Chase Goldman

Same here re version #'s. They pretty much keep the version # convention consistent with the update # for the Equinox series. Almost wondering if it isn't just a typo. Update 1 makes sense, 1.1 not so much. I'm just nitpicking, I guess. I am happy they are making use of the data port for updates. I agree that was probably a late change of heart from the Vanquish team since the accessibility of the port is not ideal. But it works.

I have kind of the opposite question. I decided to grab one of the Tek G2+ "Pinky" machines as the price was just too good to pass up for potential relic duty. My question is whether Detech's Ultimate coil for the F70/F75 is electrically the same as the Ultimate for the F19/Gold Bug/G2/Greek coil? Note that G2 Ultimate coil is apparently compatible with the 7.8 khz Gamma as well as the 19 khz machines listed. I already have an ultimate for my F75 and really don't feel like shelling out for a duplicate, but also don't want to compromise on optimal performance if those coils actually are different.

So, the update utility calls it 1.61 but ML's update page has been calling it the 1.1 update. No confusion there, Minelab. Way to pay attention to detail.

Will do, have some good tests of its relic capabilities coming up this fall.

Other people read your comments too and don't have the benefit of that background information and can't manufacture context out of thin air, either. So I hope you can see it from that point of view. There is a lot of unintentional ambiguity and missing information in written posts (mine included) and without the visual clues that accompany verbal exchanges, a lot can be misinterpreted. It is seldom meant to be provocative, insulting or malicious - at least as far as I am concerned, otherwise Steve would have booted me out of here a long time ago. Take care.

I just ask for informed objectiveness when people are posting comparison or performance videos. Since there are so, so many variables at play, those videos simply serve as gross data points for me for setting expectations for real world demonstrations of a detector's capabilities in the field. In other words, getting too wrapped up in the precision of these otherwise gross tests is just spinning wheels because in the grand scheme, the length or orientation of the nail or composition of the test target is easily overshadowed by all the other real world variables, it is not really worth losing sleep over. Also, I think it is becoming pretty obvious we are so high up on the state of the technology curve for IB VLF detectors (a very gross measuring instrument in the first place) that the ultimate performance overall difference in detectors released in the last few years is really almost razor thin. What matters more, from a value perspective these days is detector versatility.

Edited my post. Sorry I caused you such consternation but no one was belittling anyone. You did indeed say your detector "has" four frequencies. I first misread that at first as kind of snarky statement back at Dew because it was stating the obvious as ALL MDTs "have" four frequencies. So, in fact, I was giving you the benefit of the doubt that it was not just a snarky retort but just a misread of what Dew was trying to say on your part because I misread Dew's statement at first myself. It was no intent to belittle anyone since that would be hypocritical. So I simply misinterpreted what you were attempting to say because you left out some rather important info by being so terse, my bad. Would have been clearer if you actually spelled it out that you "run" all four frequencies successfully at your beach. Apologize again for the misunderstanding, sir.

To further Steve's point, 2D separation is also only one aspect that provides a benchmark on separation performance. 3D testing is probably more representative of real life (when do you see all the targets/trash lined up on the exact same plane in the ground) but there really are no standardized test setups like Monte's board to provide standard benchmark results for comparison. Because of the myriad of performance, equipment (e.g., the coil used), target, and environmental variables in play, a given detector may perform well on a 2D test and do terrible on a 3D test or vice versa. EL NINO77 pointed that fact out in this post.

Why not apply increased or maximum F2 bias to prevent falsing. Shouldn't invalidate the test because there are no "settings" requirements.

Nothing has been happening on this app since well before the pandemic. That is not the problem.

George, I have little experience with third party coils and ML non-PI detectors so can't give specific advice for the Safari, but I second a previous recommendation to look into the Detech ultimate coil as an option. Great coil used on my MXT and F75 though I seldom use those detectors now. However, I will echo Steve's statement that especially in mineralized ground, large coills really provide diminishing returns on depth performance due to the fact that they see more ground and are subject to greater ground feedback. Also, as far as non-PI detectors are concerned, the potential depth gain is seldom worth the trip if you are starting from a stock coil of greater than 10 inches based on the other drawbacks (higher ground feedback, less separation, less small target sensitivity). I mainly pursue the larger coils solely for the swing coverage advantage. HTH

I should have also mentioned that I don’t have a GPZ, only a GPX so I probably have no business being in this thread.

The only way to know the true Mineralization of a site is to measure it directly via use of a an Fe3O4 mineralization meter. These can be obtained standalone but several mid to higher end FT detectors such as the T2 and F75 have these bargraph meters built in (hence statements like "3 bar soil"), as well as the XP Deus and Orx and most recently, Nokta added a mineralization meter to their Simplex via a recent update. Trying to infer mineralization from GB readings is really not the way to go because other time variable factors such as soil moisure content and other soil constuents besides the mineralization that directly impacts detector performance play into the ground phase readings that register on a detector at any given time. IOW high GB/ground phase readings do not necessarily equate to high mineraliztion.

Interesting, thanks for that. For the record, I don't use a booster either, but what I do know is that the right choice of headphones makes a huge difference in what I am hearing coming out of the GPX, that's why I was intrigued by the selectable 'Optimum frequency band' settings on the SP01. Sort of echoing Mitchel's statement above regarding it's use on detectors other than the GPZ.

