Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Steve Herschbach

Fisher Gold Bug Versus Gold Bug Pro And Teknetics G2

Recommended Posts

Fisher Research originally released the 19 kHz Gold Bug model about 1987. It was a real breakthrough design at the time with a compact control box, S-rod, and elliptical coils. The detector is a good unit but is strictly all metal (no discrimination). It has no LCD readout and looks much like the current Gold Bug 2 but has a white lower rod and a black control panel face. Some people are confusing this old model with the new so be aware of this when looking at used detectors. The 19 kHz coils for the old Gold Bug will not work on newer versions of the Gold Bug below.

Around 2010 a number of new Gold Bug models were released by Fisher. First came the Gold Bug in 2009. Then came the Gold Bug SE (Special Edition) which added manual ground balance at a bargain introductory price. The SE with minor tweaks later became the Gold Bug Pro at a higher price. So now we have two basic versions, the Gold Bug and the Gold Bug Pro. They differ from the old 1987 model by having an LCD readout. The standard version of either detector comes with a 5" round coil. There is a Gold Bug DP (Deep Penetrating) which is nothing more than a Gold Bug Pro with an 11" x 7" DD elliptical coil instead of a 5" round DD coil.

The only difference listed by Fisher between the Gold Bug and the Gold Bug Pro is that the Gold Bug Pro has a manual adjustment option for the ground balance and also offers "higher sensitivity".

Both models use a "Ground Grab" button as a simple ground balance method that is quite effective. The Gold Bug Pro allows you to also manually adjust the ground balance setting up or down. The manual adjustment can be used in conjunction with or separately from the Ground Grab button.

The big question is the "higher sensitivity" claim. There are two possibilities here. First, that the Gold Bug Pro actually allows for higher gain or sensitivity levels. However, I was in marketing too long and have a more jaded thought. Manual ground balance allows for a higher degree of control that if used properly can get you more sensitivity. There is a very distinct possibility the higher sensitivity claim follows directly from the ability to manually ground balance the Gold Bug Pro. This could be tested with both units set side by side with identical ground balance settings and max gain. If the Gold Bug Pro is inherently more sensitive an air test should show it. I have not had the chance to do this my self but if somebody wants to there you go.

ads by Amazon...

My opinion? I believe the Gold Bug and the Gold Bug Pro if outfitted with the same coil are basically the same detector. The only real difference is the manual ground balance option on the Gold Bug Pro. Do you need it? Not really, and especially when you consider that for $499 vs $649 that is probably all you are getting. The Ground Grab function is remarkably effective and would suit most people just fine.

I personally do like manual ground balance and so for me spending the extra money to get it is a non-issue. I do as a rule tell people that if cost is not an issue get the Gold Bug Pro. It is far more popular and would be easier to resell. But in all honesty I think the Basic Gold Bug is the real bang-for-the-buck unit. There is nothing else close to it at the $499 price point that offers full LCD readout target discrimination while in full power all metal prospect mode.

I should note that First Texas owns both Fisher and Teknetics. The Fisher Gold Bug DP (Gold Bug Pro with 11" coil) is marketed by Teknetics as the G2. The Fisher Gold Bug DP goes for $699 and the Teknetics G2 is $749. The $50 extra gets you a pistol grip rod instead of the Gold Bug S-rod and an arm strap. Nice gray paint scheme also. Really boils down to pistol grip vs S-rod, purely a personal preference thing.

I use the 5" x 10" elliptical myself and consider it to be the best all around coil for the Gold Bug. However, right now you have to get it as an accessory or as part of a two coil package. Fisher would be doing us a service to release the Gold Bug with this coil as standard on the unit.

My Gold Bug 2 is slightly better on the tiniest of gold but the Gold Bug Pro easily outperforms the Gold Bug 2 on larger nuggets at depth. For all around nugget detecting the Gold Bug or Gold Bug Pro (and G2) have a better balance of both small gold and large gold capability than the Gold Bug 2.

