Steve Herschbach

A big part of the problem is a lot of these units appear to be outright defective. That makes it very difficult to sort out what are performance issues, and what are hardware failures (bad coils, bad control pots, bad internal components). Your detectors just sounds outright defective, so trying to sort out performance becomes an exercise in futility. Mechanical knobs on an underwater device is just asking for trouble, not if, but when. I see why they are nice for low visibility and gloves, as you can locate and adjust them by feel alone. But my preference from a serviceability standpoint is a sealed touchpad, just wipe to clean, and no way for water to enter. It’s not like a person is adjusting controls every 15 minutes while water hunting. More like once you get the settings figured, it’s just on and off. If I’d been calling the shots there would be no knobs on the detector. But I digress. Sounds to me like you have a second bad unit. I know you know PI detectors so this is not a novice not knowing what to do situation. The detector simply does not work properly.

Yup, I do wish the 6000 had more audio control, and get it with the headphones providing a more nuanced volume control than the settings on the machine itself, which can at one setting be too low, and the next up too high. For me it’s critical it be “just right”, and the headphones really help with that. It’s probably also why I don’t hear the “EMI” or whatever it is with the external speaker as much as other people. I almost never max the external speaker volume out. Sorry, highjacking the thread, back to your regularly scheduled program.

I have for many years, decades, run detectors very hot, but with low volume settings. First, to protect my hearing. But also to modify the hot signal output, which is of course “noisy.” It would and does drive most people crazy to listen to that all day. By setting the volume lower, the “noise” becomes a sort of threshold level, but then targets “pop” above this level due to the detector being “overcharged” with hot settings. It probably all started with me running my Gold Bug 2 full out at all times. I could have glued my controls in position as they never varied. For me the way I vary the “settings” is coil control. Faster, slower, closer to the ground, higher…. It’s all about hot settings, low volume, and most of all, coil control. Perhaps you’d remember, that in Australia, you once took a listen to my machine, and commented how low the volume level was. So yes, even then. As long as I can hear the threshold, and more importantly, variations in the threshold, I do not need and actually do not want excess volume. To what end? If I can hear it I can hear it, and after 50 years my ear and brain is tuned for it. Detectors talk to me… I don’t need them to yell at me! So yes, that was the basis for my GPZ insane setting, the real “secret”; getting the volume right. I run my 6000 the same way, Equinox also. I guess it’s just the way I run detectors, a one trick pony. P.S. a little more thought and I had to add this. I think there is a brain and hearing thing going on with this. I very often start with a certain volume setting running headphones. After maybe 15 minutes, it will now seem too loud, so I turn it down. And maybe again 30 minutes after that. My hearing varies and everything seems to be getting louder, so I adjust downwards. I want my brain to like, and be sort of reaching for what it’s hearing. Conversely, I think running volume too loud, my brain shuts down, tunes out. Like listening to an annoying sound, or voice. People working in a loud environment don’t hear it after a while. The brain simply tunes it out. I know I hear signals others miss, always have. I think this is part of it, part of my personal detecting secret. I have the audio set to where my brain never tires, never tunes it out. I think other some people do the opposite, set it way too loud, so they think they can’t miss signals, as it’s just bashing their ears when it happens. I just can’t detect like that. For me it’s more like having this nice, quiet conversation with somebody I find really engaging, who has a wonderful, soft voice, that has me straining to hear every word, every bit of nuance. I don’t like loud detectors any more than I like loud people.

In general detectors under 4 lbs with stock coils or smaller do better with S rods. Detectors over 4 lbs, especially those with larger coils, do better with a properly weighted straight shaft.

And three sets of eyeballs here in the U.S. have a more nuanced view on the subject based on our testing of said detectors and coils. It certainly was not a slam dunk. What I saw leads me to be cautious in telling a properly outfitted GPZ owner they need to ditch their Z for a 6000. Which is funny because I had to hold my own against the masses when advising that most U.S. operators overall are better off with a 6000. Seems that was not a very popular view at the time, but now it’s flipped the other way, and defense of GPZ is less popular? Hard to know which way the wind blows sometimes. But it’s a fine line when discussing the smallest gold, and which puts the most gold in your pouch by the end of the year, the smallest bits, or maybe something a bit more substantial. EMI also is not a factor to discount and ignore, but to factor in as to what machine might make the best choice for people. Especially one they already own and have a lot invested in. Buying new without owning either is another matter. All I know is people on their own ground running machines on their own gold can make their own choices and calls as to what works best for them, and deserve to have their choices respected, whether I agree absolutely or not. The 6000 is hands down the best machine for me on my ground and my gold, and better yet on my arm, but that’s just me. Others may come to different conclusions on their ground and gold, and I’m fine with that. Merry Christmas, Happy Holidays, or whatever else floats your boat.

