Jump to content

Chase Goldman

Moderator
  • Posts

    4,981
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    23

 Content Type 

Forums

Detector Prospector Magazine

Detector Database

Downloads

Calendar

Everything posted by Chase Goldman

  1. Nice pendulum swing on that D2. Yeah, someone with a pre pro Manticore and permission to post video at this point is going to be unbiased, rigggght. Look without getting into the issues related to what an airgap distance measurement really means and their laughably sloppy execution, with respect to comparing depth, just the fact that they went 13 - 0 on depth for two comparible VLF machines in neutral soil shows their inherent bias/intent and really proves nothing. It's not about depth anyway, it's about what Mollycot brings to the table with regards to accurate non-ferrous ID and positive ferrous determination. In no hurry on this one, willing to wait until well after the hoopla dies down and the "gotta have it now" sucker lines dissipate. At that point, Mumblymouth will most certainly supplant my Nox, but NOT my D2.
  2. You too? What happened is on the D2 platform, XP stepped away from custom programming the coil on the fly like they did with the D1. With the programs stored on the coil it didn’t matter whether you were using the puck or the remote as you could step through the custom programs using either device but you programmed the custom programs on the coil using only the remote (if you had one - if you were using the Deus Lite then you were relegated to the stock programs with custom program tweaks that would only persist until you shut the puck off.) With D2, the custom program resides on the master device independently so that each master device (remote or puck) contains the custom program settings, and apparently there are limitations (arbitrary ir real) that limit program customization on the puck. The upshot is XP designed the puck to have as much control of custom settings as possible to suit the typical UK relic hunter standard operating procedure that started with the D1 paradigm. Namely, program the coil as desired using the remote and then set out on your hunt using only the puck for rudimentary control, visual TID as desired, or as a pure audio only detector. UK hunters generally tweaked a single custom user program and then went with that for the entire day. XP gradually added control features to the puck with subsequent major updates. Flash forward to the D2, now you have a truly autonomous and powerful Master puck (or remote) that you can use to fully customize a user profile without needing the remote at all other than if you think the remote’s limited additional features are worth the extra $400 to $750 US. So to answer your question more directly, Jeff. Yes they have improved overall functionality of the D2 Lite/WS6 Master setup and it’s an almost perfect economic “hack” vs. D1 or even the D2 “full remote”. But they are going to intentionally hold back some functionality to incentivize folks to decide for themselves the value proposition of those added features and enhancements to the point that they are willing to choose to spend anywhere from $400 to $750 more for those added features. For the WS6 Master user it is certainly frustrating to have something so close to checking all the boxes but not quite. It’s not pragmatic or head scratchingly mysterious, it’s just business.
  3. While I understand some of these asks, I think Master package users should temper expectations that XP is going modify the WS6 closely replicate the features provided on the full remote. The 00 notch on/off should definitely be fixed because it can affect micro target detectability, but some of the other "want changed" nice to have features that would bring the WS6 closer in functionality to the remote are likely not going to be addressed from a pure XP business perspectiive. The Lite Master package provides an economic advantage vs. the full up D2 package and even the D2 with full remote and the "dumb" WSAII wireless phones or just wired phones. With that economic advantage (WSA6 vs. Full Remote price delta is about $400 US so identical D2 configurations wherein the only difference is the WS6 puck is subbed in for the Remote are always going to be at least $400 to $750 cheaper) comes compromises in features. And with the puck's smaller factor that limits the user interface, I am certain XP will make some arbitrary decisions to permanently leave features off the WS6 (even if they are technically feasible to be included) just as Minelab did to "create" the value alternative to the Equinox 800, the Equinox 600. So if you can live with these relatively few compromises, the WS6 master presents a huge value alternative. Personally, I am not willing to give up on any of the remote's features because I extensively use custom program switching on the fly to do target interrogation and the puck's interface is too clunkly and lacks the ability for me to group adjacent custom programs in the customized sequence I prefer. But I am willing to forgo the WS6 puck altogether and sub in the dumb WSAII puck or wired phones to save a couple hundred bucks. The bottom line is that this package and the the other XP dumb wireless headphone options illustrate one of the most underrated features of the platform which is its modularity and vast reconfigurability.
  4. Pretty much looks that way. Good for future proofing Manticore, bad for obtaining 3rd party wireless headphones. It would be great if the WM08 module were compatible with Manticore or if the M105's were backward compatible with Equinox, but that's unlikely given ML's track record for making Wi-Max accessories (e.g., M08, M10, M12) incompatible across detector platforms.
