steveg

The paragraph above, that I put in bolded, italicized, enlarged, red text, is -- in my opinion, marketing mumbo-jumbo. While most of it is largely "true," you really have to read it carefully, as the truth is "in there," but "obfuscated." The one thing that I believe is NOT true -- and it's why I say it's marketing nonsense, is the part that said, essentially, "while the CTX could plot targets, the Manticore 'takes it to the next level,' by giving the target SHAPE." The implication there is that the Manticore is doing something that the CTX could not, and this is simply not true. The bottom line, as I've said a million times, is that the target shape is only INDIRECTLY related to the target. And I strongly believe that whatever the Manticore can do, in terms of "shape," is the same thing the CTX would do. A good, round, consistently ID-ing target would show up as a small round blob, on the CTX 2-D screen, just as it will on the Manticore 2-D screen. Likewise, an irony, elongated, bouncy ID-ing target would show up non-round, more like an elongated smear in many cases, ON EITHER UNIT. So, THIS IS NOTHING NEW! That's not to say that the Manticore screen may not be higher-resolution, thus possibly allowing "tighter" circles to be drawn. And also, of course, the more accurate the ID algorithms are on a unit, the more "small" and "round" a coin or ring will show up. So, if the Manticore has a more "precise" ID algorithm than the CTX, then the shapes may be "prettier" on a round object (again, those "round" shapes being reflective of the very consistent, non-varying ID...such that plotting multiple snapshots of the x,y ID numbers on an x,y coordinate system would result in a very small/round "dot"). But, my point here is -- DO NOT BE FOOLED into thinking the Manticore is taking any sort of "reading" that would allow a "direct" plot of the outline of the shape of any given target. The shape of the plot is DIRECTLY related only to the "bounce" or "change" in VDI (or lack thereof) at each sampling interval, and only INDIRECTLY related the shape of the object... Steve

Wow. Couldn't have said it better. Every word. I too am very musically inclined, and I do have the beginnings of some hearing loss at certain frequencies. But I would say EXACTLY what you said, Jeff -- very bottom-heavy, and the mid and high tones had no "brilliance" at all. Perfectly put. And, it is GREAT news to me, that you say the ML 100s that come with the 6000 are much more balanced, and you have no complaints. Since we clearly hear things "similarly," and since it seems reasonable to conclude that these phones will be more similar to the ML 100s, my mind is eased a bit... Thanks Jeff! Steve

JCR -- you are right; it SHOULD not matter. But I know there were others who had this experience, and so I wasn't surprised when I did... I wish I had known this; I would have done things differently. Steve

Thanks for sharing, Sinclair, and hence my concern -- a "one-size-fits-all" (one-tone-profile-fits-all) headphone option that is proprietary, with no other options available (unless you go "wired"). Extremely frustrating, if this turns out to be the case... Steve

NAGANT and phrunt -- I hear you; I have only used my WM08 a time or two also (and both times I did, I used my favorite headphones -- the SunRay Pro Golds...I'm with you there, GB_Amateur!) BUT -- that's because I was able to select from any number of Bluetooth aptX-LL headphone models on the market, and found some that sounded pretty good to my ears; good enough anyway that I didn't feel it imperative to use the WM08 and my Pro Golds. WITH THAT SAID, had the Minelab ML80 been the ONLY wireless headphone available, that would work with the Equinox, I GUARANTEE I would have used the WM08 and my Pro Golds, exclusively. So, I'm not saying Minelab NEEDS to produce a "WM" type of module. What I AM saying is that if Minelab uses a proprietary technology for the Manticore headphones, such that the Minelab-supplied headphones are the only option, THEN there may be much more interest, from a larger number of users, for a "WM" type of module. In other words, it's not apples-to-apples to say that folks not using the WM08 (in light of all the Bluetooth headphone options that are compatible with the Equinox) means that folks would NOT use a "WM" type of module with the Manticore, IF WE ASSUME that only the Minelab-supplied headphones will be compatible with the Manticore, and no others. And the reason I keep harping on this point, is that I have HEARD (though my sources may be incorrect) that the wireless technology Minelab is using with the Manticore IS INDEED proprietary to Minelab. I hope folks who have heard that the Manticore headphones will use Bluetooth LE technology, are correct... Steve