Fisher Gold Bug Pro & Teknetics G2 Detailed Comparison

To recap first came the original 1987 era Gold Bug with knobs and switches:

post-1-0-22874800-1397150904_thumb.jpg
1987 era analog Fisher Gold Bug

Then in 2009 we got the new Gold Bug:

post-1-0-98158800-1397150980_thumb.jpg
Fisher digital Gold Bug

Followed quickly and briefly by the Gold Bug SE. Note how the plus and minus buttons now have dual functions, both Disc and Ground Balance, compared to the basic Gold Bug above:

post-1-0-20506500-1397151230_thumb.jpg
Fisher Gold Bug SE

The Gold Bug SE was basically the prototype for the Gold Bug Pro, which got a new faceplate decal and a higher price:

post-1-0-94167000-1397151288_thumb.jpg
Fisher Gold Bug Pro

And finally, the Gold Bug Pro was also marketed under the Teknetics line as the G2 with a different rod/handle assembly:

post-1-0-83218300-1397151385_thumb.jpg
Teknetics G2

Gold Bug Pro DP compared to Teknetics G2:


fisher-gold-bug-pro-dp-vs-teknetics-g2.jpg

Click on images below for larger versions.....

fisher-gold-bug-2014-catalog-page.jpg

image.jpg

image.jpg

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Steve

So just to get this straight in my mind. The GB Pro and the GB DP are exactly the same except for the included coils?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, the Gold Bug DP is a Gold Bug Pro, same control box, same faceplate decal. They should have called it the Gold Bug Pro DP.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Excellent article Steve , cuts through the confusion regarding differences between these detectors .  :)

 

Thank You

Jack .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Keith,

According to the manual:

"Ground Grab (GG) - This feature is not available in Discrimination mode. Your best results will be achieved by first performing the GG procedure in All-Metal mode. The ground balance setting achieved using GG will carry over into this mode."

I assumed it did but never put it to the test. So I did just now with my Gold Bug Pro (version 3). I have three rocks; one GBs at 89, one at 63, and one at 43. Bottom line is by balancing these rocks and going to disc mode and testing them, along with GB set at 0 and at 999, I proved ground balance does indeed carry over to disc mode. The 89 rock in particular screeched in disc mode when GB manually set very low. However, the rocks would almost never give a target id in disc mode, just audio reports, and not very good ones.

However, the disc mode is very forgiving and it really took huge unrealistic GB offsets to see this in action. I can see why you would not think it is doing anything because with normal adjustments there is no obvious effect in air tests. I suspect with in ground tests in very bad ground it would be more obvious.

Something I discovered by accident also. Set GB at 999 and go the full gain disc. I have EMI static simulating a threshold. Now set GB at zero and go to high gain disc. My EMI totally goes away. GB at 50 minimal EMI. In my location at least, the lower the GB setting in all metal, the less EMI in disc mode. Could software be boosting gain in disc mode as the ground balance setting increases? Hmmm.

Just a quickie test but informative. Thanks for asking!

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Glad your answered with  your observations Steve.

I cant never get anyone to talk about it...

What i notice happens on the G2/GB/Omega is when ground balancing if you get real low like in the Salt range or get real high you will notice some differences in disc mode..

But for say 10-90 range it does not seem to effect the disc mode..

but theres a Ground bal pot inside the machine that is facotry set and if you move that one you will see it effect the disc mode inside that 10-90 range...get it to low and it will fasle like crazy on the soil as it should..

I think maybe for proper I.D. to work they use the preset but when the preset wont cover it by the ground bal manual or grab setting it uses that new setting..

I know what you mean about running  the GB to 999 and the threshold comes in..and lower it and it wil go away in disc mode.....

Ive seen this on a few machine's..I think the freq of the machine is adjusted as you move the ground bal....

I know on machine's that have freq Adjust I can ground bal crudely with it like say a classic 3 or a 1236..

So ground bal effects freq somewhat and vice versa in certain designs anyway..