No worries, and I do hate to come off as chastising. I get quite a few PM questions though so thought I’d mention it for general consumption. I don’t read every post these days, just too many, but I look for ones I have extra knowledge in, and make sure nobody has a question that gets ignored completely. Still, if a post does not get attention from me or others, a PM might help. The good news is this forum is loaded with people who know as much or more than I, so posting on the open forum really is the best way to get the best response. I’ve seen a lot of posts about how to use a detector readings or settings to try and figure how bad the ground is, but dropping a super magnet in the soil is something I have found is much easier and more effective.

Hi Simon, Graat, detailed report. I’m not sure where you got any idea the 6000 is as hot in tiny gold as a Gold Monster. I’ve called the 6000 the Gold Bug of PI detectors, but that’s an allusion to its weight and performance relative to other PI detectors, not a statement of fact of it versus VLF detectors. A VLF has an inherent advantage on the tiniest gold over any PI made. In theory you can make a PI with a pulse delay so short that advantage would disappear, but then you would in effect have a VLF, with all the same issues. As you note, however, it gets more complicated in bad ground, where a VLF suffers far more than a PI, and where the 6000 has a real edge on all but the tiniest shallow gold versus a Monster. I am glad you confirmed for yourself what I’ve said here before, and told you directly at least a couple times. There is no reason to think a 6000 will significantly outperform a GPZ on smaller gold, if the GPZ is sporting the right X Coil. Out of box, stock GPZ coil to 6000 with mono 11” coil, GPX has the edge. But X Coils on GPZ can makeup for or exceed that difference. And for max depth on largest nuggets in bad ground GPZ takes the prize, though I still have questions on stock GPZ coil versus GPX with 17” mono in the mildest ground. I’d not bet against the GPX in that scenario, as it would depend a lot on the nature of the gold itself. But the sheer larger coil size would probably tip the scale to GPX in mild ground. Coils, coils, coils…. coils often make the difference, and can reverse results one expect on machines. I do not expect my new Deus 2 to ever be a serious match for my Equinox if my Equinox is running either the 6” coil or 15” coil. The machine may go head to head with Equinox with identical coils, but it’s those extra large and extra small coils the Deus lacks that makes the real difference. You get into similar situations when you start mixing coils on GPZ and 6000. And yes, I look forward to what a 6000 with small coil can do someday, though I’m still hoping for a plug and play option there. Again, great reporting, thanks for taking quite a bit of your time to write that up and share with others.

I’m not arguing Atlantic salinity versus Bay salinity, but the entire area versus hot climate places like Florida and Hawaii, where near shore salinity is likely even higher. Or maybe not, it’s not like I’m a salinity expert. I just wanted to offer some support and sympathy to the people having issues, who seem to be getting little to none. It is just ideas, I don’t know what the problem is, and it’s not my job to sort it out, so I’ll let it go now.

I got a PM with the following question. In general if you PM me on anything but a genuinely private matter, I will answer on the forum instead. This helps other people see an answer they might be interested in, and let’s others add their opinions and knowledge. It’s not like I know everything. “Could I ask you please which coil would be best to use on a Garrett Atx for depth on most gold rings to be found on a typical u.k. beach that have a mixture of brown and black sand”. There are basically three ATX coil sizes - small 8”, the mediums, and the large 15”x20”. The ATX was designed to work best with DD coils, and monos offer no real depth advantage over DD, as one might expect with some other detectors. The 8” is generally too small for large beach work, the 15”x20” mono more than most people want to swing, and really is more for ground coverage than extra depth. But it’s possible in milder soil that the large coil will give the best depth on a ring. The worse the mineralization gets, the more this advantage is lost, and in the worst ground the smaller DD coils will do better. If you drop a magnet on your beach, and it comes up clean, the 15”x20” mono will probably have the best depth on large rings. Smaller rings less so. If the magnet comes up with a glob of magnetic sand, go a smaller DD. So it kind of comes down to the medium 10x12 and 11x13 coils. These coils are all so close in performance, that I almost think the 11x13 DD is just the 10x12 winding dropped into an enclosed housing. As I mentioned, the ATX is designed around DD coils, and so the mono really does not seem to offer the difference I would normally expect of a mono versus DD. If the coil was never going to be submerged, I’d would go the 11”x13” DD as having the center rod mount. If it will ever be used wading, go the 10”x12” DD.

I’m not trying to argue with you or dispute the machine works for you. I’m attempting to explain possible reasons why detectors in higher temperature/higher salinity areas than what you are likely working in are having these issues. The machine worked fine for me also but it clearly is not working for other people. It’s great it worked for me, for you, but what about them? Or it could simply be half these machines are outright defective, and it’s just a coincidence where they are located.

