Dumping SDC 2300 Detectors

[mn90403]

1 hour ago, phrunt said:

I used to blame the tools, then I got the same tools as JW and still find 1/5th of the gold on the same day at the same location, so now I've only got myself to blame.  😵

Simon,

You are getting there.  You are becoming more and more like JW who has multiple personalities when he detects.  He adapts to the gold.  You have learned his techniques for telling a good prospecting story.

Some detectorists just remain harsh and abrasive and can't adapt their style or appreciate the style of others.  To listen/read from them becomes a tedious exercise in bashing people, places and things.

You are better as a Grasshopper. (You do know that TV show, right?)

Mitchel

[Rege-PA]

I have a SDC 2300 and a GPX 5000 and a Gold Monster. Each one has unique capabilities that can be used for hunting deeper gold, smaller gold, hunting in tight brush, underwater, hot ground etc. The first time I used my SDC  I slipped on a small rock ledge and fell 5 feet cutting and banging up my legs. As I fell I threw the detector away from me to avoid falling on it. It ended up 15 feet away bouncing and scraping over the bed rock. I had that sick feeling when I retrieved it, but turned it on and it never skipped a beat. Worked perfectly. Again I try to pick my machines and match them to terrain and the size  of gold and depth I will be detecting.

I do go back over an area with my other machines when possible.

 

[Gold Catcher]

2 minutes ago, Rege-PA said:

Again I try to pick my machines and match them to terrain

I could not agree more. There is a hydraulic mining pit where I go (going now in 15 min...) where the GM is the only machine that consistently produces results. The area is full of trash so I ignore iron targets but still hunt in deep. It then comes down to lead or gold, with it being gold half of the times (consistently about 5-8 nuggets/hour with 0.08 - 0.5g weight range). Both SDC and GPZ are completely useless there. On the other had, only the GPZ gets me gold when I am at Rye Patch. So, one never fits all!

[Gold Catcher]

32 minutes ago, Gold Catcher said:

(consistently about 5-8 nuggets/hour with 0.08 - 0.5g weight range

Sorry, meant per day....Per hour I wish

[Steve Herschbach]

20 hours ago, Reg Wilson said:

I guess a 'turn on and go' detector suits some that can't manage a more sophisticated machine. A poor operator will always blame the tools.

Ah, more controls implies sophistication does it? And simplicity of operation must reflect on the mental capabilities of the operator? Just simple folks really, not nearly so smart as you, are they Reg?

You first post in this thread said anyone who bought an SDC 2300 is a sucker. I deleted it, so you came back with this instead.

It’s a poor forum member that constantly insults anyone that uses anything that does not meet with their approval. You want respect, but show none for others. Critique detectors all you want Reg, but either change your tone when it comes to other forum members, or leave.

[Jonathan Porter]

14 hours ago, Reg Wilson said:

I sold the GPZ because is was overweight and overpriced, and just a bit over hyped. The electronics were pretty good after the bugs were sorted out, but just lazy design. Instead of a light weight prospectors tool, we copped a converted military monster with not much more than a colour change. Then to add insult to injury we were informed that to operate it properly it was advised that one had to use both hands (cripple stick) like a line trimmer, and go 'low and slow' ( due to very slow target response). Not my idea of a user friendly detector.

The SDC2300 was another example of lazy design, and once more a colour change from military green to blue. Dodgy battery contacts, laughable headphone jack, ridiculous 'knuckle' coil arrangement and limited to small targets as it was originally designed to find tiny wiring in ceramic mines. Even if you could put a large coil on the thing its depth on large targets would be poor due to the fact that its internals were designed for small bits of metal.

Coiltek have a test site just out of Maryborough in Central Victoria with a number of simulated nuggets of various size and depth. The SDC could barely pick up the smallest target only, whereas the QED could pick them all up. (witnessed)

The next time you are in Victoria Jonathon bring your SDC and a pocket full of hundreds, and we'll visit the test site for a comparison. Bring your ex prison guard mate with you as well. I'd love to take his money.

Not trying to put the boot in Reg as I see there been a few responses to your post but some of the things you’ve said are just plain wrong and need correcting.

