Steve Herschbach

Look up two posts before yours on this thread. Two more days!

Why would I boot you? I only ask that people be honest and respectful and you are being both. Hopefully my post was not seen as disrespectful to you or others because it could come across that way, and that was not my intent. It is rather obvious many people are seeing the increases in performance and some are not. That is what "up to" means. It does not mean absolute under all conditions everywhere. It means some places yes and some places no, and to varying degrees. It sounds like you wanted and expected 40% across the board, but nobody including Minelab ever said that was what you would get. Yes, I advise reading the small print, and better yet waiting 6 months or a year before buying any new model detector. Let other people sort it out then decide whether to lay out the bucks. Oh well, it is what it is, and pretty much water under the bridge at this point. Some are happy, some are not, and others in between. As you noted, most people in the world have far more serious issues to deal with. Happy New Year to you Dave!

Hello Jay, welcome to the forum! It was all so predictable. When at the Minelab Conference for the announcement of the GPZ 7000, I told all present that the 40% thing was going to cause them issues if not explained and even then problems were going to happen. The problem is simple. People hear what they want to hear. No matter how many times you explain that "up to 40%" means anything from exactly the same and up to 40% in a matter of degrees, people refuse to see it. People like black and white results, blanket declarations, and minds latch onto best case scenarios. I learned this best running a service department. If I have your broken item in for service, you will probably ask when it will be done. I might answer "oh, five to ten days". Well, I just shot myself in the foot. You heard 5 days and will forget the 10 days part. In five days you will be on my doorstep wanting your item, and in seven days you be irate it is not done yet. People will always discount what they do not want to hear in favor of what they want to hear. Now, the fact is Minelab could have used evidence I had in hand to claim "up to 400%" but they wisely kept with more realistic figures. The GPZ can out detect a GPX by many orders of magnitude on the right specimen gold, and as long as you can prove it as fact, it is perfectly legal and allowable in advertising to quote best case figures. Gas mileage numbers are famous for it. Can you imagine the outcry if Minelab had gone with "up to 400%"? It is obvious the GPZ advantage depends on the type of gold and the nature of the ground itself. In some places the difference is very dramatic, and I have seen it myself. In other places on nice solid gold, there is little or no advantage. In fact, if you look at the scatter chart below, in the lower left there are four results basically at or below 0% improvement! There is nothing in these examples that attempts to define how common the various results might be, and it is likely that in some places there is little or no advantage with a GPZ versus a GPX with the proper coil/timing combo. So I get it that there are people out there that are not seeing a dramatic difference where they are at and are somehow concluding therefore that the advertising was misleading. Again however, it is people simply refusing to read and understand what is being presented in its totality. The last article I wrote up about the new Makro Gold Racer I went to great lengths to not "hype" the product. I found that lacking hype people will create it for themselves. Everyone wants to believe the latest new thing is somehow going to work magic for them. Minelab is interesting because they always also have a contingent of people who want to trash each new product as being worthless. Everything that has happened with the GPZ happened with the SDC, the GPX series, and the GP series before that. The GPX 5000 that everyone now says is unparalleled was reviled on release as being an over hyped bit of Minelab nonsense. Same with the SDC 2300. Check out the SDC 2300 thread at http://www.detectorprospector.com/forum/topic/302-minelab-sdc-2300-my-detector-would-have-found-that/ I almost immediately ditched both my GPX 5000 and SDC 2300 and do not regret it one second. My reasoning was and is simple. I want one detector with one coil that has my best chance on a single pass over the ground of getting a positive response on the widest range of possible gold targets in the ground. I do not want to go over and over the same ground with multiple coils and multiple timings trying for a best result. I want the best possible shot on the first go and as of this moment I still believe the GPZ 7000 is giving me that best across the board performance on a gold nugget of any size or composition. Of course, in specific situations and with specific budgets there are many possible solutions to peoples prospecting needs. The GPZ is not the be all and end all of prospecting detectors or everything else would be ceasing production, and that is not happening. For a recap of reasons not to buy a GPZ 7000 visit http://www.detectorprospector.com/forum/topic/725-reasons-not-to-get-a-minelab-gpz-7000/ from March 2015. Here, let me quote myself from that post "So you have a GPX 5000 (for example) which you know inside and out and you have a full set of coils and other accessories. You have that setup dialed to perfection. Do you need a GPZ 7000? Of course not. Honestly, that is just silly. The GPX 5000 in my opinion at this time still represents the best value in pulse induction prospecting detectors. The model has a solid history as a performer and nothing has changed overnight." Anyone thinking the GPZ 7000 made the GPX 5000 obsolete simply has not been paying attention, or hearing what they want to hear.