  5. My comment was mainly about having sufficient audio for your demonstation. XP never had a notch feature for D1 or D2 Goldfield either until version 0.71 and that DOES reliably knock down the ground mineralization signal for me as well as some hot rocks for me in Relic mode (again perhaps at the expense of notching out some micro gold, but you did invoke it in your video), but you've got the expertise here Jeff as you're a natural gold detectorist unlike me, so I'll defer to you. I'm not here to refute the valid point of the demonstration which is that D2 has taken a step backward from D1 in terms of micro gold performance and to get that edge back without having to keep a D1 or Orx around with an HF elliptical coil, XP needs to consider incorporating some changes to the D2 including: Having a mono frequency Goldfield mode Developing a small elliptical coil option Consider expanding the mono-frequency settings above 45 khz Improving the SMF micro gold performance in Goldfield (which might obviate the need for points 1 and 3 above)
  6. FWIW - Since you were at the edge of detection, Audio Response of 6 on D2 would have given you a marginally louder signal for those targets that were actually detected and gave audio, probably would not have changed anything for those targets that were not detected at all with no whisper audio.
  7. Two more golds! Those look like some fantastic sites and old miltary sites are my favorite as well. Fantastic detecting, Andy.
  8. I love Lawrie and most hard core detector engineers. Typically these folks are an engineer's engineer as they are squeezing so much juice out of a fundamentally crude physical principle used to interrogate the physical properties of a metal target - magnetic induction. Based on what these folks have been able to accomplish with so little to work with is almost miraculous. Yet most folks have little-to-no appreciation for what has been accompished and how much difficulty is involved with wringing a few more drops of capability out of these machines while essentially being on the flat top of the performance vs. cost/power/processing plateau. Also love all the "I can't talk about that" statements. I understand business sensitive information, having to keep the competive edge, and keeping the counterfeiters at bay, but being coy about whether or not ML is working on a pinpointer like it's some state secret is laugh out load funny. All I have to say is ML's technology rep took a big hit with the the head-scratchingly underwhelming Pro Find 35 PP. It would be nice to see them up their game in that area both in terms of tech, performance and features. To answer Lawrie's "market research" question, the answer is yes, people DO want a capable, reliable discriminating pinpointer at least as far as ferrous vs. non-ferrous is concerned. The more interesting question is whether people want something more sophisticated like a wired or even wireless X-Ray probe. I suspect there is not a whole lot of interest there on ML's part based on the ultimate profit margin for that accessory, which seems to be the primary force driving ML these days as they have the market cornered while everyone else is still playing catchup. I like what the interviewer did ask and Mark's answers when he could answer. Liked the wireless coil discussion counterpoint with mosty fair criticisms of wireless topology (except you can debate that splitting up the power sources a la XP enables distributing that power-to-weight disadvantage). And it was funny how Lawrie, not a marketeer, missed an opportunity to further subtly dis the competition (XP) when the interviewer had to tip in with the antenna wire claptrap disadvantage. I would have had Lawrie delve more into whether the secret sauce of Multi-IQ/Multi-IQ+ lies primarily in how the waveform is transmitted or the power of the real-time signal processing algorithms rather than talking about "100 khz". I would have asked the question differently, and would have tried to get Lawrie on record stating that the 40 khz single frequency setting does not represent or nor correlate to the upper end of the SMF spectrum of Multi-IQ+ (if true). Great opportunity to put that wide misconception to rest. Regarding upper frequencies, would like to get some confirmation on its small gold performance vs. Equinox. But I think the ML marketeers would rather keep pressing the "more power is good" message rather than these other arcane details related to Multi-IQ+ and Manticore because it implies "more depth" and that seems to be the overriding performance feature that is, unfortunately, front and center to most detectorists. Great video overall. So Lawrie said something interesting at the 15:40 mark about the Beast M105 phones utilizing a different low latency wireless "technology" than the GPX 6000's M100 wireless phones. I also noticed that ML is not utilizing the Bluetooth symbol on the Beast's screen (though they are still using the "+" symbol) like they did on the Equinox. I suspect they are still utilizing APTX-LL or perhaps APTX Adaptive (!!) but it was an interesting statement and the subtle change on the Beast's screen graphics, point to ML perhaps activating a built-in proprietary Wi-Max radio (ML's proprietary low latency wireless system) down the road if APTX-LL becomes unobtanium. Manticore on Left and Equinox on Right, FWIW Anyway, my takeaways so far on