The GPZ housing is based on the CTX 3030 which is a unique original design, no military carry over there and as has been said, the SDC although using the same housing as the F3 Compact, has unique electronics that were built from the ground up for a specific purpose. I know all this because I was on the ground floor during its development. I agree about the battery contacts of the SDC which was somewhat corrected in the later times with the supply of NiMh C cells with bigger contact points and just lately the inclusion of a slip in Lithium battery (due to world demand and shortages ML cannot supply at present so have reverted back to the NiMh for the time being). The SDC was developed to compete with the Garret ATX which has very good sensitivity to small nuggets, the SDC has proven to be an all time favourite for people who detect occasionally and do not want to get all bedazzled with complex menu and switch systems, its a perfect newbie detector that has amazing sensitivity even in the worst of environs.

Reg I did some of the first prototype testing with the SDC in Victoria out the back of Tarnagulla on Italian lead, there is some pretty nasty highly variable high X ground in the upper part of the lead especially in and amongst the surfacing areas, I was gob smacked at the amount of missed targets I found all over those diggings with many many small nuggets just sitting for the taking. It was on those diggings that I helped ML perfect the MPF timings for the SDC, I’ll never forget the work because it was early in the season and the March flies were prolific, huge big blood sucking monsters in their millions. 

Lastly the complaint about the slow response of the GPZ 7000, I find this comment amazing because anyone worth their salt (pun intended) both in the coin and relic world and also the serious prospecting world knows a fast response equals less depth! On the ML coin machines its called recovery, on the GPX machines its called Motion and on the GPZ its called Ground Smoothing. All are filters that allow the faster movement of the coil relative to a target which is handy if two targets are side by side on a coin machine, on something like the Equinox it is also handy to help handle conductive/Salt ground because of the higher frequencies of the Multi IQ tech. Salt signal is directly proportional to coil swing speed, so the worse it is the slower you should swing the coil, applying a Ground Smoothing filter like “patch or Salty” on the GPZ helps cut back on the salt signal but kills depth. 

Test beds have their place but entirely too much time is spent fretting about a non-gold target buried in a bank of a creek somewhere. So much can depend on the operator and the settings used and more especially their understanding of the best way to actually swing the coil of the detector being tested, so many people do not fully gasp the importance of the correct ‘Range of Motion” relative to a deep target on the GPZ, its not so much about speed as getting the actual coil movement distance correct to get the target signal to fully manifest and become recognisable from background noise. 

Hope this helps someone out there
JP

[Reg Wilson]

If consumers just happily gobble up poorly designed machinery without complaint, then that is what will proliferate. Sure the detectors in question have some desirable features, but that does not excuse the lazy aspect of much of the design. If a company has little or no competition it will tend to produce a product that is convenient for themselves rather than being ideal for the consumer, who, if they tend to fawn all over such offerings, simply encourage the manufacturer to continue a less than desirable practice.

If the automobile industry behaved in the same way the Ford Edsell would still be in production.

[Rick K - First Member]

I’ll give you this Reg - you are persistent.

Several folks have explained how the SDC met their needs well - did the “job to be done”.

Your criticism seems to be mostly based on MInelab’s failure to design exactly the machine you want for the job you have “to be done”. 

That leads me to wonder what job you think everybody should be doing so that the detector (which apparently doesn’t exist) would meet the multitude of needs that gold seekers - most of them far away from your own Australia - would be met PERFECTLY by a detector which Minelab is not making.

I have been often “taken to the woodshed” publicly and privately by our host - Steve about my long standing dislike for MInelab’s marketing - guess what - I just shelled out hard cash for an SDC. 

Why, because it fits a “job to be done” that I have.

For those who may be interested, here’s an introduction to “Jobs to be Done” theory.

https://www.christenseninstitute.org/key-concepts/jobs-to-be-done/

[jasong]

4 hours ago, phrunt said:

If the GPX 6000 is indeed an SDC2300 and GPX combined in a more traditional detector housing with improved wireless audio and a bit lighter I am sure Minelab will have a hit on their hands.  

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 TX loop in the DOD as a mono TX/RX for the GPX side of things. Benefit being salt mitigation and nothing much else I guess.

[Reg Wilson]

Rick Kempf, I take on board your remarks about 'the job to be done'. Quite right. I guess my 'job to be done' differs from yours. I reflect on the remarks of John Hider-Smith, the best detector operator that I ever met. "Oh, that's the sort of gold you want to find?"