Chase Goldman

Erik, Nope it should be covered. The water ingress thing is to cover their butts if someone doesn’t put the dive plug in or when someone submerges a part not designed to be submerged (e.g., the wireless headphones). And wire breakage is to cover something like someone flexing or damaging those cheap charge connector cables over time or breaking the bone phone cable due to improper treatment, not for stuff simply breaking as it is being used as intended and supposedly designed. Something that is meant to be repeatedly submerged and exposed to the SW environment on a regular basis and that is properly installed on the detector and used as intended should be covered because this represents a potential design flaw. Please don't roll over and let them off the hook because of the "catch all" lawyerly warranty language and aggressively pursue the warranty claim and make XP (not just your dealer) actually say its not covered. And if they DO say no dice, then kindly let them know you have a platform that you will be using to let your fellow detectorists know about how XP is not standing behind their flawed dive product accessory. If you roll over, without attempting to make the claim and holding their feet to the fire, it weakens the rest of your compatriots who are using the antenna kit in the proper manner but are subject to the same design flaw.

Agree Pitch vice multitones or full tones can cut down on ground chatter (with other appropriate filters engaged). But you're mixing tone mode options (pitch, 4 tones, full tones, etc,) and programs (Dive, Beach, General). Pitch, 4 tones, full tones can be selected for any Program like Dive except Gold Field and Relic.

Since it's included with the detector it should be covered under warranty for 5 years. As an antenna, it just needs to stay in one piece, doesn't mater how thin it gets because it's not carrying current. Regardless, not a good look for XP if they are trying to sell this as a Dive machine. Hopefully, they up their game on the design of the antenna as they get more real world feedback from frequent salt water divers like Erik.

PS Congrats on the Gold. Nice saves.

Excellent info, thanks Brad!

Hmm. I wonder if the battery drain is more or less than the Bone Phones. Detector Pro calls them "solid state", so I presume they are piezo (though I think using the term solid state is a misnomer with piezos since you still have to provide a small diaphragm to generate the audible pressure wave - "solid state driven" is more accurate or just use come right out and say "piezoelectric").

Thanks for the info, Brad. I was eyeing these. So since the GGA II’s are using the Bone Phone output you are limited to Square Wave audio only, correct?

I was going to say that it might be temperature related (did he have a protective cover on it?) but if that was the case, it wouldn’t explain how he was able to immediately turn it back on and continue the run. Weird. The folks that are having wonky issues with the clock keeping proper time is weird too. As well as those like Dave whose batteries are dying, although it is not a totally uncommon thing for a small percentage of Li-Ion batteries to have “infant mortality” type failures near the beginning of life. If it is indeed a battery failure and not a circuit problem in the remote causing the battery to excessively drain (which would also ultimately cause premature battery failure).

I usually detect with friends so we stay connected and share Intel. I don't take calls, just document finds and let my tracking app document site coverage in the background.

Immense? Um, ok. Not sure what you mean by silent threshold, but OK. Induction-based detecting tech has plateaued. But I can't fault folks for wanting to squeeze more blood out of a rock. More power to you and your unbridled optimism and enthusiasm. Would be more than happy to be proven wrong. Meanwhile I'll focus most of my energy into site identification and using tech and research to find sites likely to produce and methods to thoroughly exploit them for coverage. Much greater return on investment than micro incremental improvements in an applied principle that has been fundamentally unchanged for 100 plus years despite the latest advancements that have delivered incremental improvements through SMF and signal processing.

Just ordered a pair. They are available from various US detector dealers but the inventory is sparse as of yet.

How dare you...

Like I said previously, we are not going to see a step change in capability without moving away from Induction-based technology. It's pretty much tapped out and all we are doing is polishing a cannonball while adding bells and whistles to it.

Depends on whether I am doing it for fun or profit, I suppose.

Thread title says it all. Post here with links, rumors, anything related to additional Legend coils being released.

To do this accurately you need to move away from GPS as it can only be accurate at best to within 6 feet. Fractions of an inch matter in coil coverage. I'm thinking a portable local solution. Perhaps consisting of laser tracking of a coil target monitored and recorded with precise positioning data coupled/integrated with visual information using a drone or drones hovering over the search area. Think golf ball flight tracking and virtual first down marker lines across the video display of a football field.

GPS is not accurate enough to track where a coil has been, unless your coil has 6 ft of coverage (the best case accuracy of GPS positioning).

It can be done, obviously and I can see the value in that capability (visual graphics). And I suppose it would be good for some to have that option as a cost savings measure with better visual functionality and functional navigation. Most UK folks only use the remote to program custom programs and they detect with nothing but the smart headphones so they have moved away from even simple TID displays and rely totally on audio. In my specific case, my phone's doing enough as an assist tool while I'm detecting (comms device to my detecting partners, taking pics and documenting finds, information look ups, GPS tracking and topo/lidar maps nav reference), need to keep it separate from also being my main detecting device and also being exposed to the abuse of being fully exposed to the environment. XP should just design the UI better on their dedicated box (it costs $750 US standalone for gosh sakes). (take a lesson from Nokta Legend in logical UI navigation or Invenio for graphics) and they obviously are challenged with just getting an app that simply communicates with detector on the street for some reason. Like I said, XP has been 7 years working on a companion app and counting. I am sure someone else could be more successful at it.

I was still editing my post when you replied. See above where I think a marrying of AI, AR and other emerging technologies could be of use to detectorists.

