Does the 5000 really have improved enhanced mode over the 4500?

I've been looking and researching the differences between the two machines, one (assumed) important difference caught my attention. I would like others' expertise on this one, your experiences in enhance mode between the two machines.

not a lot for me maybe a slightly better response to targets but not much in it really.
the easier/better ground balancing that the 5000 is supposed to have is no different to the 4500 in my opinion.

G'day Shinegold,

The main difference I found with the 5000 was it ran a little quieter and as hoolahooper said the response on targets was a litter better. Also the fine Gold timing makes the 5000 a bit better on the smaller nuggets IMHO.

Cheers.

Mike.   

I remember the 4500 being jittery over the 4000, maybe the 5000 has gone back to being as smooth as the 4000?

shinegold,

the 5000 is just as jittery if not more so.

this is just my opinion but if i had my time again i would not have rushed out and upgraded from the 4500, everything i have found with the 5000 i would have found with the 4500.

Very interesting... If feel that it's the internal boost in the stock battery that is causing some of the jitters. Maybe I should start another thread.

I've always found the Enhance on the 4500 to be better than the new "improved" Enhance on the 5K.

The first thing I noticed with the 5000 was how quiet it ran in comparison to my 4500.
The second thing was how quick the ground balance was.
And the third thing was how nuggets seemed to just "be there" on a spot I have detected thoroughly with all sized coils at least 100 times from all directions using mainly "enhance, but sometimes normal. Every time we go to that spot that particular piece of ground gets my full attention as I have pulled over 200 nuggets from a smallish area. It was about 10 bits, all close to a gram on the first day, and then RD got a signal in the following weeks on a spot we have detected thoroughly with coils from the 20" down to the 14" x 9" (all monos). His 14" mono had a very obvious low/high and I got the same result. We would have to be deaf to miss that one which ended up 3 ounces from 17" deep, but the 4500's missed it many times over.

AND then we discovered the "Fine Gold" timing. The 5000's opened that spot up again, and now it is becoming increasingly harder to get a nugget from the whole area with the 5000.   

The 5000 will only be as jittery as you make it with your settings and choices, as will the previous detectors.  There are ways to "fix" that as I have mentioned many times previously. I could never run the 20" mono with a stabiliser setting of 20 and a gain of 16 (or equivalent 12 on the 4500) even on the quietest of days in winter, let alone in summer without losing part of my mind.   
Cheers.

.....We would have to be deaf to miss that one which ended up 3 ounces from 17" deep, but the 4500's missed it many times over.

Must have been crook 4500s.....for it to be deafening on the 5k.??

You didn't sell those 4500s to anyone did you.? :lol:

Here's two vids of the 4500 in enhance timing, pulling two nuggets from over the 17" mark....they both weighed less than 10 grams each.?? Same ground only meters apart....but separated by about 12 months per find.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HNCD-8ADusc&list=UUVHa9EOYBBHn-sycyujWSaw&feature=c4-overview

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uJAn6nSZ51E&list=UUVHa9EOYBBHn-sycyujWSaw&feature=c4-overview

Narrawa wrote:

.....We would have to be deaf to miss that one which ended up 3 ounces from 17" deep, but the 4500's missed it many times over.

Must have been crook 4500s.....for it to be deafening on the 5k.??

deaf
ADJECTIVE
lacking the power of hearing or having impaired hearing:
I’m a bit deaf so you’ll have to speak up

deafening
ADJECTIVE
(of a noise) so loud as to make it impossible to hear anything else:

Just for you Narra     http://www.talkenglish.com/

 

..We would have to be deaf to miss that one which ended up 3 ounces from 17" deep, but the 4500's missed it many times over. When the 5k found it, the noise was so loud as to make it impossible to hear anything else.

Thats the way i interpreted it. 

My apologies if read incorrectly.  

Apology accepted.   

I believe I said it was obvious, and we'd have to be deaf to miss it.
You would be aware of an obvious target as you would had had many of them. That's the key with the later GPX's. Some of the signals are obvious. They don't have to be loud, and often are not, but they are repeatable.
And if I was deaf I'd miss them.  

I believe I said it was obvious, and we'd have to be deaf to miss it.

You did miss it with the 4500s...many times over.?? Is how i read it.  
Conclusion, selectable hearing....best get that seen too.    Sorry, i have no link like the one you gave me...this is something you'll need to take care of in person.  
Thx for your link tho...im on it.  

I believe I said it was obvious, and we'd have to be deaf to miss it.
You would be aware of an obvious target as you would had had many of them. That's the key with the later GPX's. Some of the signals are obvious. They don't have to be loud, and often are not, but they are repeatable. 

