Search the Community

Detected an area that has a history of producing gold including small nuggets -- and have found pickers and larger yet small nuggets in my sluice here in past years with predictable confidence of finding more if put in the energy/ time -- but has a lot of ferrous trash above and below surface, and high mineralization. Experienced difficulty with the GB/ threshold and/or volume of the ATX. Did 4 resets -- factory reset 1st, then a freq scan, and then a GB readjustment, in that order -- trying to achieve a uniform response/ background noise. Detected and dug up nails and trash so it was working. But it was difficult to find the "right" threshold to assure a stable reliable pattern of signaling. At times, despite having just redone the GB, the ATX sounded nonstop -- loud continuous signaling despite having volume set at default (10) and headphones volume barely audible, and also tried with volume set higher and at max volume, with headphones volume adjusted low as could go, as is advised. But had the sensitivity set at the max of 13, not default setting of 10. So maybe that is the cause for the trouble finding its stability sweet spot. IDK Also at times, the very same areas where this incessant signaling occurred then yielded no signal at all -- total silence as if the ATX was switched off. For example, I'd sweep slowly to the left and the voice was loud/ nonstop loud signaling as if the volume was set at max (which it wasn't; volume was set at 10); sweeping back to the right over the same area it would do the same; sweeping further to the right however led to total silence/ not a peep; but then, I swept the area to the left again, and that same area that had had the loud incessant chatter was then totally silent as if the ATX was off. This was a repetitive issue and totally destroyed my confidence in its use. I tried it in water and on land. And regardless of location in that area it was the same pattern. I got so frustrated with it I put it away and got out the shovel, buckets and sluice. GB2 however (used by my wife) found gold minus any of these GB/ threshold issues. On a related note ... I have read (on other forums and websites) that others say the VLF and PI both produce a steady, stable background hum. Not for me. The GB2 has a reliable hum that makes it super easy to detect the faintest shift change. ATX? Not even close. ATX doesn't have a reliable hum at all. ATX hum is virtually impossible to discern distinct from its signaling (hard to know what the hum is, and is supposed to be, versus what is assumed to be a false signaling). Creates a frustrating guessing game.... So, it seems to me the VLF and PI differ markedly in what kind of hum is produced; and the PI absent of such a hum perhaps. So, am wondering do other ATX users find the same thing? Or might the hum/ lack of hum experience differ by type of ground detected -- water versus land; highly mineralized versus low to none; heavily trashed versus negligible ferrous crap littering the subsurface layers, etc. Maybe I just don't grasp the volume/ threshold equation specific to the ATX. Dare I admit it, more often than not, I have trouble setting it to a barely audible threshold/ volume. If I put the ATX volume at max (level 25) and try to adjust the headphones volume to barely audible, it's impossible to get the noise level that low. It's loud. And my hearing isn't even all that great yet the noise remains loud, not barely audible. Volume settings between factory default of 10 and max of 25 just do not allow me to adjust the headphones to barely audible -- the detector's voice remains loud regardless. Countless detectorists on YT videos and forums advise "turning the detector volume to its max and adjust the headphones volume low enough as that the detector's voice/ threshold/ hum/ background is just barely audible, which makes it easy to detect a variance." This is a piece of cake on the GB2. What am I doing wrong on the ATX???

I am wanting to know more about the new pat pending XGB ground balance, how is this better than say a standard mxt or old GMT ground balance method? Does it allow more depth than older VLF nugget detectors? Does it smooth out the threshold noticeably. The 50% more voltage to the coil is pretty self explanatory and you can hear the results of that with the super strong target signals the 24K creates on targets.

This question has been posted over on Prospecting Australia website. Wondering if the brains trust here might be able to help - OP over there is not getting much response. I've never used a GPX so I'm not much help. If some knowledge can be shared here I'll post the link over on PA and the knowledge will stay here for perpetuity ? Thanks. " Does anyone regularly use Specific Ground Balance? How do you find it? Page 60 of the User Instructions says - When moving to a new area the first Specific Ground Balance must be done with the Ground Balance Switch, not the Quick Track Button. Does this mean you can use the Quick Track Button after you've done the first one? I've never used Specific and wondering whether I should have been. Thanks for your help. Cheers "

I"m enjoying considerable success on the beach working in both the dry and wet sand using the default settings beach one. This leads on to my question----do I need to ground balance, either manually or auto ? Some say yes and others say no---why have manual gb when this can be changed to auto gb ? Getting good signals at good depth so why try and fix it if it aint broke .? I do believe that we all try and get the best out of our machines. Mossy99. [ forgot to add---my post not my son aka staffy33 ]