Previous thread here on the forum at GPZ 7000 Software Update - Official Release Information

SierraBlaster at http://www.sierrablaster.com/ looks like a great product - Chris and I have looked at them in person. I would like to find someplace worth buying one to use, as it is quite an affordable system and requires no special permitting.

Yeah I can help you with all that but not right this moment. XChange does however work with both the CTX and GPZ from a single installation so make sure to download and use the latest version at http://www.minelab.com/usa/accessories-1/detecting-apps/xchange-2?view=downloads You are out of luck with Android or Chromebook unless you export to another program. XChange only works with Windows or in a virtual machine running Windows in another environment. I have run XChange on a Mac using Parallels and Win7. But as I said, more later on that.

My GPZ seems better behaved now than early on. It is probably both the update and my getting used to the detector. I use the ferrite at least once every day without fail, more if I move to new locations.

It helps me for sure Mike. Metal detecting is one of those areas where picking up information on anything can almost always prove helpful. Thanks! The largest gold nugget I know of found with a Gold Strike was a 1.48 ounce walnut shaped beauty found by Fred Brust at Ganes Creek, Alaska in 2002 as relayed in my story at http://www.detectorprospector.com/steves-mining-journal/metal-detector-representatives-ganes-creek-gold.htm

Ah well, sometimes I have to just take a breath and remind myself we are talking about metal detectors. It's not like a car they put defective air bags in and kill people.

Thanks Mike - I have the equivalent of the coil on every detector I have so maybe I can correlate with your results and add a few. Once you get your head around the idea that they all are within an inch of each other it really does illustrate just how hard it is to get any real edge with any of them once you put them on the ground.

Just in time for Christmas, the new eighth edition of Jim Straights Follow The Drywashers "The Nuggetshooter's Bible" is now available. This book has a new binder, new cover and an additional 30-40 pages of information. First seen on Rob's forum at http://forums.nuggethunting.com/index.php?/topic/11756-jim-straights-new-nuggetshooters-bible-new-edition-volume-8/

They can just stop making metal detectors today and I am well covered. The main thing that will make more finds for me is more time spent detecting, not more detectors. But Santa Steve just loves new toys!

Bummer. Oh well, it really is kind of moot at this point. People's views on it all are colored of course by their own experiences with the GPZ. By and large everyone has made up their mind one way or the other and there seems to be but little discussion of the GPZ these days on most other forums I visit.

Hard to argue with that though there are a lot of bright young guys out there now we have not heard of. I think a factor of key importance to consumers in all this is the rapidly increasing competition developing on prices. My gut feeling is we have seen a high water mark reached with the GPZ 7000 in more ways than one. Witness the recent moves Minelab has made with various low price packages on GPX detectors. With gold prices declining and likely to break under US$1000 in the coming year the prospecting detector market is getting saturated. Everyone that needs one has one and fewer new people getting into it now, especially as it gets hard for even the pros to find much gold. The overseas markets have wised up to the fact you don't have to spend a fortune to find gold. I think going forward bang for the buck and ergonomics are going to rule the market. Minelab in particular is going to face serious pressure on detector prices going forward - in my opinion. On the other hand - how much would a person pay for a GPZ with reliably accurate iron discrimination?

OK, they say 2016 and that is right around the corner. CZX - Fisher and Teknetics This machine is ground breaking technology Turn on and go 2 frequency - 9:1 ratio No need to ground balance or adjust the detector to the environment It automatically senses the ground and makes changes accordingly. First detector birthed from this platform is a gold unit priced around $1000, but deeper than current VLF, this detector will also see through red dirt, and highly mineralized soil. From this platform other machines will develop. We intend to develop the CZX and MOSCA platforms to offer more machines in the $1000 to $2000 range than have ever been available. Target release 2016 We have senior engineer Dave Johnson on this project This machine would take the Africa market by storm by being turn on and go. The relic hunters in Virginia and elsewhere should like it. If weight and balance are right, I am going to love it as I have been pounding the table for a machine like this for years. I would like to see something with at least Minelab SD type performance in a light weight affordable package but at $1000 it simply needs to beat the TDI. The biggest question I have is how small a nugget can it detect? At $1000 this machine would be the natural next step up for any prospector using a VLF who has not made the plunge into PI. The old CZ is dual frequency running at 15 kHz and 5 kHz, a 3:1 ratio. Staying at 5 for the low end a 9:1 ratio figures at 45 kHz and 5 kHz. Until recently a machine with no ground balance adjustment would have raised eyebrows, but the SDC 2300 has laid that concern to rest. Dave Johnson always likes power combined with simplicity and good ergonomics, and that bodes well for this detector. The "Mosca" model looks to be aiming mid-way between the Garrett AT Pro and Minelab CTX 3030 with a multi-frequency all terrain model. The AT Pro has been wildly successful and it only makes sense to emulate that success. Anyway, this is the one I want to see in 2016. I guess I had better get my lightweight ATX project completed before this makes it obsolete. Now I know how detector companies feel about project delays!

