I Saw The 5000 Up Grade Test

[phrunt]

9 hours ago, PhaseTech said:

The GPX boxes are already a massive shield as they are aluminium. There is also aluminium shield on the end caps under the controls. Just have to make sure the paint is scratched off where the aluminium comes in contact with the case around the screw holes. I can't see how adding another layer around the outside would make any difference, especially as most of the EMI we pick up when out in the field is picked up through your coil. I did try one of these control box shields, I put it on and off during the course of a session, and didn't see any difference. Interference would come and go and change as it always does, whether I had it on or off, and a careful manual tune was the best remedy. The immediate and very noticeable change you can do to improve EMI on those bad days is go to a DD coil, or a smaller mono. 

The extra shields are very hard to tell if they're working or not, one way I was able to try and see if it was working is putting it on my 5000, running both my 5000 and 4500 detectors at once in the same spot and doing some target tests, just putting the 4500 down leaving it running while using the 5000 on the targets, then swapping the shield over to the 4500, the one with the shield on always appeared to run the most stable, I had to take into account the 5000 is naturally more stable, It may be a placebo or me just hoping, quite possibly and if that's the case it's still a pretty cheap scratch proof cover for the control box 🙂 It appeared the one that had it on was less affected by the other one nearby.

One thing is for sure Minelab screwed up making my 4500, the box was painted right over both ends so the front/rear alloy foil shields did nothing, they were screwed down onto paint so like you've said I had to pop the hood and scratch it all off on both ends.  Crazy they would let product out like that, I guess the people assembling them had no idea about what they were doing, just slapping some parts together.

You might be onto something with the curly cable Nenad, A bit of a no-no in Hi-Fi Audio is running power cables along with the speaker cables sitting next to each other, some go and tidy their cables and cable tie the power cable to the speaker wires 🙂it can cause a hum and other interference, that's exactly what a GPX does, the detector sends the audio and the power along the same cable, so it's relying heavily on the shielding in the cable, if any.   A common mistake in car audio is people putting dirty great big subwoofers in their boot and running the RCA cables along with the power cable crushed up together along the same path and get a hum and wonder why, some even get the hum go with their accelerating 🙂

I've never cut a GPX power cable open, it would be interesting to see the shielding between wires.  That's why I liked switching to the aftermarket lithium type batteries using the short straight cables, less chance of issues there and as others have pointed out their detector appears to run quieter with them.  I doubt it's the battery, I think it's the short cable vs a big long sucker of a curly cable.  I've bought a couple of the NF short heavy-duty cables from you and they're really good, again not sure about their internal shielding so perhaps they could be even better.  I should experiment and make my own well shielded cable.

Some light reading, Cabling Affects Electromagnetic Interference in Complex Ways (emisoftware.com)

It's much the same with coil cables, some brands use very different cables than others and people often notice saying this particular coil handles EMI well, perhaps it's not so much just the coil but also the cable used.

[Redz]

19 minutes ago, phrunt said:

I doubt it's the battery, I think it's the short cable vs a big long sucker of a curly cable. 

In my set up I replaced the stock battery with lithium added a separate amplifier, but kept the cord. Removal of the stock battery had a large impact, because the amplifier in the battery causes a lot of emi. I had the same curly cord for both set ups. The other improvement is the amplifier in the battery insn't great. Using an aftermarket one improves the experience a lot.

[PhaseTech]

Simon, yes as an ex AV tech I know all about the cable do's and don'ts, but in that world we are often looking at Line signals, going across AC power cables. With a detector its DC power, and a relatively short length, and headphone level audio signals. BUT, as with all things detectors, even the slightest little improvement can make all the difference. Same reasoning behind taping coil cables in a straight run up the lower shaft, gear maintenance, using quality audio plugs etc etc. it all adds up. 

 

 

[Nevada Brian]

On 11/5/2023 at 6:26 AM, Goldseeker5000 said:

I have gone back to my 5000 as being my primary go to detector as it is getting me bigger gold. Myself along with three others did some tests with the 6000, 7000, 4500, 5000, modded 4000, and modded 5000 bith by detectronic Australia and the 5000 and 4500 got best depth and signal response on 1/2 oz and 3/4 oz nuggets at depth over the 6000, 7000 and modded 4000. I may get my 5000 modded, but am waiting to see how my buddy does with his modded 5000. I am certain my 5000 with 15" Evo, deep in front, Sharp timing deep audio, 12 gain 7 stabilizer is getting me 1.5 g nuggets deeper than my 6000 and the 7000. I hit a 1.58 gram nugget at 16" deep in a tight spot pounded with the 6000 and 7000. When I got the 5000 in there set how I mentioned above I got an unmistakable target signal where the other two were quite with no signal. I then put it in Sensitive extra, fine gold, general as well as tried all the other audio settings and I got no signals at all. I have it on video. And I have pulled two other nice nuggets out of the ground using my settings I mentioned above. I will probably never take it out of deep in front and deep audio. Sharp is the timing of choice that is getting me results. If the ground is shallow then I use Fine Gold but keep all other settings the same. It is getting me results. 

 

 

 

 

 

Fantastic Goldseeker!  I tried using Sharp many times in CA, but it just beeped on too many hot rocks and I spent more time digging those than gold.  How are you getting around the hot rocks or are you?

Brian.

[Drellim]

With all the timing options on the 5000 it is not easy to run there is a learning curve so to say and we try to find the best in our specific areas  I will back off on the shielding  I do know with the lithium battery and booster  it some how made it more stable and with the recovery  during those long days of nothing you know it is working and that keep your mindset in a better place  to win   If you have any doubts about your machine you need to back off  re group and practice more  till you get past that   I have a moded SD2200  so I know I am not missing any big gold deep   With the 5000 know I feel it will find the patches when they are there  The SD  still hits on the quartz gold with the 8 inch mono in my areas  so who is the best setup  looks like we will find out here pretty quick   Lots of golden info out there   Thanks again 

[Goldseeker5000]

Nevada Brian, I really don't have much problems with hot rocks. I will hit one once in awhile but I just flip it into enhance, ground balance and if it is gone or greatly reduced, then it is a hot rock. Sharp runs so very smooth. It is a breath of fresh air compared to the 6000.

[Goldseeker5000]

The 5000 is an easy detector to learn. In my opinion anyway. It can do a lot and has lots of combinations. Taking the time out in the field and playing with all settings and combinations is what will give a guy confidence in the 5000's potential. 

[Aureous]

On 11/5/2023 at 10:20 AM, oldcoinhunter said:

Aureous: How about pics on how you did yours.

I simply applied the copper tape (2x layers) to the inside of my 6000 control box cover (DD leather products). Ideally, it needs to be directly connected to the internal ground of the graphite paint shield inside the control box as well....but unless a ML tech does it for you, the warranty is voided. 😞 

[Aureous]

On 11/6/2023 at 5:14 AM, phrunt said:

one way I was able to try and see if it was working is putting it on my 5000, running both my 5000 and 4500 detectors at once in the same spot and doing some target tests, just putting the 4500 down leaving it running while using the 5000 on the targets, then swapping the shield over to the 4500, the one with the shield on always appeared to run the most stable

I did similar, my modded 4500 was easily more quiet with the shield attached. It was an easy conclusion for me. Didn't shut up the noise entirely, but the difference was obvious.