Glad you posted this Steve i have noticed the same thing yet in the middle ranges the machine seems to use a preset...

I wonder if the internal preset is like a starting point for the manual ground bal...

They may work in unison...

Remember the first GB's that came out and I found they would not hit big silver and reported it to Mike Scott..

They had a recall on them...I was told they had to reset the internal pot to accept the big silver...But at the sime time it seemed it was still weak on big silver...they said the technicians at the asembley line had preset the internal pot to the Omega specs not knowing it required a change..

Those were the 2.9 machines...after that a software tweak was done to help on the high conductors and low conductor's it so seems now..

My 4.0 is very strong on high conductors for freq... the 2.9 even after alignment, it was still weak on silver.. but the 4.0 will hear a silver dollar very well at great distance form the coil..

Keith

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the GB/G2 units are far more sophisticated under the hood than the simple control set implies. We know, for instance, that the detector is constantly tracking ground conditions. I see things in the field nugget detecting that the detector may be using that tracking information to modify some software parameters even though we are told the ground balance is fixed wherever it is set. Hot rocks bang on a first pass and mellow immediately when returned to and it seems like more than just the autotune is involved.

The GBP has reeducated me into the dangers of discrimination. I run in all metal but since the meter still operates in disc mode check the id before digging. Yet in most cases I am digging everything regardless. The number of small non-ferrous items or larger non-ferrous items at depth that read ferrous in bad ground is truly frightening.

Most detectors I am either in all metal mode so just digging everything. Or in disc mode with bare iron reject set, digging all non-ferrous. So I do not see precisely what I am missing in disc mode. The GBP makes it painfully obvious I have walked away from vast numbers of good targets over the years, even using the most minimal iron disc settings possible. The flip side positive lesson is that huge numbers of good items remain for those of use willing to dig it all. Forget depth, accurate ferrous versus non-ferrous discrimination is the magic bullet we need and are still waiting for.

Or maybe not. Maybe it is better people use disc and leave me stuff to find. The perfect detector would clean areas out rapidly so we best be careful what we wish for.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thats one thing I like about the newer machine's with tone break option..

I like to hear it all even in disc mode..

and those tone signals can speak volumes if we listen..

I like to hear a faint tight low tone...I know theres a chance its a good target at depth reading iron...that otherwise would go unoticed in a disc mode..

but yes being a relic hunter first and formost Steve I can attest to all the good targets that are called iron..

Keith

  • Like 1

Share this post


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
Sign in to follow this  

  • Similar Content

    • By phrunt
      I said I'd never do it, buy a detector that seems about as old as I am for active use, however I did always want to own an old classic.  I was always aiming to get an old Whites from the 80's or so.  The older the better, just to have it in my collection, they're very hard to come by in New Zealand and the only decent one I've found the seller was on the North Island and didn't want to ship it, pickup only.  I wasn't going to fly up to get it.
      I got my first metal detector when I was about 8 years old as a Christmas present, loved the thing.  It's a Radio Shack, in NZ/Australia Radio Shack was called Dick Smith after it's owner so it was rebranded as a Dick Smith detector on the box, but inside was a Radio Shack 🙂

      It still works fine, I'm surprised I still have it, it's the only toy from my childhood that I still have.  For some reason I kept it.
      It took me about 30 years to decide I need a replacement metal detector, I actually think it all started when my daughter lost her favourite Thomas the Tank Engine train in a sand pit and this little Radio Shack found it, I then found this forum and the rest everyone knows 🙂
      An old model Gold Bug 2 came up for sale locally, at a good price, the owner barely used it.  Barely a scratch on the coil.


