ground noise/actual targets?  

Gold Catcher had mentioned in another thread re: the longer target signal the GPX6 produced compared to that of the SDC - maybe the SPO1 would shorten the GPX6 signal? 

Like others have said, extra volume is not really required from the GPX6.  I am wondering whether using a booster allows some other performance benefit from the detector.  

Re: the speaker on the GPX6 and no supplied audio module.  I guess there is a reason but to have supplied the exact same options that the Equinox is supplied with would have ticked all of my boxes.  Wi-Stream via the WM module, ability to hard wire some headphones, LL Bluetooth to supplied headphones or any other BT device and a speaker on the pod so the sound faces directly at you.  Easy peasy  🤷‍♂️

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...