The Beast based on what we know or highly suspect: It will undoubtedly be a worthy successor to and an evolutionary step up from Equinox (whether it is actually a better "value" at the chosen price point is debatable). Pros: The Pros all generally appear to address the shortcomings with Equinox (and that's not to take away from how great the Nox was and is), including: Better Watertight Integrity Welcome User Interface Improvements (4-way navigation and shortcut keys) Like the unambiguous, site/objective-based mode/sub-mode designations Like the greater additional customized mode profile capability (implementation is still TBD, see below). More Visual ID Information with shapes/positions that give the user more visual target intel with better TID Resolution More sophisticated iron handling and discrimination is anticipated Better and more customizable Audio Options More Robust, Compact, and Lighter Stem and Shaft System Elliptical Small Coil Form Factor Option Fast Initialization (I think) and Noise Cancelling (I know). 1.5 ounces (46 grams) lighter than Equinox. The CF shaft/stem advantage basically countering the increased battery weight. Cons (these are mostly minor): Pricing and Value (seems like a lot to pay vs. NOX for what you are getting, but not too much different than Deus 2 vs. Deus 1) While robust, that new coil/shaft mechanical design will make life difficult for third party shaft and coil suppliers. That will likely translate into even fewer third party shaft/coil options than the few options Equinox had. Not so worried about the conservative battery session duration figures (9 hours is probably a minimum duration figure), but the fact that it takes 7 hours to recharge means that ML was unable (or unwilling) to utilize the USB-C power delivery standard capability to increase charging amps above 2.0A for the detector's battery charging system, perhaps due to the choice to go with their watertight magnetic charge cable connector interface. Well, at least the M105 headphones have a USB-C connector... That round/oval handgrip, though slightly improved(?) still seems too big compared to what Nokta offers on the Legend. Wish it had a mineralization indicator. Offering the same subpar/overpriced ML waterproof headphones as Nox (fortunately there are some excellent compatible 3rd party waterproof headphones out there). We'll See/TBD: What does the 50% more power statement really mean in terms of performance and capabilty/features. Lawrie confirmed that a different, possibly expanded SMF spectrum is utilized with Multi-IQ+ vs. Multi-IQ on Nox/Vanquish>how does this practically translate into performance? How is transmit power handled/managed in hot soil/black sand conditions across ALL modes/sub-modes? Automatically folded back like Nox in the beach modes only or is there a more sophisticated implementation and to what degree does the user have control? Iron Handling appears to be more sophisticated but to what degree? How does it handle highly mineralized ground? Confirmation that the modes/sub-modes utilized different Multi-IQ+ SMF spectra and signal processing or is it all just different signal processing implementations? Frankly, as a practical matter no one should really care as long as it suitably performs but this always seems to be a big area of discussion as well as being grossly misunderstood) and appears to drive sales amongst the subset of prospective buyers who have the faulty "more is better" (fill in the blank: "more power", "more frequencies used", "more frequency range", "more channels") frame of reference because they really don't fundamentally understand the underlying tech or how it should be implemented. How are the customized user profiles implemented and how easy is it to switch between them for the purpose of target interrogation? Confirmation of the wireless audio protocol(s) used. Is it as sensitive on tiny gold as Nox? EMI immunity should be better, but we'll see. Are the watertight and structural improvements going to make it a better submersible salt beach machine than Nox? More depth? (Frankly not all that important to me based on what/how I detect which is mostly about relics in a full range of mild to extremelyhot soil conditions) Looking forward to learning about The Beast's TBD known unknowns (mentioned above) as well as the unknown unknowns as more is revealed in the weeks and months to come. At the mentioned US Beast price point, this detector will eventually replace my Equinox unless it is revealed to have some egregious fatal flaw (close to zero chance of that). But I won't stand in line for this one and will wait for the hype to die down, the first one or two online SW updates to be released and field tested, and release of the small elliptical form factor coil. Then will likely buy a used unit from a dummy who is reselling it at a deep discount once they discovered that the Beast (like ALL detectors ) is not Harry Potter's Magic Detecting Wand. I predict Equinox itself (not Deus 2 or even Legend) will be the greatest drag on Manticore sales, so we'll see if Manticore used prices have the staying power of (pre-Manticore) Equinox used prices even in the early going. In the mean time...D2 will be my weapon of choice for relic/park/beach detecting, backed up by Equinox 10x5 or Legend and my GPX 4.8K (or Axiom) when a PI is needed to get the job done. Cheers, Chase