      The foam handle had a split it in from age I guess, I've since replaced that.   I broke the headphone plug the first time I used it, I've fixed that by adding a new rubber one onto it rather than the plastic one.  It has the wrong coil but I've ordered the little 6", should arrive today as I used overnight express although this coils pretty impressive too.
      I've tried it out, sensitive sucker, even with that big coil.  #9 pellets are easy for it.  The manual ground balance is simple enough to work out, after using the QED I was used to that.  And one bonus, I was reading Steve's review here about the old model GB2s where he talked about some had a bug/feature where you can supercharge them in disc mode.  It turns out after my testing, this one has the ability to super charge!
      To quote Steve, "There is an undocumented trick that may or may not work on any particular Gold Bug 2 in iron disc mode. The threshold control usually has no effect when the unit is in iron disc mode. However, some units display a distinct difference in iron disc performance between the threshold being set low or being set high. This ability to "supercharge" a silent search disc mode by turning the threshold up is not unheard of in other detectors and it appears some Gold Bug 2 models have this ability. Several of us used this ability to good effect at Ganes Creek. The detector pops and clicks a lot when supercharged in this fashion but adds considerable depth on large gold nuggets. After awhile the popping and clicking is mentally tuned out as nuggets have a distinctly clearer beep.
      This ability may have been an accident on some units, as more recent Gold Bug 2 models display no change in the disc mode when the threshold control is manipulated. A simple air test between low and high threshold settings while in iron disc mode will reveal if your Gold Bug 2 has this ability to be supercharged."
      So, I've now got an old classic and to me it really feels like an Antique.
    • By N7XW
      So I found this Gold Bug detector for sale.  The owner says it is the GB2 which it appears to be by the housing, but I think it may be an earlier version (?).  Id appreciate if anyone could give me some info on this unit.  In particular, my questions are:
      What frequency does it run on?
      Is it as sensitive as the GB2?
      Is this maybe something similar to the CZ3D where the older models are more desirable/better?
      Thanks guys.
       
      Jon






    • By GB_Amateur
      With the official announcement on May 15 of the (hopefully) mid-summer release of the Garrett Apex there was considerable discussion of the (only) stock coil planned for release and its affects on depth.  Within that discussion Chase gave me incentive to do some testing.  This post is a result of that, but since I think my testing is applicable to more than just the Garrett Apex I'm creating this post in the general DetectorProspector forum.
      The gist of the topic there was how much compromise the 6" (wide) X 11" (tall/high - my choice of word) Apex stock would have on depth.  As I mentioned I have quite a few coils for each of my detectors, but subsequently I realized there was one detector (Fisher Gold Bug Pro) and coil combinations (5" DD round and 5" X 10" DD elliptical) which would best address this issue.  (I also have some other options -- White's TDI SPP and Minelab X-Terra 705 -- but those are a bit less ideal as will be discussed later.  Since I have two other coils for the GB Pro I decided to include those for completeness although they add more variables/concerns and thus don't fit quite as neatly as the other two.
      I initally started with my variable depth test stand which allows me to vary the depth of small targets in 1/2 inch increments from ~ 1" down to 12" depth in the ground.  However, in the midst of that part of the study I realized that I have some (likely iron) trash targets in the field-of-view which compromise the tones/measurements.  Fortunately I also have two cleanly placed buried coins -- a copper alloy Lincoln Memorial USA penny buried at 5" depth and a Jefferson nickel alloy 5 cent piece at 6 inch depth.  Neither of these currently suffers from nearby trash targets.  I subsequently altered my study to use those targets for the coil performance tests.  Unfortunately these also aren't ideal since under the conditions of testing they are too shallow to determine in-ground depth limits.  What I did as a hybrid compromise is to carefully (i.e. measurably, with shims) raise the coil above the ground until the signal disappeared.  For a second (more/less confirmation) test, and one that should be easily repeatable by anyone with the same/similar detector and coils, was to then perform a standard air test.
      Let's start with the conditions of the tests:
      1) Ground conditions -- moist ground (we've had a typical wet Spring season), Fe3O4 mineralization measure of 2.5 bars on both the Fisher Gold Bug and Fisher F75 (2.5 meaning that about half the time I see 2 bars and half the time 3 bars).
      2) Gold Bug Pro running in "all metal" ("motion all metal" in USA terminology which I like to call minimally filtered), max gain, threshold at 11 (which is about where Kevin Hoagland calls "mosquito buzzing in your ear"), no headphones (so detector's speaker).
      3) My precision for "depth" is 1/2 inch.  That coincidentally was the height of the shims I used in the hybrid test and also my ability to control the hand-held coin distance in the air test.
      4) My determination of (maximum) depth limit was simple.  I increased the depth until I thought I could barely detect an audio signal.  I then decreased the target-->detector distance by 1/2 inch and required that I subsequently heard a clear signal.  If not I reduced the depth/distance and repeated.
      Here are the raw data results.  I'll explain the meaning of the columns shortly.

