Jump to content

Garrett Axiom & Minelab GPX 6000


Recommended Posts

Good to know. The delay physically makes me lose orientation sometimes, or balance when what I'm seeing my body do doesn't match what my ears are hearing. Kinda like having your own voice echo back to you when talking on a bad cell connection and trying to keep the conversation straight. 

A worse version of it happens when play drums through Bluetooth LL headphones where I'm moving even faster (32 and 64th notes) - it disorients my brain/eyes from the movement of my body enough that I lose coordination and it's literally made me almost fall off my seat. My coordination is degraded enough recently due to other issues that I really hate having to use devices that make it even worse. Yet I have friends who it doesn't bother at all, but when I listen to them play I can tell their timing is slightly off and they don't realize it.

I don't think BT belongs on any tool requiring hand/ear coordination until they get some tech like this with a delay below the threshold of human detection. Until then, me personally, I'm all for proprietary solutions like the WM12 and whatever this Z Lynk is. 

*this was in response to a post that now appears to be deleted...

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


I deleted my last post Jason, when I found the source was two years old. But about Z-Lynk:

“Z-Lynk technology is designed for a near-zero delay from your detector to your headphones. The Garrett Z-Lynk Wireless System operates with a 17-millisecond delay—six times faster than Bluetooth. This means you are hearing your target signal while the searchcoil is directly over the target, helping you to pinpoint and recover your targets more accurately.

Frequency-hopping technology creates an infinite number of channels to prevent interference with nearby headphones and other wireless devices.”

https://garrett.com/sites/default/files/2019-11/1539400_zlynk_wireless_manual_en.pdf

All About Garrett Z-Lynk

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nice, 17ms should be more than sufficient.

Do you think there is a possibility that we could see an even hotter timing than Fine with future firmware updates?

Just curious because as you mentioned you stayed in Fine while running through the hottest magnetites and serp grounds in California, I wonder if there might be a little further it could be pushed for those people who detect in milder ground and could use an ever hotter timing?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I’m sure they will release updates. I believe also in not counting on things being other than what they are. How much can be changed in programming, how much is inherent in hardware, I do not know. You should know I have a tendency to run machines hot and noisy and think they are just fine, and others who use my settings think the results are unusable. Point being other people might be backing down the sensitivity and/or toning down the modes, in the very same places I am running flat out. I ALWAYS push for more, but sometimes that leads to an unstable hot mess. An example is Gold Monster maxed out, or my Steve’s Insane Settings for GPZ.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, jasong said:

I can't understand how no one notices the delay in the LL/APTX stuff though.  ...The faster you swing the more pronounced the delay is with LL.

You aren't the only one as I've been saying it since day 1 that I owned the Minelab Equinox (March 2018).  I was going to get a friend with a fast camera to help me quantify how latency is impacted by swing speed.  I also looked into golf putterhead speeds for different length putts and how that parallels coil swing speed.  Baseball (maybe cricket, too?) is another analogy where 'logic' says there's no way a batter can react quickly enough and yet it happens, by the most skillful, of course.  How many people would appreciate such a study?  It seems in this day-and-age ego and stubborness receive too much credibility over measurable evidence....

I assume the Axiom is (err, will be) just like Garrett's other detectors with that proprietary Z-lynk solution.  You can use their headphones (so no wires) or combine the receiver module with your own favorites.  If you're willing to put up with an extra component (the Z-lynk receiver unit) you get all those options Steve was referring to while not be tethered to the detector.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ego and stubbornness, or just being honest? I use Bluetooth LL and the delay does not bother me at all. I’m not saying it’s not there. I’m saying it’s a genuine non-issue for me, and that’s the truth. If ego and stubbornness are involved, it’s insisting that everyone be bothered by something that clearly does not bother a lot of people. Maybe if you swing your detector like a golf club I guess. I don’t. I go slow, and the difference between 17 ms and 40 ms is an ant fart to me.

It’s all moot as regards Z-Lynk at 17 ms. The transmitter is built into the detector, and the receiver into the headphone. Pairing is almost instant and once paired, just turn on the detector, good to go. Way less hassle than Bluetooth in that regard.

The Z-Lynk enabled Garrett Pro-Pointer can be added as an option, and will seamlessly pair with the headphones and detector both, so you can use and head the pinpointer without removing headphones. Finally, buy a Z-Lynk transmitter box, and it will work with every detector you have, and the pinpointed also. It is actually probably the best one stop solution for wireless on multiple detectors. The only issue is you have to like the fit and sound produced with the MS3 headphone with single volume control. If not, get a receiver box, and use your favorite wired headphones plugged into it.