Also being used to wired phones, and very similar to what you did, I left mine on my pickup-truck bed cover, on one of my first outings with the Equinox, and then drove off... DOH! I had used the non-Minelab BT80 ever since -- until that one hunt a couple of years later when I used the Minelab "ML80." UGH. Despite the build quality, if the Minelab Manticore headphones are as "muddy" and "washed out" on the high tones as the ML80 phones are, and if there are NO other options available, I'm going to be very, very disappointed... It is entirely ridiculous, in my opinion (I know, I'm repeating myself, but HOPING Minelab is listening) if there is only one, one-sound-profile-fits-all, proprietary headphone that can be used with the Manticore... I guess if this turns out to be the case, and enough of us SCREAM, that it would be at least POSSIBLE that they could decide to go ahead and produce a "WM" type of module down the road... Steve

Interesting. I have read elsewhere that on non Garrett machines, the Z-Lynk can have that issue (turning off every so often). Had I not read that, I'd have assumed I got a bad unit, and returned it. But, since this was mentioned by others using it on non-Garrett machines, then once I found that being the case on my MDT, I was not surprised... I'm now confused, though, since you don't have this issue using it with your MDT... Steve

Sinclair, I second that. I bought a Garrett Z-Lynk system to use with a Tarsacci MDT-8000; every half hour or so (if I recall), the unit would "go to sleep," and while that's a GREAT feature (battery saver) for such a system when NOT in use, I don't know why it would turn off like that when it WAS in use, while detecting. In any case, that made me lose trust in the system very quickly, and thus I quit using it; I'm hoping that there is a "better way" to get audio to our ears, with the Manticore. I wish manufacturers would NOT mess with "proprietary" stuff when it comes to headphones. Detecting is so much about what you are HEARING, and we all have different hearing capabilities. Once we find what "works" for us, specifically, and then get used to the subtleties of the way tones are "rendered" by whatever particular headphone we are using, it makes switching to a new machine that may NOT support that headphone, very problematic. It's a VERY poor business decision, on the part of any company that would do that. Proprietary coils, fine. Frustrating, but fine. Proprietary charging systems, proprietary batteries...fine. Whatever. But making the part of the system that renders sound to our ears proprietary -- limiting us to a specific option? Awful. Just an example...the Equinox bluetooth headphones from Minelab are a "BT80" headphone (Minelab calls their version ML80). I have always used a differently labeled BT80 headphone (after losing my Minelab pair soon after I got the machine). Much later, as a backup, I acquired another Minelab pair, and on one particular hunt, used these Minelab-branded BT80 phones instead of my regular BT80 pair. It was an awful experience, as the sound was ENTIRELY different. What I came to learn, was that different models of BT80 have different sound "profiles;" some accentuate the low end (bass), and others the high end. Minelab phones accentuate the low end, I came to find out, and with that sound profile, the high end (i.e. high tones from copper and silver) are very "washed out" or "muddy" or -- not sure how to describe it. Simply "dull," and "not sharp." So, it made trying to focus on deep high conductors VERY difficult on that particular hunt. Based on the sound profile built into the Minelab phones, I never have used them since -- in favor of my other-branded pairs of BT80 that accentuate the higher-pitched tones. And the frustrating thing, for me, was that I couldn't find any "specs" that made it clear, to me, WHICH BT80 phones are "bass heavy," and which ones are more crisp with the high tones. The moral of the story is, finding headphones that "sound right" can really differ, from person to person, and thus -- having a wide range of options is preferred. And so, forcing someone into one specific, proprietary set of headphones is a VERY, VERY POOR business practice, in my opinion. At least, with the CTX, Equinox, etc., there was a Minelab wireless module available so that one could at least use their favorite set of WIRED headphones. But I'd MUCH rather have a wide range of WIRELESS headphone options. The WORST CASE scenario would be NOT ONLY a proprietary restriction to a single, Minelab-branded WIRELESS headphone, but ALSO the non-availability of a Minelab wireless adapter (WM). If both of those things prove to be the case (proprietary wireless, and no wireless module), I'll be GREATLY frustrated/disappointed. Steve