In red...Disagree, and here's why. Some targets are on the brink of detection depth, and only heard every second or so sweep of the coil. A new GB and a different angle of the dangle may improve the signal, it may collapse it all together. So as you do, you repeat the process looking for the obviouse sign to dig. This may not happen, yet something tells you to knock a tad off the top anyway. That tad may turn into a few more inches due to deja vu. A repeatable signal on a GPX its not challenging, because its obvious. Obvious signals can be had by FP settings in most cases.   

Underlined....Iv dug many a signal from depth that had me contemplating a new truck or van, only to be disappointment like in those two video's.  
The GPXs certainly do make a small target come alive from depth, and thats  what i could not understand in your post regarding the 4500s that missed it many times over.?

It makes no sense that a timing designed for less mineralization, was able to see a nugget that the timing better designed for it could not.?? Unless human error had a part in it, which we all possess.?
Id have pulled you up if you said the same thing about the Enhance timing on the 5k.
The chart below says the same thing.

http://www.detectorprospector.com/gold-prospecting-equipment/images/minelab-gpx-choosing-correct-timing-large.jpg

Like iv told another well know and well respected gent, i may not always agree with what you say, but that doesn't mean i dont have respect, and i believe you know this. 

Regardless of the word and meanings, the point is that we have detected that spot many, many times starting with the GPX4000 using any array of coils from the 14x9 up to the 20 round. The GPX4000, missed it and many others, the GPX4500 got some of the the ones left and the GPX5000 got some more. We both have detected that spot on lots of occasions with the 4500's but the 5000 got the signal and the nugget. So the answer to the OP's question is "In my mind the 5000 definitely has a better Enhance timing" and from my experiences with it from day one, no-one will convince me otherwise. Actually it has several other features that are better as well. If I believed the 4500 was better then I'd be using one, and I'm not. Cheers.

I'm with Qld Sandy on what he has said... i have seen the difference between the 4500 and the 5000... this difference was huge and missed gold.. the 4500 went over the noisy area with nothing to show... it was done properly, i went around the exact same spot with the 5000 and found a 4.5g, this ended up been an 18g patch... why we both ran enhance, same coils, same settings... the ground balance was the main key between them, the enhance ran better, the detector ran quieter... i wish i had it on video... the 5000 handled the noisy ground better than the 4500 did because of this... i'll say what QLD sandy said, if the 4500 was better than the 5000 i would be using one but I'm not...
cheers
stoppsy

I've found that the 5000 is a fair bit better, and I would never go back to a 4500.
Because the detector is a lot more refined and quieter I have been able to run the full timings in a lot more places, thus gaining depth on deep targets.
And the addition of 'fine gold' timing has found me heaps in areas that I had already flogged, not always just the small stuff but it also allows you to gain depth/sensitivity in soils with a long time constant response if you understand how the timings work and which one to run to maximize your depth in different ground types.
The 5000 is so quiet I can run my settings near max most of the time.

If you ask me it is a very close call. I would think that the best detector would be the one the person feels most comfortable with. I have used both for many years on a full-time basis and would feel comfortable using either. In my opinion if someone is missing 3oz nuggets at 17" or even 4.5g nuggets at whatetever depth the 5000 was finding them then you might want to consider that it was not the detector that missed them but the person. I often find gold after my wife has cleaned out a patch and vice versa, so you can never be absolutely sure an area is truly cleaned up. Just approaching from another angle is sometimes enough to find a whole new run of nuggets.

I do use a 5000 and so does my wife, mainly because of the Fine Gold timing, which does have a small edge when most needed. Having said that, the very deepest nuggets I have ever pulled was with a 4500 and that depth was so spectacular that I risk being called a liar should I ever repeat it on this forum.

For casual operators though, the difference is neglegable since most will never develp the high-end skills needed to squeeze all thats possible from a Minelab detector, let alone a 5000.

the 4500 lovers are probably right. I just want to follow them around with a 5000.  

Nebuchadnezzar wrote:In my opinion if someone is missing 3oz nuggets at 17" or even 4.5g nuggets at whatetever depth the 5000 was finding them then you might want to consider that it was not the detector that missed them but the person.

Have you considered that there have been , over the years, quite large nuggets found at exceptionally shallow depths and you see them being reported from time to time? I know I have read about several on the forums. Now I wonder why they were still there?

Perhaps it has to do with the way the nugget responds to the detector and the eddy currents generated in it by the magnetic field from detector's coil. You might want to consider that if we have one larger bit that doesn't respond well, then it is easily feasible that it could be not seen by a particular detector, yet seen by another.

Perhaps that would explain why the 4500 missed it and the 5000 got it, and may also show there is an advantage with the 5000 enhance timings as it was reported to be one of the benefits when they were first released. Just thinking out aloud.   

Very interesting , I've been looking and researching the differences between the two machines,  I would like others' expertise on this one, your experiences in enhance mode between the two machines . cheers