Chesapeake Bay is a lower salinity environment. https://www.chesapeakebay.net/discover/ecosystem/physical_characteristics “In general, the lower Chesapeake Bay is salty and the upper Bay is fresh. Salinity gradually decreases as you move north, farther away from the ocean, and increases as you move south. Salinity is highest at the mouth of the Bay—averaging 25 to 30 ppt—where water from the Atlantic Ocean enters. The head of the Bay and its tidal rivers are fresh, with a salinity of less than 0.5 ppt. The middle portion of the Bay and its tidal rivers are brackish: a mixture of salt and fresh water. Brackish water has a salinity of greater than 0.5 ppt but less than 25 ppt. Most of the water in the Bay is brackish.”

Yeah, these coils are not hard to pinpoint with. The pull back method locator mentioned will work, especially for shallower targets. If nothing else, due to the narrow profile, the old “cross” method works extremely well. Sweep one way and center target, rotate 90 degrees and do it again. This is better for deep ones. Though for the way I use these coils, I only go after anything that my hand held pinpointer can reach from the surface, so exact pinpointing is kind of a non issue in my case.

I was discussing inland detecting in response to CPT_GhostLight, nothing to do with beach. And referring to detecting 1/20th grain nuggets in highly mineralized ground - not a good idea with older tracking systems. Read the entire post plus reference material instead of a line out of context. I’d be the first to tell you to use tracking on a beach, by nature a highly variable environment. Only place for manual on the beach might be bone dry sand.

As an old time nugget hunter I’ve always distrusted tracking, and prefer manual, unless needed to tame exceptionally variable ground. So inland hunting is tracking off for me.. unless the machine tells me it’s time to turn it on. And that is generally in mixed hot rock non-homogenous ground. But most newer Minelab nugget detectors only run in full time tracking, and work very well, so this just might be an old out of date habit of mine. As Jeff notes being spot on with ground balance can be very important (not always), and for those times when it is, if a person is not on it at all times, then tracking is better for sure, than being constantly out of whack with the ground. This tech article describes situations that can throw tracking systems off balance, and recent improvements in tracking technology that deal with those situations. These are good things to be aware of, as tracking can screw with you, especially older systems. Tight focusing on weak targets can track them out, and metal objects can throw the balance off for short periods, to name a couple. Well worth the read. In general, with the latest machines, unless you are an expert at manual ground balance, then a good case can be made that tracking is better. Minelab believes that so much the SDC 2300, Gold Monster, GPZ 7000, and now GPX 6000, all top gold machines, only run in full time ground tracking. Minelab tracking tech article

Other then frequency the machines are not related at all, totally different circuits. Whites was just trying to get some tailwind from the GMT name, but as we see all it does is confuse.

Really not sure, but the first reminds me of a carbonate based rock https://www.mindat.org/min-50847.html The second is just one of the billions of magnetite content igneous rocks I’ve kicked aside in my lifetime.

He did. Can’t say for sure, but a good chance you found a platinum nugget. Has the right look, your tests so far do not contradict it. Lead and bismuth are much softer, with low melting points. The common melted can “aluminum nugget” is much lighter. https://www.technology.matthey.com/resources/view-questions-answers/can-test-metal-platinum/

No. 24K and GMX coils work on those models exclusively.

They can still be had - I got mine. But they are rarer by the day, and so I agree. Hopefully Garrett does it.

It’s been detecting.com for as long as I’ve visited the site. Google bounty hunter metal detector, and that’s what you see. It’s up and running.

Basically, no. The BigFoot is a figure 8 wound coil, while the Arrow is an elongated DD like the Tesoro Cleansweep. The White’s DFX is designed specifically to work with BigFoot, and pulling the pinpoint trigger shuts off the rear half of the coil, so now you are pinpointing with a 3” x 9” coil. The main problem with BigFoot is finding one for under $500 for a 20 year old used coil, and the limited number of White’s only models it worked with.

I’ll be pocket hunting the Sierras all next summer, and will be using a GPX 6000 for nearly all of it, and an Equinox 800 when it’s not the GPX. I’m not saying that’s the best combo, nor that the Equinox is what you need. It’s just my choice, for whatever that’s worth. I’ve recovered about a pound of heavily gold laden quartz specimens from the Sierras so far, so I’ve got a few hours in with some success to point to. I have a Deus 2 on the way, but it will not replace my Equinox due to the lack of coil options. It’s as much about coils as detectors from my perspective, because the detectors are all so good. What makes the real difference is the ability to radically change the detector via a coil. For instance, there is no way a Deus 2 can hit as deep on a large nugget as an Equinox with 15” coil. Is that cheating, since the D2 has no large coil? Yes, and I’m all for it. https://www.detectorprospector.com/forums/topic/7468-my-tips-on-nugget-detecting-with-the-minelab-equinox/

Yeah, thought better of it and edited - I do that a lot, post fast, then rethink and edit. Bad habit. I only hunt multitones, more info, plain and simple as that. Yeah, it can take getting used to, but once you learn it, there is no going back.

I'm not much on videos, but I will be curious to hear the machine in multitones. For me that’s about the main thing I can learn from a video - what a detector sounds like. Good, loud external speaker, I like that.