2016 ICMJ Mining Summit Saturday & Sunday, April 16-17, 2016 Featuring 20,000 sq. ft. packed with the latest in mining and prospecting equipment & expert instruction from our writers and staff Learn everything from gold panning, basic prospecting, and metal detecting for gold on up to advanced gold recovery and small operations Dates: Saturday & Sunday, April 16-17, 2016 Parking: The Fairgrounds Association charges $5 per vehicle per day. Venue: El Dorado County Fairgrounds 100 Placerville Dr Placerville, CA 95667 Admission: $5 at the door per day; children under 12 are free with a paid adult. Food and drinks will be available for purchase inside. Show Hours: 10am - 5pm Saturday 10am - 4pm Sunday Scavenger Hunt: Kids can participate in a FREE scavenger hunt to earn prizes. Here's what you need to know right now: October 2015: Begin taking booth reservations from current advertisers. December 2015: Open booth reservations to non-advertisers if there are any spots remaining. January 4, 2016: Registration for hands-on classes opens. April 15, 2016: Hands-on training class (placer mining). Exhibitor set up day. April 16-17, 2016: Show, exhibits, lectures at Placerville (El Dorado County) Fairgrounds, in Placerville, California. April 18, 2016: Hands-on training class (placer mining). Introduction to underground (lode) mining class. Updates, lecture schedules, and related information will be published in ICMJ’s Prospecting and Mining Journal beginning with the October 2015 issue. I look forward to seeing you there. Scott Scott Harn Editor/Publisher ICMJ's Prospecting & Mining Journal PO Box 2260, Aptos, CA 95001 PHONE (831) 479-1500 • FAX (831) 479-4385 More information at http://www.icmj.com/miningsummit.php

Oh heck goldenoldie, let it rip! You won't hurt anyone's feelings. Hand holding nuggets in an open hole in the side of an open pit is nothing more than an attempt to do some tests not unlike burying test targets. Certainly not the same as in place nuggets found in the wild. We get to see but little of what they were doing and what the tests really were and where they fit in the overall picture however. I have to admit I am just making an assumption that what we see in the video is connected with the charts in some way, but I have no knowledge that is true or not. Just an assumption on my part. Critical thinking is a good thing!

He is talking about the one in the video I reference farther back up in the thread. The pit where Minelab did some of the GPZ testing, two minutes into the video.

Anybody else been using these since Jason first posted his video?

I did well in Hawaii with the various Surf PI models but they can bang on basalt cobbles. The older Surfs I think were actually better in that regard as not being quite as hot as the Surf Dual. The ATX finally fixed all that for me, but it is only good to 10 feet like the CTX. There is a guy successfully beefing up the CTX for scuba diving and doing well with it at http://www.treasurenet.com/forums/minelab/447583-make-real-waterproof-ctx-3030-scuba-diving-experience.html I have to admit I am too chicken to do that with a $2K detector but it is an option. The only time I ever really put an Excalibur to use was in Hawaii. The problem I had is it was gutless on the basalt and the tones were rather useless, so I felt better just running it in all metal (no tones) mode. The Excalibur is odd in that whatever the last tone was becomes the threshold tone until a new target is found, which changes the tone again. It takes some getting used to and would normally be ok but in the basalt it was just all over the place. There is no notching, just tones, and so going with no tones I basically had a gutless PI. I did find an 18K gold band with it but rapidly went back to the Infinium I was also using at that time. The Infinium would be the cats meow if it did not false so much in salt water. The ATX fixed that but again, only good to 10 feet. I don't want to make the Excalibur sound bad. It is probably the most successful salt water machine ever made. It is just that Hawaii is as tough as it gets what with the salt water, basalt volcanics, and military grade EMI. I wish Garrett had an ATX good for depth or Minelab a CTX good for depth. In your situation maybe just pick up a used Excal for the trip and sell it when you get back? Nice finds! I do love the beach hunting.

Sorry about that goldenoldie, I should have sent you a message telling you I split the thread. Seemed like it deserved more attention and would not have got it under the old heading. Well, as they say "your mileage may vary". Nothing works perfectly for everyone everywhere and the GPZ is no different.

Well, it would seem the GPZ has in general been a real hit in the U.S. based on the number of people I know that are using it. Harder to say about Oz, I get the feeling more of a mixed result there. It looks like the GPZ does favor milder ground where it can be run flat out. It may not really come into its own in Australia until the fabled larger coil becomes available.