PSPR -- I think what Minelab said to you, i.e. that with target trace, it is possible to obtain an "implied understanding" of the "general shape" of targets under the coil, would be a "fair" way to say it. That's what I'm trying to say when I say the "shape" is not EXPLICITLY reflective of the target shape, but more "implicit." There is a relationship, but it is not DIRECT, it's INDIRECT. In other words, this is not like a ground-penetrating radar or something like that, where you can actually "see the outline" of the target's shape. And that is exactly what Minelab said, in the second paragraph of their reply to you. Instead, target trace is, again, a scatterplot of ID values. The less "deviance/divergence" in successive calculations of the target ID (i.e. the more consistent the target ID), the more round/small the on-screen plot will appear. On the other hand, the more "divergent/deviant" the target ID calculations are, the more "elongated" or "smeared" the on-screen plot will appear. And it JUST SO HAPPENS that most round objects, such as coins or rings, usually have consistent/non-deviating ID -- and hence the scatterplot of a coin's or ring's target ID values would ALSO be "round." On the other hand, it JUST SO HAPPENS that many trash objects, such as nails, have "divergent/deviant" target ID values, that seem to "bounce all over the place," and thus the scatterplot of a nail's ID values would be more "elongated" in most cases. HOWEVER, it is highly likely that target-trace plots of OTHER trash targets, such as pull tabs, beaver tails, .22 casings, etc., will ALSO appear small, and basically round (or perhaps very slightly ovaled in shape) -- not that different from a coin. GB -- You said this ... " I think it's fair to say that sometimes the assymmetry on the plot indicates an assymmetric target, but neither the cause nor the effect is guaranteed." I think that is a very good/accurate way to state it. ***Again, everything I am saying is ASSUMING (though it's an educated/relatively confident assumption) that target trace on the Manticore will be very similar to target trace on the CTX.*** Steve

PSPR -- my apologies for confusing you a bit! Basically, if a target appears "oblong" on the target trace, it is because the ID values are "variable," and not "consistent." And it just so happens that often, though not always, "variable" or "bouncing" or "inconsistent" ID values are associated with "non-round" targets, and thus you get a "non-round" target trace. So, any relationship between target trace shape, and the actual shape of the target, is indirect, and not direct, so to speak. Steve

GB_Amateur -- thanks for the kind words! Yes, you "woke me up," LOL; I saw the notification that you had mentioned my name it a post, so it did indeed grab my attention! So, I read through this whole thread. In summary, I'm not sure I have alot to add; Gordiedan said it well, that the 2D screen is NOT "explicity" going to show "shape." EXPLICITY, the 2D screen reflects a plot of the "bounce" or "variation" in target ID, on successive sweeps. But, "implicit" in this, is sometimes, SOMETIMES, some sense of "shape." In other words, when we "hunt by ear," we often say things like "that target sounds round." But what are we really saying, when we say that? What makes us say "it sounds round?" The answer of course, is a "short" signal (fast ramp up, or "preamble," then a short-duration target tone, then fast ramp down, or "postable"), along with a consistent ID, and most importantly -- this same consistent ID and "short" signal being CONSISTENT as we repeatedly sweep the coil over the target, and rotate our bodies around the target. The same "short" sound, with a consistent ID, from all sweep angles, no "variation" in the sound, suggests "round" to us. And this is EXACTLY what a "round plot" on a 2D screen (at least, on the FBS version of a 2D screen) shows. It is NOT a "shaping" plot, explicity. It is essentially a "scatter plot" of multiple "reads" of the ID of the target, over a period of time. A more "consistent" ID (very little if any variation), calculated over multiple snapshots taken by the machine, will thus show a small, tight, sort of "round" shape. On the other hand, variation in the ID, over multiple snapshots, will show a more "scattered-out" pattern on the "scatter plot" -- a more "smeared" plot of the ID's, in other words. Will that "smear" show the "shape" of the target? Not really, and CERTAINLY not "explicitly." It's more correct to think of the "shape" plotted on the 2D screen NOT as the "shape of the target," but more as a "scatter plot of all the different ID values the machine is generating over time, of the target under the coil." The shape is -- explicitly -- just the shape of the plot of the ID values, and NOT -- explicitly -- the shape of the target...BUT...those two ideas can have some "correlation" with each other. Again -- it's for the same reason that we can "hear" a "round" target. Hopefully that makes sense, and is somewhat helpful. Think "scatter plot" of IDs, not explicitly a "sizing/shaping" technology. Steve