      You can see the four coils I tested.  The first three are all Fisher manufactured and the last is the NEL Tornado.  Rather than to use the nominal product quoted dimensions ('dim' short for 'dimension' in the column headings) I actually measured the coils and interpolated to account for the fact that a coil doesn't typically have a single extent but rather is a bundle, and further that the bundle obviously fits inside the housing.  For the closed coils this is obviously more vague but in those cases I just used half an inch less than the housing dimension.  An addition oddity is that DD coils aren't really simple ellipses but some overlap of two independent elliptical coils.   'geom mu' is the geometric mean of the two just determined transverse dimensions -- more specifically the square root of their product.  Hopefully you'll see later why I calculated that quantity.  It's not really relevant for the main conclusions I draw.  The last two columns are the actual distances between the target and coil for the limiting distance (see item 4 above).  In the case of the air test that is obvious.  In the 'part ground' test that is the sum of the depth of the coin in the ground and the height of the coil above the ground for both coins.
      At this point I think it's worth discussing some caveats/assumptions/limitations of this test.  Then if you've stayed with me I'll go a bit farther and hypothesize on how to use these data to draw conclusions for other coils.
      1) Although I chose a detector/coils combination that was as consistent as I could be (same manufacturer and same 'width' coil), it has been discussed on this forum previously (sorry, no link) that the quality control of coil manufacture is a difficult task.  It's certainly possible, although not necessarily likely, that my 5" x 10" elliptical coil is a high end tail performer among its peers and/or my 5" round is a low end performer.
      2) With any measurement, there are in particular systematic errors and biases.  I can't "double blind" my method.  That is, I do know which coil I'm testing at a given time and if I have a prejudice for or against a certain coil that could show up in the results.  Also, statistical uncertainties (more succinctly, how repeatable are my data) can contribute to errors.
      It is worth pointing out that swinging the heavy NEL 15" coil effectivly makes taking in-ground measurements with it difficult.  As a result I was unable to confidently get a max depth reading for the penny using that coil, which is why that cell is blank.  No problem with air tests because there, as is standard (?) I mounted the detector in a stationary horizontal position and just 'swung' the targets to determine the (max) limit distances.
      Again, it's really the 5" round DD and 5" x 10" elliptical DD that are most relevant.  The others are include for information purposes but also to add to the plots I show later.  As you can see, in these tests there is a clear and significant advantage for the 5" x 10" elliptical over the 5" round in both the hybrid test and in the air test.
      OK, I now go a bit deeper.  Is there a mathematical relationship which can predict coil depth performance if I know the coil dimensions?  Compared to above this is another leap into the unknown with additional uncertainties.  However, here are a couple plots which seem to indicate relationships between the potential maximum detectable depth and the geometric mean of the coils width and height dimensions.

