Jump to content

jasong

Member
  • Content Count

    1,078
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    21

jasong last won the day on March 21

jasong had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

1,867 Excellent

2 Followers

About jasong

  • Rank
    Gold Contributor

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling
  • Location:
    Wyoming
  • Interests:
    supernova flotsam

Recent Profile Visitors

4,356 profile views
  1. I for one will never give a cent of my money to people who knowingly sell scam devices and ripoff the very people they want to be a "community" with and I will definitely point it out the same as I would if a Nigerian Prince showed up here trying to gin up business. https://www.kellycodetectors.com/catalog/okm-bionic-x4-long-range-gold-metal-detector That's the cheap one, they have one they are trying to get $30k out of made by the same company, which I can only assume is also based on such ridiculously bogus tecnology as "long range gold ion detection" and "Bio-Energy-System" which
  2. It doesn't have to be about having less performance apples to apples, but different performance that you can't find on the other machine because the technology is different. What does PI do better than ZVT? There is the likely answer.
  3. Maybe if it's $999. We have to start expecting more. That's basically just 2 old machines wrapped into a new box. Otherwise we end up with the US model of "same machine, new box" and a detector dark ages in AUS too. If the 6000 doesn't have some significant improvements or new performance features well beyond wireless and slight weight reduction, and the machine is priced above $2000, I will begin questioning the future direction of Minelab consumer gold detectors. It makes me wonder if the planned successor to the GPZ is just going to be a GPZ/GPX hybrid. Suppose you could run the T
  4. I agree. I was trying to not ask anything too specific or press the matter for that reason. I actually had a pretty good guess what the SP01 was doing already since I've heard one in the field. Which is in part why I am asking these questions. Props to him for showing up and answering what he can. I don't want him to reveal trade secrets, but I do think it's good to understand what things do and when/how they should be used so I definitely will always be asking what products do and trying to understand them better for any product really, detecting or otherwise. Like, if you have a tu
  5. Norm, I think people understand. The problem is me, I've hijacked your thread to discuss an issue I have been wondering about for a long time because it was a convenient place to discuss it, unfortunately complicating your original (and hopefully solved) question. Mostly because I'm too lazy to start my own threads, and when I see something tangentially related I tend to just start rambling about this and that. Apologies.
  6. Right. So if one goes to the effort to avoid using smoothing just to have the SP01 do something similar in the end, then one ends up net zero. This is the crux of why I am asking these questions. If that is what it's doing then the GPZ lacks the ability to replicate such a thing (other than perhaps changing tone). In that case, I could potentially see the use of the SP01 on the GPZ. That is what I am asking here. I'm trying to figure out if the SP01 does something not available on the GPZ, or if simply a more judiciously usage of the settings might achieve similar results. On
  7. Equalization is very different from noise filtering which is very different than compression. These things matter. The reason it's relevant here specifically is that the GPZ lacks any equalization ability. But in the GPZ you can emulate (kinda) a compressor with the volume limit, threshold, and volume. And the audio smoothing function is more or less a noise filter. Right, I'm not saying JP tailored his settings for the SP01. I'm asking wether the settings he runs/recommends are settings that might be taxing the GPZ onboard audio and creating a perceived need for the SP01 (coinc
  8. Except that isn't exactly what is happening since Phrunt said on page or 2 or 3 that Pat claims there is no equalization occuring in the SP01. I'm not sure people read my post very closely. I'm sure the booster is doing something. Clearly. If it's not equalization, it's compression or noise filtering, or both. I understand the amp after preamp concept, but I don't personally see the distortion that would necessitate following the GPZ with another amp, and this is part of my confusion, since clearly others do. What I'm unsure about is if it's doing anything that can't be achieved simp
  9. Increasing volume is like increasing sensitivity? That's a new on me. Volume is specifically an audio function. Sensitivity is an RX function related to amplification of the raw detected signal, not the audio signal. Is this not the case with the GPZ? If what he says is true, then wouldn't all of us who run at 20 sensitivity want to be running higher GPZ volumes to get more sensitivity beyond 20 instead of lowering the GPZ volume and using a booster to bring it back up?
  10. I'd be interested to hear what Nenad or Pat have to say about what the SP01 filter is doing. Info is slim in their literature. Maybe I'm misunderstanding it, but it appears to me to be doing something like either lowering/filtering the threshold/volume/volume limit or using some type of audio smoothing to "brighten" up the target signals. What I'm wondering is if backing off the threshold or using low smoothing to achieve the SP01 filter effect within the GPZ itself allows one to crank the volume and volume limit up higher without experiencing the distortion reported or needing to use a 3
  11. If it's just about volume boosting then I understand why those with bad hearing use a booster, I still don't understand why people with good hearing swear by them though. What people tell me in the field is that they are enhancing signals, not making them louder, but I've been unable to hear anything that couldn't be replicated for free with the GPZ audio controls so far. I don't understand - what specifically should the GPZ have that it doesn't have or what makes what it does have terrible? The GPZ has volume, volume limit, tone, threshold control, and audio smoothing. With these
  12. I can understand for those who use hearing aids. What I'm not getting is what exactly these modules do that the onboard GPZ audio processing does not do. What is the SP01 filtering? The GPZ is digital so it's not really picking up analog EMI (aside from case interference such as discussed in this thread, which can be eliminated by not operating devices close to the box). The EMI the GPZ picks up is through the coil, and manifests itself also as digital signals which could just as easily be targets like a gold nugget. A filter has no way to tell, at the end of the processing chain.
  13. I'm curious what is lacking on the WM12/GPZ that makes it's audio require 3rd party modules? Wireless headphones I get. But the boosters I don't understand since I cannot see a situation where both the volume on the WM12 is insufficient and headphones are not the better option at that point. The audio is digital and fairly pure tones, so there isn't much EQ to do. You can limit volume and alter tones inside the GPZ. A compressor/limiter I could see the usage of but no one makes one of those. I haven't done a test, but I have to guess it's around 90-100dB at full blast, which is enoug
  14. You'll be able to get that rig in and out of pretty much any of those roads in Gold Basin where people camp, no problem. Guys take 40ft 5th wheels back there. It's fairly safe back there during prospecting season, It's when everyone leaves during the summer that you have to be careful leaving stuff unattended back there. Some of the prospectors who basically live out there will watch after your stuff while they are there if you make friends with them. The only place I'd feel iffy making camp and leaving it unattended is on the roads behind Gold Basin. The tweakers out of Dolan Sprin
  15. If the WM12 wasn't so expensive or if I had more than one, I'd try a simple experiment - sand off the paint from the antenna on the circuit board near the top and then solder a 1/4 wavelength (3.1cm) piece of wire to it, then run the wire outside the case. If improvement, then maybe cut a line through the onboard antenna to disable it from running in parallel with the wire antenna. I'm really not sure how this would affect the impedence though, with two antennas in parallel, so I'm not suggesting anyone try. Just that I would if it were cheap and I could ruin one. Different wire conf
×
×
  • Create New...