palzynski -- I could build a straight shaft either way -- two-piece, or 3-piece. If 3-piece, there are options, but only two of the pieces would be telescopic (probably the lower into the middle). The other section (the upper in that case) would be detachable. Thanks! Steve

strick -- Thanks! palzynski -- I could probably build a shaft very similar to your "Quest" shaft -- a straight shaft with handle. One of our customers here has asked if I can build him a straight shaft, and with a little modification of my handle, it appears that it will be do-able. And yes, I can make EITHER one -- the normal S-shaft, or this modified "straight shaft," as long as you need it to be. I'll attach a drawing below, showing the regular design, and then the custom "straight shaft" concept drawing... Steve

Jeff, Understood. Unfortunately, I don't have such "extensions" available. And unfortunately, my arm cuff a). would run more than the $40 to $50 price point you said you'd be comfortable with, and b). is designed for a round tube, so wouldn't work on the Deus stock shaft... ...unless... ...someone wanted to design an "adapter" that would fit inside the part of my cuff that slides onto the round tube; I can imagine such an adapter -- two "mirror image" pieces, each piece a semicircle on the outside, and a "half of the trapezoid" on the inside... Such an adapter piece COULD probably be 3-D printed, as it would be "clamped/squeezed together" as the arm cuff bolts were tightened, and thus it would be unlikely that this part would break, over time... If anyone is interested in drawing up an .stl file, the outer diameter of tube that my cuff is designed to fit onto is 22.15mm... Steve

NCToad -- others will disagree, but the fundamental problem IMO is that 3D printing is not, in most cases, ideal for "production-grade" parts. 3D prints usually lack the strength needed -- ESPECIALLY over time. I know it's not a "cheap fix," but I wanted to toss out there that new D2 shaft I am just about ready to begin production on, includes a carbon-fiber arm cuff SPECIFICALLY DESIGNED with a taller stand, to allow the detector to stand up securely and not readily fall over (unlike the stock D2 cuff/stand). Just FYI. Steve

Nice work, Jed! Steve

CPT_GhostLight -- thanks for the kind words! Whenever you decide to add it to your list, let me know, and I'll add your name to mine, LOL! 🙂 Thank you! Steve

GB -- thanks for the video link, I'll check it out. Yes, NASA-Tom DID say that the ferrous runs down to -99. BUT -- no idea how that is displayed. Yes, there is a red underline, that seems to be "ferrous," so if you had a 44 underlined in red, I ASSUME that means -44. BUT -- this could have been SO much easier if they would simply have gone with the two-digit, FE-CO numbering system. I have gotten the impression in the past, speaking to NASA-Tom about how much I would have liked to have seen an "FBS-like" FE-CO readout on the EQX, that he's not real hot on the idea, and didn't see what the big deal was. Maybe I misread him, but that's the impression I got. SO -- I wonder if MINELAB wasn't all that interested in going FE-CO either, but perhaps that so many of us SCREAMED for it, that they sort of "met us halfway in the middle." After all, it seems pretty obvious that they are CALCULATING FE-CO, algorithmically, but for some reason it seems we will only be able to DISPLAY it via the 2-D screen (but not directly, i.e. digitally, in the VDI numerical readout). Who knows... Steve