Garrett Z-Lynn Wireless Audio System Details

Garrett Z-Lynk Enabled Pro-Pointer AT Pinpointer Details

80826FA1-AE2A-41B9-BE3E-6832F6A3406E.jpeg

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, GB_Amateur said:

It seems in this day-and-age ego and stubborness receive too much credibility over measurable evidence....

Really.... Oh there's no doubt APTX-LL has a measurable delay of up to 40ms just as ALL of the proprietary wireless solutions bottom out at about 17ms, didn't think anyone was arguing that and it doesn't need to be "measured" to be proven.  The issue is that we are all wired slightly differently and for some 40 ms is not an issue and for others 17 ms is just intolerable.  For me personally, for detecting, I can comfortably deal with APTX-LL level delays but anything greater than that (even APTX or possibly even APTX Adaptive) and the delay is intolerable for me.  IMO, it's not stubborness, but personal preference and the limits of what we can individually deal with IMO.  The study would be interesting I suppose but it would probably just illustrate what we already know and that is humans can perceive latencies at about 15 ms (someone listening for the delay in their own spoken voice through headphones) but typically people can tolerate audio latencies of up to 150 to 200 ms. No one here is forcing anyone to deal with any specific wireless protocol other than the manufacturers who have made design decisions that limit end-user options for specific detector models.

Here is an interesting Wikipedia article discussing audio delay:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latency_(audio)#:~:text=In one study%2C listeners found,his or her own voice.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Steve Herschbach said:

Ego and stubbornness, or just being honest?

There's a difference and usually one can tell by the details/wording of responses.  There's a distinction between admitting one doesn't notice a difference but accepting that others might compared to saying "I don't hear it so it doesn't exist."  Those latter people are the one's I referred to.

I don't know if your golf analogy was in reference to mine or independent of it (and both make sense).  I sometimes avoid golf analogies as they often only make sense to someone who has actually played the game.  My comparison (for which I found data) has to do with the speed of the putter on a 10 foot long putt -- clearly different than a full swing.

I'm pretty sure my typical detector swing is faster than many people use.  That may be the biggest reason I've noticed it.  But, no, my golf swing (as pitiful as it is) is much faster.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The delay doesn't bother me when I'm working slowly, or doing patch work either. But when exploring where speeding up and covering more ground is the name of the game, it starts to affect things more.

I'm not sure what the 6k headphones/transmitter are rated for, but I guarantee they have a longer delay than 40ms in practice, there is something extra happening there then. I think the actual delay is closer to 100-150ms.

My coil is 1-2ft away from targets when I'm in faster prospecting mode. And when I say fast, I mean a speed where I can still reliably hear anything except the faint signals that I don't want to waste time on, so it's not swinging a golf club. To move 2ft further than I do with the speaker in 40ms would mean I'm swinging at 34mph which is half the speed a pro baseball player swings a bat - not possible to do, especially not all day.

So something is happening with that 6k BT transmitter. I don't know what, but if it's stated delay is 40ms then it's wrong. Based on reviewing some of my video, at peak prospecting speeds I'm swinging about 6-8mph at the end of the coil, so the delay on the 6k headphones is up to something closer to 75-150ms, but this is all just rough back of the envelope calcs. 

But I mean, it's irrelevant in terms of the Axiom. I'm just saying - it's a problem with BT. And the less people work patches or ground they know gold exists (and thus swing slower), and the more they start to go off into brand new places where ground coverage is the name of the game, the more obvious the problem will be. For me, it's basically 100% of what I'm doing this summer, and so the issue is notable.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

that's strange as the big problem with atpx LL was that it has a fixed bitrate of approximately 40ms, it can't go faster or slower and if it can't keep up with he bitrate it gets lost packets that cause the crackle/pop or in severe cases drop outs.  The new improved aptX adaptive adjusts the bitrate so transmission doesn't get broken packets thereby giving more stable audio.  In perfect no EMI conditions with a close range it can reach low latency but in practice it seems it is is more likely to be around 80ms.

This is from the newer aptX adaptive spec sheet.

The codec supports audio file playback with 16 and 24 bit-depths at 44.1 and 48kHz sample rates. Algorithm latency is also down to less than 2ms at 48kHz, with a system round trip falling somewhere between 50 and 80ms depending on the implementation. This isn’t quite as fast as Low Latency’s sub 40ms speed but should be virtually imperceivable.

So on a detector they could use 16 bit 44.1kHz lower quality audio and achieve max speeds of around 50ms, thats under ideal conditions with no EMI which I'm sure the detector creates EMI to slow that down, but it seems the better method is the Z-lync as it's the fastest available decent product, even faster than the Quest wirefree kit.

I'd just use a Z-Lynk receiver and use whatever I want connected to the detector, a bit like having the WM12 in a way.

 

  • 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
×
×
  • Create New...