  9. Yes a CTX is less heavy than a GPX with a trashcan lid coil, no doubt. And a GPX is lighter than an ATX. And I've swung both for a week at a time in Culpeper and elsewhere. Which is why I am now considering an Axiom. Again, there should be no need to sacrifice performance for weight or vice versa now that we have the likes of the GPX 6000, Axiom, and even the Deus 2. So if the M-core can bring with it CTX-like performance or at least some of the now-few advantages that CTX brings to the table in a lighter package, not sure why people are discounting that feature. But I get that it isn't necessarily something that is a priority over performance. But if we are going to have to put some serious coin down for a modern detector, I see no reason for it to be heavier than it needs to be. And there are more to ergonomics than just weight. As pointed out previously, the CTX is a well balanced (though heavy) detector. If ML doesn't get balance right (like they didn't on Equinox) then that negates a lot of the weight advantage.
  10. First of all, I don't think its possible to get rid of the fuzziness, Steve. Many degreed engineers don't find this stuff intuitive. Electromagnetic Theory and time domain-to-frequency domain conversions were advanced weeding out courses/topics where I went to school Anyway, Pimento explained the FBS specifics, but even under any conitinuous wave situation where you are utilizing the induction balance principle, if you transiently change the parameters of the CW waveform (amplitude (including temporarily driving it zero), frequency) you will induce a transient response in the target that can be measured and this information can be used by the detector signal processing to infer more about the characteristics of the target.
  11. Simon - Beside that sentence being logically contradictory, curious as to what's the typical uninterrupted duration of a detecting session when you are using the CTX and how far from your vehicle do you typically have to travel to get there? I know you hit some pretty rugged sites nugget hunting, but if you are just silver slaying in a park or ball fields with the CTX, I get why weight would be down on the list. Hiking a couple miles into a site for 8 to 10 hours relic hunting or hours of wet sand/wash beach hunting and walking 2 to 5 miles at a clip and weight goes way up on my list. I ran 1200 miles last year at 60+ years old, so they aren't exactly pushing me around in a wheelchair yet, but a 5+ lb detector is NOT what I'm interested in swinging these days regardless of performance when tech, ergonomics, and modern materials can easily be integrated to get the weight out. Why should I demand any less regardless of my physical condition?
  12. It's because we are being so merciless on the name and the low US MAP is cutting into their profit margin. And there is only one Lawrie to go around.
  13. Only Minelab can stop it now...they started it with no regard for the existential ramifications of their reckless detector name spitballing sessions. Liked the Christmas Story reference...
  14. That convention doesn't quite hold for this video...from the screenshot, the large Wedge is clearly below the line.
  15. From the Munchausen detailed specs page, below are the two upper/lower Ferrous Limit settings ranges and another related setting (ferrous limits custom) that we are going to need the manual to decipher but from the video previously posted by Luis, it appears you can set up to 4 custom ferrous limit profiles. What was interesting from that video is that it appears that the various large "falsing" ferrous items differed as to whether they showed up in the upper region (horseshoe-shaped thing) or the lower region (wedge), so you might have to do some in situ/in the field yesting to see how you might want to set up your custom ferrous limits profile for your site.
  16. Yes soil conditions will affect the test. But I agree that at some point it is important to see, even if it is under ideal soil conditions. Not to ascertain raw depth but to determine at what point the 2D discrimination/target trace breaks down for deep non-ferrous, mid-conductive targets that start looking more ferrous to the Mutilator. And then, ultimately, how useful the 2D target trace is in mineralized soils. I see the FBS-like 2D disc (but Multi-IQ responsiveness) as a boon for relic detectorists who are also looking for desirable ferrous artifacts such as axe heads, iron tools, and projectiles. This is what Tom D was getting at regarding the -99 to 0 ferrous TID but it appears he was off base on the final implementation. Strange, if he was so integral to the project design team as he claims. Or maybe I am missing something as I don't quite understand how the ferrous and salt TID "underscore" symbols described below on the Markymark QS guide should be interpreted in conjunction with the 2D target trace (see below).
  17. The chart below lifted from Steve's post on technology product early adopters.
  18. This answer is the stock Treasure Talk discussion from 4 years ago for Multi-IQ on the Nox. Sheds no light on what Multi-IQ+ brings to the table for the Mumblemouth. SMH. In other words, Minelab is not providing the information to the dealers to answer such questions. Dealers are on their own...Good Luck trying to explain the premium pricing over Nox.
  19. Eh, 4+ years is kind of a long time… But they did deliver, finally.
  20. Wow. Now I ‘m really disappointed because it doesn’t appear that Man-enuff incorporates “Active EMI” jamming, incapacitating all other detectors within a 5-mile range. Could have sworn I heard someone wearing a Minelab hat and hot pants yelling out that it had this feature on some shaky video I saw posted on DD.
×
×
  • Create New...