      (Sorry for the confusion but the Blue dots in both plots are for the 1 cent piece and the red dots are for the 5 cent piece.)  It's better to look first at the 2nd plot -- air test.  There appears to be nearly linear relationship between max depth and the geometric mean of the coil's dimensions, although it appears to trail off with the large (NEL) coil.  Superimpose upon that the effects of ground noise and you see a further deterioration both in absolute depth and also in the trend which is shown in the first plot.  Simply put, it is well known that mineralized ground, even moderately mineralized as in my back yard, negatively affects attainable depth.  The larger the coil, the more ground it "sees", and thus the more ground interferes with performance.
      I'll finish by pointing out that this isn't the first study I've made.  Back 3 years ago when DetectorProspector member Karelian made detailed measurements of a large collection of mono coils on a White's TDI in both ground and air, I noticed the depth vs. geometric mean relationship.  However, without a theoretical (physics/engineering) reason to expect this relationship, at this point it's merely a convenient correlation.  Karelian's data are further muddied by the fact that the coils studied have many manufacturers:  Coiltek, White's, Miner John, Nugget Finder, Minelab,...  I could show those results but I think I'll await the reactions to the above.  I can also do more tests (e.g. with the X-Terra although there is not clean comparison of round vs. eliptical coils with the same width, at least in my collection) or repeat these.  I await your posted reactions (including yawns 😁).
       
    • By Steve Herschbach
      There are three versions of the First Texas 19 kHz circuit for sale at many retailers. One is based on the original Gold Bug Pro model, sold with various coil options, and includes the now discontinued Teknetics G2. There is also a basic Gold Bug version with no manual ground balance, the bottom dollar variant.
      The third version is a later design that added features to the Gold Bug Pro, the result being the Fisher F19. This is now also being sold with various coil options. The F19 is also available under the Teknetics label as the G2+, and now just released under the Bounty Hunter label as the Time Ranger Pro.
      To reiterate, the Gold Bug Pro and G2 versions are the same circuit board, the only difference between the models are coil and rod options plus cosmetic differences.
      The same goes for the F19, F19 Ltd, G2+, and new Time Ranger Pro. The same circuit board with different coil and rod options.
      It is interesting then that the Gold Bug DP, the Gold Bug Pro with 7" x 11" coil sells for $200 more than the more capable Time Ranger Pro. "How can this be," you wonder? The power of name brand and a name, plain and simple. Fisher has a name equated with more expensive detectors, and the Gold Bug name carries it's own cachet. The Bounty Hunter name is usually for lower price models. Welcome to Marketing 101. Based on comparative capability I’d say the Gold Bug Pro is more like a $349 detector these days, so it’s fetching quite a premium.
      Guide To Gold Bug Versions
      Gold Bug Pro / G2 versus F19 / G2+
      click or double click for larger versions....

      Fisher Gold Bug DP and Bounty Hunter Time Ranger Pro

      Gold Bug Pro and Time Ranger Pro features comparison

      Gold Bug Pro and Time Ranger Pro controls
    • By Steve Herschbach
      I as just alerted by a forum member that Cabelas is advertising the Fisher Gold Bug 2 for $574, a new low price. I do not know if this is a clearance sale, or a permanent price reduction, or if it is offered at other dealers. I'm sure we will sort that out real fast! 
      They also have the basic Gold Bug on sale for $375. Do not confuse this with the Gold Bug Pro. The Pro has both ground grab and manual ground balance, the basic Bug has ground grab only. Otherwise however they are the same detector.
      https://www.cabelas.com/catalog/browse/_/N-1104188?CQ_view=list&CQ_ztype=GNU&CQ_ref=~type-Gold%2BDetectors

      This may be temporary but it also in my opinion is overdue as a permanent move on the basic Gold Bug at least. That model really should just be discontinued in favor of the nearly identical Gold Bug Pro, but if not it sure needed to come down in price. It adds to the confusion out there and some people buy it thinking they are getting the Pro. Just clear it out and discontinue it.
      Gold Bug 2 is a tougher story. It is in a class of it's own as an old analog model that with 6" concentric still may best the best tiny gold getter on the market. Newer machines at lower prices may very well equal it though, or close enough for most people. The main problem with the Bug 2 is it is expensive to manufacture so I am not sure a permanent price reduction would be sustainable. Fisher has discontinued several models in the last couple years and may be consolidating or revamping their lineup around the introduction of a new website.
      Lond story short this may be just a temporary sale or a sign of bigger things... we will see.
×
×
  • Create New...