Rich, OH, yes, I remember that, very well! Moving from the "Explorer" way of doing things, over to the E-Trac's (and then CTX's) approach, i.e. "normalize FE numbers of 'good' targets to the '12-line' thing," was not something I liked, at all. With the Explorer, I found that you could glean information NOT ONLY from the behavior of the CO number of a target, but also from the way the FE number behaved (changed) on a deeper target. That ability (watching FE behavior),"went away," of course, with the E-Trac (and CTX) with all good targets forced/normalized to 12 FE. As for the discrimination, I haven't seen any videos of the details of how the disc. screen will work, but it's not clear in my mind. The way I like to run the Explorer (and CTX) is to set "iron bias" to disc. out higher ferrous values (I set my iron bias at 20 on the Explorer, so that anything above 20 FE was disced out). I'm not sure how you would do that, on the M-Core, unless you would disc. out a strip at the top of the screen, AND a strip at the bottom of the screen? With that said, I have always run the Equinox with NO disc, and just set my iron volume low, to "hear" the iron, but at a softer, less intrusive volume. Ironically, pertinent to this discussion, I took the CTX out today for the first time in ages, just for grins. And after running "no disc" for so long on the Equinox, having the "bottom of the screen" (i.e. high FE targets) discriminated on the CTX, was surprisingly odd! I did it that way for SO long, using FBS machines, but going back to that, after running no disc on the Equinox, was just really strange! I forgot how running FBS machines that way, results in SO much "nulling" of the threshold, and I felt like as a result, I was really missing alot of information due to not being able to at least HEAR the iron targets (instead, just a "blank" in the threshold). In areas with alot of iron, and thus the threshold blanked nearly continuously, I felt rather "blind," so to speak. I had forgotten that particular nuance, of running FBS machines set up in that way, and it became clear very quickly that I MUCH prefer to "hear" the iron, as opposed to a threshold null. SO, moral of the story, it will depend, for me, upon how "good" the audio is on the M-Core, as to how I set it up; I would MUCH prefer to "hear" the iron, which as I mentioned, I DO, on the Equinox. BUT -- that was never an option on an Explorer, and with the CTX, the only way to do it is to run "combined mode" audio. But, the problem there, and it's why I don't use that mode on the CTX, is that you CAN'T RUN "FULL" CONDUCTIVE TONES, if you select that mode. Instead, you are limited to only four "tone bins" for your "conductive" targets, and that was a no-go. I loved the idea that I could listen to the iron targets, BUT -- HATED the idea that in doing so, I was restricted to only four conductive-tone "bins." Had they given me the option of the full 35 conductive tones, PLUS ferrous tones, that would have definitely been the way I would have run the CTX audio. HOPEFULLY, we have an option like that, on the M-Core. Steve

Yep, the CTX and E-Trac screens were quite similar. One thing that I think will be different, is that on the E-Trac and CTX, the lower ferrous numbers plot toward the top of the screen, and the higher ferrous numbers plot toward the bottom of the screen. However, on the M-Core, it looks like near the top of the screen will be iron, AND near the bottom of the screen will be iron. I think smaller iron, like nails, will be plotted near the top, and big iron like horseshoes, etc., will plot near the bottom (or vice versa). Meanwhile, the non-ferrous targets will plot near the middle of the screen. So, it's different in that way, but still, the same general idea... Steve

Matt, the middle section can be removed, but the lower rod is too small to be secured by the cam lock on the handle. It's designed for that larger-diameter middle shaft section. So, you couldn't use JUST the lower rod. Two things, though... 1. the lower rod will collapse essentially entirely into the middle shaft, so yes -- one way to accomplish it is to collapse the lower rod into the middle section, and then that would give you about 24" of length, from the handle forward to the coil. I can get you a more exact measurement. 2. while this first batch is going to be of "standard" configuration, I will be able to customize, once I get everyone's orders filled and get caught up. I'll be able to pretty much build you whatever you need. The lengths of each section can be tailored/customized, and there's no reason I can build a "dive-specific shaft" to whatever specific length someone might desire. While the "collapse the lower rod fully inside the middle shaft" idea is one way to do it, making the middle and lower sections shorter would allow the overall shaft weight to be decreased (two shorter tubes, instead of two full-length tubes). Hopefully this helps to answer your questions! Steve

Marty, got it, thanks! I'll answer all of my emails this evening, to confirm everyones' places in line. THANKS!