In my opinion the Gold Racer is first and foremost a gold machine. Gold nuggets and gold jewelry. Focusing on low conductors is what it is all about. One reason I want a turn down from top disc control is to eliminate steel that wraps high, and the silver coins can go right out the door with it if need be. Merton, basically the Gold Racer is not all that different than a Racer, just hotter on tiny stuff. My guess is also hotter on flat tinny steel. Personally I am just not seeing it as the relic hunting solution for anyone but hard core guys like Keith, at least until somebody like him can prove otherwise. Guys, first adopters are taking a risk. If you have any doubts, just sit back and let others sort it out! If I seem cautious it is because even though I am one of the guys reporting on the Makro Gold Racer I just don't put a lot of store personally in reports from one or two people. For a machine to really prove itself it has to get out in the hands of a lot of people under widely varying conditions over time for that final thumbs up to happen. So while I am convinced that this is a very good detector for me personally it is just too soon to say how it will play out overall. Compared to the GMT and Gold Bug 2 this is a machine with a multitude of features that have never been attempted in a high frequency detector and for that reason alone I find the machine intriguing. The Gold Racer is best used in its very stable and easy operating all metal mode. There should be no problem mastering this mode as it is a very well behaved machine in all metal, all while having the benefit of on screen target id. Most ferrous locks on hard at 20 or 21, and I mean locks on hard. Unreliable target id numbers should always be dug until you get more familiar with the machine. A real beauty of having target id is that unlike the GMT or Gold Bug 2 certain pesky items like 22 shell casings or many hot rocks can be identified and ignored if so desired. Where the machine can be more challenging to operate is the discrimination modes due to its extremely hot high gain, high frequency design. In some areas it runs clean and smooth, but in most locations the disc modes can be rather chatty with transient blips, not unlike a Gold Bug 2 in iron disc mode cranked to the max in a trashy location. The trick is to learn the clipped sounds should be ignored while the fuller good signals should be investigated. There are however a multitude of setting combinations that interact in disc mode and I would be a liar if I said I have mastered the Gold Racer in disc mode. This really is a great detector in my opinion but it is a very high performance machine pushing to the limits, and so not exactly a beginners machine in that regard. All metal mode is easy to master, but the disc modes are more challenging than what one will encounter on lower frequency detectors. It is worth the effort for me however as this machine will do things that simply can't be done with a GMT or Gold Bug 2. I am using it now around town as a jewelry machine and it is a tot lot killer if there ever was one. Same old story everyone. It is just a metal detector, not a magic wand, and getting hopes too high just leads to inevitable let down.

Finally, at least some of the GPZ comparative testing was done in a test pit as shown in this video starting at the two minute mark. Anyway, there is all I know on that subject, people can draw their own conclusions and judge this all on what time has revealed as fact in the field. I guess I am way too jaded from my years in sales to see anything but the words "up to" and so I know what I am seeing in the field clearly fits into at least that category. In fact I can say I have seen performance from my GPZ on the order of several hundred percent better than a GPX on certain specimen gold. Others no doubt feel otherwise.

From Basics Of GPZ 7000 Technology: Zero Voltage Technology (ZVT) page 3 Performance advantage of the GPZ 7000 To measure the performance of any detector depends on many factors, such as: particular detector settings, coil size and configuration, ground type, mineralisation levels and type, electromagnetic interference, gold nugget size and composition, and of course, operator skill. Figure 3 shows the percentage increase in depth of a GPZ 7000 compared to the GPX 5000, using the same sized coils (14‐inch). This data was obtained at several different soil locations and conditions in Australia. For these measurements: • A GPX 5000 using a Monoloop with Fine/Enhance timings is used when testing in (highly) mineralised soils. • A GPX 5000 using a Double‐D with either Normal or Sharp, whichever gives the best depth for each nugget tested (referred to as ‘GPX 5000 Normal’), is compared to the GPZ 7000 Difficult + General in moderately mineralised soils. • The GPZ 7000 General is compared to the GPX 5000 Sharp or Normal (again referred to as ‘GPX 5000 Normal’) using a monoloop in moderately mineralised soils. Here the vertical Y‐axis is the percent advantage, and the horizontal X‐axis from left to right, is for a steadily decreasing mass of the nugget tested, going from number 1 being for a 20 ounce nugget, to number 30 for a 0.13 gram nugget. The X‐axis is not drawn to any scale, merely listing nuggets that were available for testing in decreasing weight order. The depth advantages of nugget numbers above 30, (30–35 being between 0.13 and 0.05g) are off scale; above 60%, and thus not shown on this graph. The reason why the data is so scattered is because the two different technologies respond differently to how fast the eddy currents change; due to different Time Constants (TC). The Time Constants vary considerably between nuggets even if they have the same mass; that is, whilst the X‐axis list decreasing nugget mass, this does not necessarily correspond to continually decreasing Time Constant. As can be seen, the depth advantage varies considerably from nugget to nugget, and setting to setting, but the general advantage of ZVT is clear; mostly distributed between 0–40% improvement, and even more.