Hi Steve: Just re-read your "Steve's Guide to Threshold, Autotune..." It helped a lot. Thanks. I do have a question though. I understand V/SAT. It's about how fast autotune re-adjusts the threshold after encountering some disturbance like a target. However, I'm unclear on how that relates to Ground Balancing and Tracking. It sounds like they are the same. Would you please explain that? Thanks

If you read between the lines on the various search modes, Minelab seems to imply that the ground balancing is done automagically, regardless of whether you do a ground grab or not. For example: Park 1 Multi-IQ processes a lower frequency weighting of the multi-frequency signal, as well as using algorithms that maximise ground balancing for soil, to achieve the best signal to noise ratio. Hence Park 1 is most suited for general detecting and coin hunting. Park 2 Multi-IQ processes a higher frequency weighted multi-frequency signal while ground balancing for soil. Field 1 Multi-IQ processes a lower frequency weighted multi-frequency signal, as well as using algorithms that maximise ground balancing for soil, to achieve the best signal to noise ratio. Hence being most suited for general detecting and coin hunting. Field 2 Multi-IQ processes a higher frequency weighted multifrequency signal while ground balancing for soil. Beach 1 Multi-IQ processes a low frequency weighted multi-frequency signal, and uses special algorithms to maximise ground balancing for salt. Beach 2 MultiIQ processes a very low weighted multi-frequency combination, using the same algorithms as Beach 1 to maximise ground balancing for salt. Not to be confused with auto tracking, but it appears that the Equinox is doing some ground balancing specific to each search mode irregardless of whether you do a ground grab (auto ground balance in EQ speak) or not. Not that I would skip doing a ground grab, but I find it interesting that Minelab seems to be implying they process the ground balancing differently for each search mode, even if you don't do it. Steve do you see this as the case?

I went out this morning and did a auto GB in a couple of places in my yard, one read 5, the other 6. Does anyone have bad dirt that they have GB'd in? I'd like to know what kind of numbers, really mild and some harsh soil reads come in at.

The manual shows how to do auto ground balance. do we have to do an auto ground balance before we put it in tracking ground balance or can we just do a noise cancel and then put it in tracking GB?

Steve, Every since you posted that you lose depth when you ground balance, It is in the back of my mind........ "Ground balancing is a filter and not all that different that the way the discrimination system works. The ground signal or salt signal (or both) are identified and then tuned out. The ground effect is still there, but the detector subtracts it from the overall signal. The key word there is "subtracts". Ground balance methods work by subtracting part of the signal, and all subtractive methods create depth losses of some sort the closer any detected item gets to the "hole" created by subtracting the ground or salt signal. Signals are not perfect but spread over a small range, and so eliminating any signal usually means taking out a small range of signals. " I have always tried to keep my detectors ground balanced while using them.... Now I wonder if I should? Can you put my mind at ease......

Went out yesterday for a full day of detecting. Wanted to try the new semi auto ground balance. Went with pretty much basic default settings otherwise. I have to say I was quite pleased with it. I was in one of my beat to death patches. Lots of magnetic iron stones, hot rocks. It ran very smooth. It seemed I could separate the targets very distinctively. The small bits of wire were a raspy on the edges sound. The square nails were bangers. The non ferrous targets were about the same as the gold targets. Had one really weird target sound. I always dig those. But I usually dig everything 95% of the time. But the weird sound was gold. Not sure if my focus was just better yesterday or it was the new ground balance. But my instincts were pretty spot on, on what the target was going to be. But very pleased with the new update and settings. The take wasn't too spectacular, but I avoided the skunk in a hammered patch.

hi I am a begginer in gpx 5000 prospecting deep targets , I prefer to use coin/relic timings and use a double D 18" coil . What confuse me is ground balance , we have "fixed" and "tracking" in front of panel and also 3 option to choose by setting in GB type . Would you tell me what to choose to gain maximum depth? And is it possible to ground balance on a target and eliminate that size of target in prospecting? Thank you

Hopefully this clarifies things for people! http://www.minelab.com/__files/f/274444/KBA_26-1%20GPZ%207000%20Tips%20for%20Better%20Ground%20Balance.pdf

Here is the latest Minelab Treasure Talk blog by JP about GPZ ground balancing details http://www.minelab.com/usa/treasure-talk/my-method-for-ground-balancing-the-gpz-7000

Good post with tips by JP at http://golddetecting.4umer.net/t21325-auto-tracking-v-manual#207640

Anyone know if a manual ground balance pot and knob can be added to the Tesoro Lobo ST like they do on the Cibola? If so, who does this mod and how much would it cost? Thanks for any info.