bado1 Posted June 3, 2015 Author Share Posted June 3, 2015 Thanks Guys, That makes me feel much better. I'm hunting again on Sat. afternoon as the temps are supposed to be low this weekend. My buddy just bought a pair of Detector Pro 150ohm headphones so i will check them out and see how they do on the SDC. Yes, "deep" is a relative term when refering to the SDC. But it is what it is. Super easy as Tortuga says. I love it so far. My buddy is absolutely deadly with his GP3500 and finds fly spec gold as well as larger deeper nuggets but it is noisy by comparison to the SDC. He has learned it's language well though. My new area has lots of shallow schist bed rock very well suited to SDC hunting. The largest nugget has been only .7 grams but the area has produced consistently so I can't complain. The area is not known for slugs anyway but is very close to home so it's all good. Thanks for the amp tips, Argyle. I will do some experimenting. Dean Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimmynails Posted October 2, 2015 Share Posted October 2, 2015 Hey everyone, First post here - Well, I'm about to take the plunge and use my hard earned savings to purchase an SDC 2300. By the way, thanks a bunch Steve for all your posts and reviews - I've probably spent a decent 24 hours reading through everything you've written about them. I've also been heavily researching how to get a really good signal from them without using a booster. I've heard from a few blokes recently who have been using 300-600 ohm headphones, and it appears they are hitting twice as many targets by using this high ohm range - due to its extreme sensitivity and how other headphones or boosters cannot pickup these subtle sounds. I'm just wondering if there is any possible credence or theoretical/mechanical basis to these claims? If so, should I be looking for headphones like the Sennheiser HD 600 (300 ohm) or the Beyerdynamic DT880 (600 ohm) Headphones? I've also heard great reviews about the Sunray Pro-Golds, but they seem lacking in this 'ohm' department according to my recent research.. Thoughts anyone? Jimmy 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tortuga Posted October 2, 2015 Share Posted October 2, 2015 I've been curious about the actual audio output and speaker quality on metal detecting headphones as well. I think most of the emphasis manufacturers place on their headphones is ruggedness and just make vague claims about the "faintest whispers from nuggets can be heard". I'd like to know if anyone's done any research like you're asking about specific ohm ranges that are compatible with our metal detectors that output the best signal. I mean it's not like we're trying to listen to rock music coming out of our Minelab's. We're listening to electronic tones the machine is spitting out based on what the electronics inside are trying to tell us. I've had a pair of Sunray Pro Golds I've been using for a few years now that work fine and I've found some nice gold with. But I've been wondering if the $120 headphone "connection" I have with my $10k detector can be improved at all. By the way Jimmy I don't know where you're located but I'm selling a used SDC 2300 if you're interested. Drop me a message if you'd like. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jasong Posted October 2, 2015 Share Posted October 2, 2015 Sounds dubious to me, especially the doubling of finds part. Unless I'm misunderstanding something, attaching 600 ohm headphones to a circuit designed for 4-8 ohms is going to make it quieter, might even actually need to get a booster to bring it back up to normal loudness, though maybe the SDC has robust audio control already, dunno since I don't have one. But electronics gurus please correct me if I'm wrong there... Also, the amps in detectors aren't designed with nearly the frequency response that high dollar audio amps are made with, which is what those sorts of headphones are intended for. It's like hooking a $300 pair of headphones to a Walkman from 1984...except probably worse. Or trying to listen for frequencies on a 60 year old record that just aren't there to begin with. Though I bet the sound deadening capabilities on a set of nice studio headphones are excellent, that is one positive that could make a difference. Gladly change my opinion given new evidence to the contrary though. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beardog Posted October 2, 2015 Share Posted October 2, 2015 Seems to me the "gain" knob is mis-named. It should be named "loss". With the initial settings for "gain" on my GMT marked at 7 1/2 I have only found "loss" to be the setting that will produce the best steady hum, usually having to run gain at 2 - 2 1/2 in ground where I hunt. This "gain" setting, on the GMT, (7 1/2 ) is where ferrous is nulled - it's just a bench mark. When trying to balance the "gain" and the SAT on my GMT in order to keep a quick Thold recovery, swing speed is very critical. These two functions, gain and SAT, must be balanced and an adjustment to swing speed is necessary or you will get lapses in Thold recovery. (this is the "steady" part) In really mineralized ground, the hunt is slowed way down, especially if there are cold rocks in the matrix. These cold rocks cause the machine to think harder and take longer for the electronics to respond, forcing swing speed to be the end adjustment. Low and slow, coil to the soil, snails pace hunting . zip, zip! Did ya hear that! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rick Watkins Posted October 2, 2015 Share Posted October 2, 2015 Bado 1,yea i run my sdc with very little threshold also,but good headphones really help. Maybe not the deepest running machine for the money but if your looking for specimen gold or porous it works for me. I have found some nice spongy gold fairly deep running very quiet, couldnt have heard them without headphones though,my ears are bad also. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tortuga Posted October 3, 2015 Share Posted October 3, 2015 Sounds dubious to me, especially the doubling of finds part. Unless I'm misunderstanding something, attaching 600 ohm headphones to a circuit designed for 4-8 ohms is going to make it quieter, might even actually need to get a booster to bring it back up to normal loudness, though maybe the SDC has robust audio control already, dunno since I don't have one. But electronics gurus please correct me if I'm wrong there... Also, the amps in detectors aren't designed with nearly the frequency response that high dollar audio amps are made with, which is what those sorts of headphones are intended for. It's like hooking a $300 pair of headphones to a Walkman from 1984...except probably worse. Or trying to listen for frequencies on a 60 year old record that just aren't there to begin with. Though I bet the sound deadening capabilities on a set of nice studio headphones are excellent, that is one positive that could make a difference. Gladly change my opinion given new evidence to the contrary though. Makes sense to me. If the source (detector) isn't requiring high-end studio headphones like a $10k McIntosh amplifier might then we should be fine just using the regular detector headphones that are on the market. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Herschbach Posted October 3, 2015 Share Posted October 3, 2015 My understanding is that it is not a case of more is better but that the ohms should match the instrument. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wirelessguy Posted October 3, 2015 Share Posted October 3, 2015 Sounds dubious to me, especially the doubling of finds part. Unless I'm misunderstanding something, attaching 600 ohm headphones to a circuit designed for 4-8 ohms is going to make it quieter, might even actually need to get a booster to bring it back up to normal loudness, though maybe the SDC has robust audio control already, dunno since I don't have one. But electronics gurus please correct me if I'm wrong there... Also, the amps in detectors aren't designed with nearly the frequency response that high dollar audio amps are made with, which is what those sorts of headphones are intended for. It's like hooking a $300 pair of headphones to a Walkman from 1984...except probably worse. Or trying to listen for frequencies on a 60 year old record that just aren't there to begin with. Though I bet the sound deadening capabilities on a set of nice studio headphones are excellent, that is one positive that could make a difference. Gladly change my opinion given new evidence to the contrary though. Jasong you are correct in your assessments of loudness v impedance matching and frequency response of amplifiers v the loudspeaker (headphone). http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/jan03/articles/impedanceworkshop.asp This link is way more than a detectorist may need to know, however this article (for musicians and studio people) is well written and accurate. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now