Wm 09 Wireless Audio Module For Manticore

[abenson]

Just saw this.

https://www.minelab.com/accessories/wm-09-wireless-audio-module

If it was posted in the past, sorry for the double post.

Looks like it works with the Equinox 700/900 and Xterra Pro

[Chase Goldman]

Yep.  We've just been waiting for them to release the inevitable ridiculous price point. 

Thanks for reminding me about it, Andrew.  Doing some web diving I found this:

From this website it looks like $229US MAP. Ugh. I've also seen $249AUS.  

Won't know for sure until more dealers start to advertise for pre-orders and no release date so far.

If that's a real MAP, not surprised based off the WM08 price, but it's $200 more than it should be.  At that price, if I needed an alternative to the ML proprietary phones, I'd just convert the ear cup on the Minelab wireless phones that contains the wireless receiver electronics and headphone jack into a WM09 home brew hack.  You can even buy a second pair of ML wireless phones to hack for less than the WM09. (I've seen the ML85's advertised for as low as $114).

Or go with the APTX-LL transmitter plugged into the M-core headphone port as many have done and APTX-LL phones or an APTX-LL receiver that can accept wired phones.  These transmitter/receivers run about $30 each.  Or you can go with Quest or Garrett wireless systems.

Bottom line there may be a lot of less expensive options than thw WM09 to untether while using 3rd party phones.

We'll see where ML ends up on the price point.

[Zaj56]

24 minutes ago, Chase Goldman said:

Yep.  We've just been waiting for them to release the inevitable ridiculous price point. 

From this website it looks like $229US MAP. Ugh. I've also seen $249AUS.  

Won't know for sure until more dealers start to advertise for pre-orders and no release date so far.

If that's a real MAP, not surprised based off the WM08 price, but it's $200 more than it should be.  At that price, I'd just buy one of the proprietary headphones and convert the ear cup with the receiver electronics and headphone jack into a WM09 home brew hack.

Or go with the APTX-LL transmitter plugged into the M-core headphone port as many have done and APTX-LL phones or an APTX-LL receiver that can accept wired phones.

Bottom line there are a lot of less expensive options to untether while using 3rd party phones.

Wouldn't it just be a better option to use  the BT  transmitter plugged into the detector and use wireless stuff? Using wired stuff  plugged into a WM-09 isn't wireless imo. Or is there latency issues with the transmitters?

[GB_Amateur]

3 hours ago, Chase Goldman said:

At that price, if I needed an alternative to the ML proprietary phones, I'd just convert the ear cup on the Minelab wireless phones that contains the wireless receiver electronics and headphone jack into a WM09 home brew hack.  You can even buy a second pair of ML wireless phones to hack for less than the WM09. (I've seen the ML85's advertised for as low as $114).

Or go with the APTX-LL transmitter plugged into the M-core headphone port as many have done and APTX-LL phones or an APTX-LL receiver that can accept wired phones.  These transmitter/receivers run about $30 each.  Or you can go with Quest or Garrett wireless systems.

I've been wondering about this device lately so thanks for the links, Andrew and Chase.

As I see it, the advantage of the WM09 (and the roll-your-own option) is fewer items and thus connections that can get flaky.  But, yes, $60 vs. $114 vs. >$200 is worth considering, also, for many of us.

Unlike the ML80's that came with the Equinox 800, I find the sound on the ML105's provided with the Manticore to be quite decent.  But they don't block out the background noise worth a lick.  I guess I should clarify this last point.  If you want to hear everything around you (like people/animals approaching) then that's a different requirement than I have.  I often detect near traffic and that can be extremely tiring/distracting.  There are headphones (like the SunRay Pro Golds) that are much better at blocking out that kind of noise.

[Chase Goldman]

On 1/5/2024 at 11:48 AM, Zaj56 said:

Wouldn't it just be a better option to use  the BT  transmitter plugged into the detector and use wireless stuff? Using wired stuff  plugged into a WM-09 isn't wireless imo. Or is there latency issues with the transmitters?

Well, I did mention that as an option in what you quoted but "better" than what option and in what respect: price, performance?  They're certainly the least expensive option.  And while latency is not the issue, plug-in transmitters have some minor drawbacks I discuss further below.   The options above aren't listed in order of any preference, btw, because it's really something everyone has to figure out for themselves. 

Ideally, it would be nice not to have to add additional wireless transmitter claptrap to a detector that already has a low latency wireless transmitter installed that has less latency than BT APTX-LL by spec.  But ML locked it down to only be compatible with their overpriced accessories and while the supplied headphones work fine for the most part, some have complained about their audio frequency response and wind noise, while others complain about lack of situational awareness while wearing them.  They are also NOT waterproof or even weatherproof.  So here we are.  ML offers up the expensive WM09. 

