jasong

Another potential black swan idea: using our actual cellphones as the "brain" of the detector. Maybe latency or bandwidth issues over USB/BT/Wireless, hmm not sure. Probably some good reason it wouldn't work or it seems like at least one company would have tried it by now.

Right, I'm talking about literally writing new custom programming, Java, C++, ASM, etc. Not just changing settings around in the OEM menu. Think writing your own timings on a 5000, not choosing a preselected one. Or, and maybe more realistically, companies just opening up an API for anyone to tinker with. This is almost a standard model on the internet nowadays not to mention an increasing amount of hardware. Also at least breaking out the MCU pins especially on the ADC and maybe releasing a schematic or two or at least making the components identifiable and not under layers of goo. I know there aren't a lot of people with the desire or skill to program or hack hardware when it comes to metal detectors. But in part I can't help but think that part of this is because metal detecting is quite literally the only pursuit I have ever come across where user modding (other than simple stuff like amps, coils, etc) is virtually to completely impossible. It's like if I could only put new tires on my truck but not touch the suspension, put a tail fin on but not be able to put something useful like a supercharger or turbo in, etc. Adopting an open system like Android could make small strides to rectify that situation since you can insure cross platform compatibility and a guy from basically any CS background can jump right into Java, or even ASM when needed with a bit more patience. But you are right that there aren't a ton of guys out there waiting to do this, and a healthy development community is part of the reason those communities succeed so that is a problem. But I am not suggesting shifting paradigms for the benefit of tinkerers. I am suggesting shifting to benefit the consumer by way of the aftermarket supply of program innovations and peripheral addons that might be created which I think would move a relatively stale detecting development environment into a fairly healthy one. I may be way off base here and this is just completely impossible from a tech standpoint. But the frustrating thing is I can't even determine that for myself because my $5000 machine is completely encassed in opaque epoxy to hide anything that might matter and getting any access to the coding is even more impossible.

Yep sorry, didn't mean to change the subject. Just thought Makro might be the type of company to listen, and/or tell me it ain't happenin' son. Ok, no more hijacking.

Coils are basically antennas and can be matched for impedence, frequency, etc. I'm not suggesting the selling point would be that anyone can muck around and screw their detectors up though. Think about it this way, if your Dell computer only ran programs built by Dell would you buy it? Or if they only allowed Microsoft programs to operate on Microsoft operating systems? Or Google only allowed Google apps on your phone? If a person had an idea to improve something and those companies made it competely impossible to do so how do you think using your phone, your computer today would be? If anytime someone had an idea they had to ask the company to do it and hope the company listened how slow do you think we would see tech advances and how much money do you think they would charge on those monopolies? That's pretty much how the detector world seems to work. It's an outdated paradigm. Further, in those examples those are companies with hundreds of thousands of top notch engineers globally. There are so very few "detector engineers" in the world I have a hard time believing that they alone have optimized and perfected detecting technology.

I understand what you are saying, but most phone users aren't DIY'er or garage tinkers either, yet take a look at the thriving Google/Apple app markets. You do not have to know how to program your phone to use any range of apps that turn your phone into an x, y, or z. I'm not suggesting that most people would need to learn to program an MCU. I'm suggesting opening up that possibility so that those of us who do enjoy doing so can create programs for ourselves and to share with or sell to others. There could eventually be a detector program market that exceeds the aftermarket coil market or greater. (inevitably someone would also bank off making an "app" store too - note to first adopter manufacturers hint hint). Eventually it may be that requesting x detector have y feature be as easy as waiting for some tinkerer to make that program. With so much reliance on digital electronics now, I'm not certain I believe that 1 detector can't be great at 2 different functions, even if that is true with OEM stock models in the present time. Similarly, open up the hardware platform and schematics to those people who enjoy EE/Physics/etc. Detecting technology has frankly, been more or less in the stone age compared to the rest of the tech world with the possible exception of the last few years, at least that's how it seems to me, especially after disassembling a few and being shocked at whats inside...not taking advantage of dirt cheap MCU and DSP and relying on circuitry that looked like it was based off older circuitry from the 70's - I'm looking at you US companies... I have a hard time making the same limited assumptions that I see about what a machine can be that a lot of others make on forums.