No, that is really easily sorted and works well right now. Tracking algorithms work well, also. I am sure AI could be applied but really you have a solution looking for a problem when it comes to ground tracking, to be frank. But I like your thoughts on drone mapping, etc. In the US, the USGS basically mapped out surface features using LIDAR that are proving to be very useful for prospecting and for revealing potential areas of archeological interest that for artifact and relic hunters. The problem to be solved is accurately tracking the coil as it is swung through the site. GPS does not cut it from a precision standpoint, but use of a stationary drone that is tracking and tracing the coil may be just the ticket. I think where AI and AR would be most useful as an adjunct to detecting is by mapping out ground coverage of the detectorists coil. Many detectorists just dig it all anyway and let their brains, eyes, and shovel be the actual discriminating intelligence. Depth is pretty much maxed out by the physical principle that forms the basis for metal detecting - Farday's law of induction. The targets that typically don't get recovered are either too deep (requiring another technology to be applied such as Ground Penetrating Radar) or are missed simply because the coil does not get passed over the target or gets passed over the target from the wrong approach angle. I have pondered a method by which a detectorist can see the ground he has covered by the detector coil in a particular detecting site simply by donning a pair of smart glasses that overlay the coil path across the ground that has just been detected. The detectorist can then improve his swing path coverage and also re-detect the "holes" in his coverage.

The whole effort is a laugher alright, except for the people who actually shelled out cash for this. Not necessarily a scam but a confluence of unfortunate events including: The premise that the detector would actually be cheaper if you used your phone as an interface was flawed from the get go. There is a reason experienced detector manufacturers have not gone down this path and it has nothing to do with selling us dedicated hardware for profit. It's simply a loser premise that sounds great if you only put about 5 seconds of thought into it. It attacts a lot of people who have cell phones (hey an app for that!) but who have no clue as to what detecting is about so they got a lot of support on their crowd sourced campaign. The designers quickly found out that you needed dedicated processing in the coil (a la XP) because BT comms are fine for transferring audio, text, and control data but does not allow you to do any signal processing on the phone. Which meant that coil would be the bulk of the expense and would be more expensive than a "dumb" coil. Just getting an app to meet the requirements of the two app stores as well as providing broad compatibility for "all phones" was a bridge too far. Even XP has not delivered on that promise fully after 7 years of working on it. Never use a do it all, but do no one thing particularly well (except phone calls, pics, music, gps, and internet), device as your interface. Too much going on and not what you need when you are trying to focus on detecting The core engineering team was not particularly experienced at detector design so they had no real experience and lessons learned to build from like ML, Garrett, Nokta, XP. Overhyped and underdelivered. Pretty typical of most of these crowd sourced projects Terrible overall management - I've seen it a thousand times. Smart engineers have no idea how to run a business, project manage, understand materiel logistics, know how to run a production line. You had two ears - smart engineer and enthusiastic marketeer but no infrastructure (head/brains) between the ears to bring this across the finish line smartly Terrible overall comms to their backers and customers. You could see the backlash building even before the product was delivered with deadline after deadline missed and promise after promise broken. The ultimate slap in the face was when the performance turned out to be barely Go Find worthy with many non-functioning features. Having COVID and an invasion disrupt your supply chain and production doesn't help. Result: Abject Failure and a great case study in how not to run a crowd sourced tech toy launch. I've seen (and predicted) similar flawed and hyped projects go down similar paths. Not going to name names out of respect but seriously, it is amazing how many level headed people you can get on these nutty "I've got a great idea" bandwagons. (See LRL) That's not to say there is not room for disruptive, out of the box thought, regarding development of the tools for this hobby but recent threads concerning use of AI and other thoughts are usually raised by folks who are familiar with the "enabling" concept but not familiar with the dominating physical principle in use for metal detecting - Faraday's Law of Induction and its implementation through induction balance (aka VLF's) and Pulse Induction. If you know what is going on there, its a pretty crude but effective way to discern different types of metal in the ground but it also presents a lot of ambiguity because of overlapping material properties. So a lot of time is spent on how to discriminate junk targets and accurately ID desirable targets through the power of microprocessor-based signal processing. To really turn the hobby on its head, is probably not going to be AI applied to induction balance, pulse induction but harnessing a completely different physical principle to get the job done. IMO

It already exists but this particular implementation appears to be a bust. https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/airmetaldetectors/air-metal-detector-the-smart-bluetooth-metal-detec&ved=2ahUKEwjhtpjq_bD5AhV1EGIAHbU7CYkQtwJ6BAgLEAE&usg=AOvVaw3ATDoC6rtCDwbV6ti9DeY4

You will hear both the detector and the PP in your headset simultaneously. I like this full duplex setup because it means I can readily alternate between the pinpointer and the detector for determining whether the target is still in the hole without having to switch off the pinpointer. I use this setup with my GPX 4800, yes you need to keep the PP away from the coil but I don't have to do gynamstics or anything to keep the GPX from sounding off (11" stock Commander DD coil). I suspect that Axiom will emulate this behavior (full duplex) but have no idea how sensitive the Axiom will be to an energized pinpointer.

The Z Lynk wireless version of the Carrot was introduced 2 or 3 years ago FWIW. I've had one since 2020, IIRC. Guess the Axiom will give it some newfound attention if that wasn't the case for Apex.

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.