BTW I personally have no issues with using either self-contained wireless phones or plugging into a wireless receiver that I can simply tuck away.  As long as I'm untethered from the detector, I'm happy.  One benefit with the tuck away receiver is that you can conceal it from the elements and protect it from weather.  If your wireless phones are not weatherproof (most aren't) you may be out of luck unless you are wearing a rain hood.

Regarding APTX-LL transmitters plugged into the headphone jack on the detector, as I said, latency is not the issue but there are minor drawbacks.   

Unless you have small, rigid transmitter with an integrated plug, you have to figure out how mount it without having it flop around, it's another thing you have to charge, and, finally, I have not seen any weatherproof transmitters so if you get caught in the rain you may be out of luck or have to improvise a way to keep it from getting wet.  Like I said, these are all minor things but wort mentioning when considering different wireless options.

[GB_Amateur]

11 minutes ago, Chase Goldman said:

a detector that already has a low latency wireless transmitter installed that has less latency than BT APTX-LL by spec.

Did ML publish a latency spec for their proprietary Bluetooth wireless on the Manticore?  If so, do you mind posting it here or tell me where I can find it?  I looked for it early on (a year ago) but couldn't find it then, and haven't been paying much attention since I got the Manticore+ML105s (which seem quite fast).

[Chase Goldman]

1 hour ago, GB_Amateur said:

Did ML publish a latency spec for their proprietary Bluetooth wireless on the Manticore?  If so, do you mind posting it here or tell me where I can find it?  I looked for it early on (a year ago) but couldn't find it then, and haven't been paying much attention since I got the Manticore+ML105s (which seem quite fast).

It's an assumption, Chuck, but is based on the verified fact that ML is using the Nordic Bluetooth LE chipset and BT 5.2 compatible radios in their FCC filings and the headphone user manuals.  We know they aren't using any flavor of APTX, because if they were, licensing would require them to reveal the APTX trademark. It could be FastStream which has similar latency to APTX-LL but with lower audio fidelity. The LC3 codec is the only BT codec that has superior low latency 20-30ms) to APTX-LL (30-40ms) or FastStream.   Unlikely they are proprietary codec/platform such as that used in Minelab's separate low latency Wi-Stream radios as only the BT LE radio transmitter is mentioned in Manticore, Nox 700/900, and Xterra Pro specs and FCC filings and a separate Wi-Stream transmitter was used on tge Nox 600/800.  I don't have an actual latency number but based on the above, it's at least as good as or likely better than APTX-LL (i.e., LC3).  That's the basis for my statement in the previous post (p.s., I hedged and modified my previous post to add the word "likely" since we have no published latency spec numbers on the latest ML detector wireless audio, thanks for keeping me honest, Chuck).

[Zaj56]

1 hour ago, Chase Goldman said:

Well, I did mention that as an option in what you quoted but "better" than what option and in what respect: price, performance?  They're certainly the least expensive option.  And while latency is not the issue, plug-in transmitters have some minor drawbacks I discuss further below.   The options above aren't listed in order of any preference, btw, because it's really something everyone has to figure out for themselves. 

Ideally, it would be nice not to have to add additional wireless transmitter claptrap to a detector that already has a low latency wireless transmitter installed that has less latency than BT APTX-LL by spec.  But ML locked it down to only be compatible with their overpriced accessories and while the supplied headphones work fine for the most part, some have complained about their audio frequency response and wind noise, while others complain about lack of situational awareness while wearing them.  They are also NOT waterproof or even weatherproof.  So here we are.  ML offers up the expensive WM09. 

BTW I personally have no issues with using either self-contained wireless phones or plugging into a wireless receiver that I can simply tuck away.  As long as I'm untethered from the detector, I'm happy.  One benefit with the tuck away receiver is that you can conceal it from the elements and protect it from weather.  If your wireless phones are not weatherproof (most aren't) you may be out of luck unless you are wearing a rain hood.

Regarding APTX-LL transmitters plugged into the headphone jack on the detector, as I said, latency is not the issue but there are minor drawbacks.   

Unless you have small, rigid transmitter with an integrated plug, you have to figure out how mount it without having it flop around, it's another thing you have to charge, and, finally, I have not seen any weatherproof transmitters so if you get caught in the rain you may be out of luck or have to improvise a way to keep it from getting wet.

 

A weather proof transmitter would be a great option as the WM-09 will be useless to us hearing aid users who just want to hear everything through the  hearing aids. I do like the idea of the wireless neck band  though but again the transmitter will be needed for the Manticore, 900/700 or X-Terra pro. I am losing my fondness for  Minelab...lol

[abenson]

So looks like Fort Bedford Metal Detectors has them in stock for $139

[Chase Goldman]

53 minutes ago, abenson said:

So looks like Fort Bedford Metal Detectors has them in stock for $139

Thanks, Andrew.  I could not find it on their site until I changed WM09 to WM 09. They are still in stock.