Can't speak for the BBS Excal, but ML makes it pretty clear that the beach modes on the Nox are biased towards targets that are registering in the lower frequencies of the multi IQ MF spectrum ("low frequency weighting") which makes sense from a salt stability standpoint and woud corroborate your personal experience that the Nox is not finding micro gold stuff that the MDT isn't because you are running at 6.5 and 9 to max salt stability. As Steve has said repeatedly and most recently here, you are just not going to find micro gold that is likely going to fall right in the salt cancellation range of detectors set up to run stable in high and variable salinity (e.g. salt surf) environments. In other words, what you are saying makes perfect sense. If one reads through your previous post too quickly, it can be misinterpreted (which I did at first), that you were stating the MDT only has 3 frequencies, but a careful read of it shows it is consistent with what you stated above.

I think that more precisely answers jasong's original question re the SP01 so that will be helpful info. Anyway everyone, continue to enjoy the SP01 deep dive, despite minor misunderstandings it is great to have a forum where the actual device designer engages in technical discussions with the end users. In the mean time, I hope Norm's buddy figures out a solution to the EMI problem. Cheers.

Agree in the sense that they matter if they are precisely defined in the context in which they are used. I did not say "noise filter", for example. I said filter in the context of "audio filter" which is part of what equalization does but in an active vice passive sense. Feel free to deflect it all back on me because of my imprecise usage of terms. Guess its time for me to take some of my own medicine. I'll leave tge thread so you can pummel my corpse now. Lol. Chase out.

My sincerest apologies, just trying to explain why your gizmo is different and superior to the GPZ circuit yet you throw me under the bus to the guy that is questioning the need for the SP01 in the first place for imprecise terminology usage. That makes sense. Won't make that mistake again. I admit I am just a dumb EE, not a "decent audio engineer". However, all those terms were being thrown about in the thread without being precisely defined and the terms are imprecise enough to have overlapping contexts (equalization is a type of filtering is it not?) So please tell me what is the precise and proper term for your filter that "squeezes broad signals in the vertical plane" so I can use the correct terminology without being scolded again. Cheers.

That's just semantics. Pat says in his own post that it "manipulates" the audio. Whether you call it equalization, filtering, or coloring those are all just imprecise terms for audio manipulation.

Agree re: bypass. Now I'm disappointed I can't get my hands on one. Lol.

No. As stated previously the non-linear audio amplification used in the GPZ distorts the signal and also raises the noise floor as you crank its output. So using the GPZ amp as a pre-amp to the booster in the low volume region of the GPZ audio amp where distortion and noise are minimized is preferred. Letting the equalization circuit of the booster color the signal to compensate for the audio response of the speaker or headphones being used and then also applying the cleaner low-distortion, low-noise audio amplification of the booster provides a cleaner, boosted signal that emulates the effect of increasing sensitivity when indeed you are actually only boosting the audio. Put simply, the booster amp is cleaner than the GPZ amp and provides variable equalization that is absent in the GPZ audio circuit.

The problem arises for Norm if he still wants to chain in the SP01 somewhere and get rid of the WM12. His friend was running with no booster which significantly uncomplicated life provided he finds a suitable GPZ mounting point for the Trond. In Norm’s case, he has 2 unattractive choices (provided he insists on continuing running wireless between the SP01 and his phones): 1) Plug the booster into the GPZ h/p Jack and the Trond on the output of the SP01. That configuration requires tricky mounting of both the SP01 and Trond somewhere on the GPZ and keeps the booster out of convenient reach. 2) plug one Trond into the GPZ h/p Jack and mount it on the GPZ. Rig up a Trond receiver plugged into the input of the SP01 and paired to the GPZ Trond and put a separate Trond transmitter on the output of the SP01 and chest mount that whole mess and pair the SP01 output Trond with his headphones. That whole thing becomes a BT pairing nightmare, though. Everything looks pretty ugly if you want to use the SP01 in the mix and insist on not plugging wired phones into the SP01 output. My recommendation is that if he wants to run with the SP01 chest mounted and the 800 phones, he sticks with his current WM12/BT setup, especially since it was working for him.

Dew this chart by Steve somewhat refutes that statement. You can also now add Simplex to that list which skews it even further towards the less expensive side. Of the 4 non-PI machines that come in higher priced than Nox, 2 are Dive Rated to 200+ feet submergence (including the Excal, of course). One is the now overpriced (from a features perspective) CTX which like the Nox is rated only to 10 feet. The remaining one is the MDT which is IP 68 rated (1.5M for 30 minutes) meaning it is basically designed to take an accidental dunking and survive. Frankly, I think the MDT is the more realistic rating that should also be applied to most of the 10 ft/3 meter depth rated machines, especially Nox, based on it's recent anecdotal water usage track record. MDT's price tag appears to primarily be a function of the fact it is coming from a small scale production outfit rather than it's features, environmental qualifications (watertightness) or build. That being said, I really do like build quality and it does have some unique features. I am still learning mine so I can't go live with an informed opinion of performance, just yet.

Whites have contracted folks to continue to provide repair support even after their demise as long as the repair parts hold out. Maybe Steve was being too subtle, who knows. But when the guy who runs this site takes the time to compile the Whites repair contact information in the provided link and hints at the design defect as being a beyond warranty repair item, that probably means there was a shot they would fix it free of charge (even outside the warranty period) other than perhaps shipping. Thought that might be a worthwhile phone inquiry at least. As they say, nothing ventured, nothing gained. In any event, hope it works out in your favor in the end and at least you can take advantage of being able to cannibalize parts from the dead unit and you apparently have the shop skills. Good luck and let us know how it works out.

I was referring to Norm's stated setup that he described in the original post on the thread. He later stated that he prefers wireless phones to being tethered by wired phones to the SPO1. I'll leave it to Norm to explain further, if needed.