Hi all! With the final injection mold associated with the Deus II shaft project (for the locking remote control mount) now entering the production process, the project is nearing completion. I expect this final mold to be complete in about 6 weeks, give or take, with the molded mounts then arriving a couple of weeks later. With the production of all other parts needed to begin building the first batch of shafts already in progress, I am ready at this time to begin to assemble a formal “wait list” for folks who are interested in purchasing. At first, these shafts will be of one main configuration, with a couple of optional add-ons available. MAIN CONFIGURATION: This shaft configuration will be available at an introductory price of $229 plus shipping ($20 shipping within the lower 48 states; additional for Alaska/Hawaii customers, and international shipments). This configuration will consist of be a black, three-piece, collapsible carbon-fiber shaft, with locking remote-control mount, and custom carbon-fiber arm cuff. ADD-ON #1 -- For an additional $20, the shaft can be produced in a “counterweight-ready” configuration (that would allow it to be used with one of my carbon-fiber counterweights, to improve the balance of the shaft) ADD-ON #2 -- For an additional $20, the shaft can be produced to allow the antenna cable to be run inside the shaft; the antenna would enter through an oval opening on the underside of the lower rod, and exit through an oval opening on the middle shaft section, just “forward” of the handle. Note that when the antenna wire is being used in the “inside the shaft” manner, the wire protruding/exiting from the middle shaft section will prevent the collapse of the middle shaft back through the handle (i.e. into fully collapsed “transport” mode). The wire would have to be retracted back into the inside of the middle shaft section, for full shaft collapse. I have many customers’ names tentatively included on an “unofficial” wait list at this point. Though some will likely not follow through for inclusion on the “official” list, the number of names may still exceed the number of shafts being produced in the first production run (32 shafts). Still, subsequent production runs will follow quickly on the heels of the first run, and so I welcome anyone with interest to have your name added to the wait list. EVEN IF YOU HAVE ALREADY MENTIONED YOUR INTEREST TO ME IN THE PAST, please confirm with me that you would like to be added to the “official” list. The list will be first come, first served, UNLESS you have already been added to the “unofficial” list, in which case your place in line WOULD be maintained. To confirm your interest in being placed on the wait list, PLEASE SEND ME AN EMAIL at steve@stevesdetectorrods.com. ONLY an email to my email address, will be counted as a request to be placed on the list. Thank you very much, to all of those who have expressed interest, and a particular thank you to those who urged me to pursue the project, who offered suggestions and improvements along the way, and to those who gave of their time to field-test the shaft and help bring it to its current, advanced stage of development. I am VERY pleased with how this shaft has turned out, with numerous improvements – some small, and some more subtle – that have been incorporated into the design. I think the shaft will be well-received, and highly regarded. THANKS! Steve Goss www.stevesdetectorrods.com email: steve@stevesdetectorrods.com

Rich -- Oh, yes, I am right there with you. Sounds like we have similar experiences in the past (listening for a long time, to the Explorer audio), and so we are used to that -- and as such, I'm looking forward to the audio options on the Manticore. Especially so, since Tom D. is in on the project, and he is VERY BIG on audio needing to convey "information," or "intelligence," as he calls it. I am excited to see what they've come up with, in that regard, and how they might "overlap" CO and FE tones -- in a way that conveys target information to us in what (after some practice) could become sort of "intuitive" (in terms of what the machine is telling us about the target). As for the 2-D screen, I hope I am not/did not come across as argumentative, or nit-picky. I guess I'm just thinking in my mind that for anyone who hasn't used a 2-D "smart screen" in the past, imagining how it works, and what it will be displaying, would likely be a bit complex/confusing. It's like you have to understand the idea of CO/FE, and then how that would display on a 2D screen, before it can begin to make any sense. So, I'm just trying to be precise, so that it can hopefully be of some help to some; but please don't take it that I'm being argumentative. Not my intent at all! Steve

Not sure, Cal, but very interesting...as I wasn't aware that any other brands were able to take a "CO" and a "FE" snapshot of a target, like FBS does (and now, M-Core). Steve