Gold Catcher Posted November 26, 2020 Share Posted November 26, 2020 So the rumor mill will go on for a while. Last thing I heard was that it is as easy to use as the GM or the SDC but more powerful. Meaning, potentially no complicated menu options ala 5000. I am actually almost as curious to see what will happen to the rest of the fleet and if there are any new updates of existing machines. Perhaps an approved NF coil assortment for the GPZ? Or an updated GM? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vanursepaul Posted November 28, 2020 Share Posted November 28, 2020 On 11/25/2020 at 7:56 PM, Steve Herschbach said: Well that sucks. I for some reason thought a single extension would be it. But apparently they can keep requesting extensions, so who knows how long this could go on. Taskmaster has blown up the thread with the date format.... I can see him laughing now with tears rolling out his eyes!!! 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goldseeker5000 Posted November 28, 2020 Share Posted November 28, 2020 And some thought my release date on my book was long. Minelab has me beat by a mile, on every detector. I'm glad I'm not in the market for a new pulse induction detector. Though it would be nice to see what they come up with to top the 5000 & 7000. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedDirtDigger Posted January 7, 2021 Share Posted January 7, 2021 Just saying the 6000 better have the latest low latency wireless bluetooth capability to any headphones...or i will be upset. Also a clever company would have a screen setting (similar to nox) that has bars /numbers to show signal strength/depth/broadness.. for all the hearing impaired detectorists. Should be a simple for minelab to engineer this. Just feel Minelab could spend more time workshopping/R & D time with some of the best long term gold detectorists 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VicR Posted January 7, 2021 Share Posted January 7, 2021 Yes - it would be a treat to use my Bose noise cancelling wireless headphones - they are so comfortable compared to the stock Equinox headphones. When i paired them to the Equinox the signal lag made the Bose unusable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chase Goldman Posted January 7, 2021 Share Posted January 7, 2021 8 hours ago, RedDirtDigger said: Just saying the 6000 better have the latest low latency wireless bluetooth capability to any headphones...or i will be upset. Also a clever company would have a screen setting (similar to nox) that has bars /numbers to show signal strength/depth/broadness.. for all the hearing impaired detectorists. Should be a simple for minelab to engineer this. Just feel Minelab could spend more time workshopping/R & D time with some of the best long term gold detectorists Every BT headphone does not support Low Latency BT transmission - it has to be supported on both ends - the detector transmitter and the phones themselves. APTX LL the low latency bluetooth standard transmission protocol Minelab has adopted for incorporation into its Equinox and Vanquish detector BT transmitters - is kind of a fading standard. Hasn't really caught on with the general marketplace and manufacturers of BT headphones seem to not be willing to play to licensing fees to incorporate the chipset and firmware in to their products as a result, unfortunately. APTX LL would at least be better than yet another non-cross compatible proprietary wireless/Wi Stream variant. They now have at least 4 proprietary Wi Stream variants, none of which have interchangeable hardware (WM08 for Equinox, WM10 for the CTX 3030, WM 12 for the GPZ 7000, and the Pro Sonic standalone unit - totally ridiculous.) 26 minutes ago, VicR said: Yes - it would be a treat to use my Bose noise cancelling wireless headphones - they are so comfortable compared to the stock Equinox headphones. When i paired them to the Equinox the signal lag made the Bose unusable. See above. Bose does not support any sort of low latency BT standard protocol, definitely not APTX LL. Low latency is pretty much a necessity for detecting with wireless audio otherwise your coil swing does not sync up with where your coil is when you hear the target audio. It is pretty noticeable with non-low latency bluetooth headphones and pretty annoying. I definitely sympathize. There are BT headphones that I have that would be much preferable to those that I am forced to use that comply with the BT APTX LL standard. I've pretty much switched over to proprietary wireless audio solutions for everything but the Equinox because they allow me to use headphones with optimized audio characteristics for my hearing and comfort. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AussieMatt Posted January 7, 2021 Share Posted January 7, 2021 9 hours ago, RedDirtDigger said: Just saying the 6000 better have the latest low latency wireless bluetooth capability to any headphones...or i will be upset. Also a clever company would have a screen setting (similar to nox) that has bars /numbers to show signal strength/depth/broadness.. for all the hearing impaired detectorists. Should be a simple for minelab to engineer this. Just feel Minelab could spend more time workshopping/R & D time with some of the best long term gold detectorists It would be great if the GPX6000 spoiled us for choice like the Equinox! A WM12 (probably new WM14 or something not compatible with their other proprietary systems ?) for speaker, choice of wired headphones/earphones etc. Bluetooth 5.0 & Bluetooth aptx low latency options. Bluetooth 5.0 is twice as fast as 4.2 apparently but still not aptx low latency fast. It is unfortunate that more companies aren't willing to incorporate aptx LL into their Bluetooth products for better performance. The Equinox is built with the Bluetooth 4.2 standard & aptx LL I believe so for optimal connection to Bluetooth headphones/earphones you would need to have minimum of 4.0 standard (4.2 is backwards compatible with 4.0 & 4.1) or 5.0 standard that are backwards compatible with 4.X standard gear. Low latency aptx is obviously going to be better lag wise but available options are the problem. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chase Goldman Posted January 7, 2021 Share Posted January 7, 2021 10 minutes ago, AussieMatt said: Bluetooth 5.0 & Bluetooth aptx low latency options. Bluetooth 5.0 is twice as fast as 4.2 apparently but still not aptx low latency fast. Apples and oranges - Bluetooth 5 has higher data transmission rates which just means it crams more audio information in the data stream resulting in better audio fidelity (not really something that makes a huge difference on the relatively narrow bandwidth associated with detector audio versus listening to high fidelity music) but that does not have anything to do with latency (other than the processing time associated with the higher data compression needed which tends to INCREASE latency/delay). But I totally agree with you that having a multitude of audio options/choices like they provided on Equinox is a good thing. 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AussieMatt Posted January 7, 2021 Share Posted January 7, 2021 7 minutes ago, Chase Goldman said: Apples and oranges - Bluetooth 5 has higher data transmission rates which just means it crams more audio information in the data stream resulting in better fidelity (not really an issue for detecting) but that does not have anything to do with latency (other than the processing time associated with the higher data compression needed which tends to INCREASE latency/delay). But I totally agree with you that have a multitude of audio options/choices like they provided on Equinox is a good thing. Aah yes I wondered whether it was latency they were talking about with 5.0 as being twice as fast. Audio sites still rated standard Bluetooth at ~100-300ms whereas aptx LL is ~32ms. Latency is unavoidable unfortunately - even wired headphones can have up to ~15ms. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.JPG.b46839319dc8de4aefe1f42407094dbd.JPG)
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