With modern ARM or similar type MCU's with some of the DSP capabilities built in and programming easily altered or updated I'm not sure I understand anymore why we are still stuck with the solid state mindset that x detector has to be y frequency only. A guy shouldn't have an issue switching to 60khz or 30khz or 7.5khz or whatever he wants without having to buy proprietary peripherals like special coils. This doesn't have a lot to do with the Makros in particular, but this line of thought leads me to really wonder when we see the first "open source" detector. IE, one that allows us to go in and hack around in the programming, and open source schematics so we can make custom mods without figuring out how to dissolve 5 layers of epoxy potting without killing the components or having to brute force decrypt MCU coding. So, since I know the Makro guys read this forum, if a company really wanted to take the next step and to be revolutionary in the detector world - provide us all with 2 open source platforms (meaning both software and hardware open source) - a PI and a VLF. Breakout all the relevant MCU pins too or allow easy access to hook up another dev board like the BeagleBoard, Raspberry PI, etc along with the interface to a computer for programming. Detectors, even Minelab, until the last few years have really been stuck in the stone age it seems to me any computer or phone nowadays allows for all kinds of mods and hacking. I think you'd see a lot of real interesting innovation happening by DIY'ers within a few years with a platform like this, and it might give Minelab some pause at offering detectors at (disclaimer, just a guess) $8,000 or whatever. Sorry to ramble, this post just got me thinking.

Any gauge on how the target ID accuracy is at depth compared to an F75 or similar? Looking forward to seeing the Gold Racer review, I'm looking for a detector to cherry pick ultra trashy sites for nuggets as well as have the versatility to do some abandoned homestead and old yard coin hunting and adding these two to the radar.

I noticed it was semi-elliptical, but given the "full elliptical" size (14x9, 17x11, etc) which are some of the most, if not the most popular sizes for general use these days and are conspicuously absent from the 7000 coil lineup, was wondering if there was an issue with producing those with this new technology or if Minelab was going to rely on 3rd parties, or...any number of questions there. I guess I'll hold off on any more questions, with new technology that is completely secret I guess it's hard to even determine what a good or bad question is at this point. Anyways, looking forward to hearing your full report, thanks.

After the NDA expires and people can talk, these are the questions I'd need to know before taking the dive and buying if the price was way up there. I'm sure many if not all of these are already going to be addressed but just throwing this out there as questions I'm sure many will be asking. - Ergonomically, how does the extra weight carry and how does the detector swing compared to a GPX series machine? - Will elliptical coils be available for it eventually? Or does the new coil style only work with rounds? - Will it hit on the infamous types of spongy and specimen gold that are completely invisible to GPX series models - Can someone compare a 5000 with a 14" mono VS the GPZ7000 on various target sizes and depths. Minelab sponsored tests with up to 40% performance gains are well and good but there needs to be 3rd party confirmation and test replication. - Not a competition but for reference purposes can someone compare a Gold Bug 2 VS the GPZ7000 on various grainer size gold and various depths? - Is there any discrimination at all, if not does this ZVT tech lend itself to discrimination in future models or is it like PI in the respect that its almost impossible to create? - Just how good are the noise cancellation improvements over the 5000? Can you stand right under a transmission power line and null out the interference?

Seems a lot less complex than the 5000 to me, much of the manual is dedicated to GPS related features which some won't be using much anyways. The actual detection functions look pretty straight forward. Can't wait to see some test results and really hoping the price is not crazy. Wonder if they'll base the pricing on AUD or if we'll be getting them "cheaper" relatively speaking since currency strengths have sort of reversed since the 5000 release.