What is the best detector?

Are we comfortable with our current detector or should I upgrade? We have all said this and then when we upgrade does it produce any better results? Is the GPX4500 the best there is or should we be using the SD2100 which is acknowledged as one of the best detectors made. We get swayed by Minelab and others saying - get new technology, it must be better.
I had a GP3000 and now have a GPX4500. Am I getting better results - no. Do I have a better machine - yes. If I had a SD2100 and used it properly could I get better results. I knew one guy who was a professional prospector and he wouldn't part with his 2100 because of depth and he was using a 24 inch elliptical. So do we swayed by too much technology?
What do you reckon?
Jeff

The short answer is " Yes" half the time the average person moves to the next latest and greatest before they get to know the machine they have.
cj

Below are the models in sequential order of release (I think)!

SD2000 - world's first true "super detector" for deeper (than VLF capabilities) nugget sensing.
SD2100 - like the SD2200 but manual controls. D series later replaced by V2 series.
SD2200 - better results, deeper seeking with Auto control settings. D series later replaced by V2 series.
GP3000 - update & improvement on the SD2200
GP3500 - better handling of noisy soils and sensitivity to deeper targets
GPX-4000 - better handling with deeper seeking Mono coils - new modes and LCD display & Lithium-Ion battery.
GPX-4500 - better signal processing for quieter, deeper, more sensitive target seeking. Better designed vest harness & new Lithium-Ion battery now features built in booster for external speaker use. New SETA technology allows smoother new timings to be applied, resulting in more stabilization on harsh soils.

The depth on the GPX-4500 and the SD2200v2 are somewhat similar although I believe the GPX is much more sensitive to smaller gold than the SD. Hence, those using the SDs are going to ignore or miss a lot of the smaller gold and dig only larger targets... hence the misconception that the SD2200 is a better detector than the GPX-4500 for larger nuggets.

There's no argument that the GP-3500 is a much better detector than the SD2200v2. So with that reasoning, the GPX-4500 is clearly more capable at handling deeper seeking mono-coils than the GP-3500. It also handles ground mineralization far better. All will find Gold at depth but the most recent model has so much strength and capability over previous models that it can find gold in soil with deeper seeking coils that other previous models were unable to contemplate.

By that logic, the GPX-4500 is currently the best Professional Prospecting detector on the market.

The GP Extreme came in before the GP 3000 and was the first of the Dual Voltage machines (DVT) which is carried through to the present GPX series. The true advantage of the GPX range is the ability to work in extreme mineralisation with a Monoloop coil, if in the past your favorite haunts did not essentially require the use of a DD other than for the purpose of discrimination then the GP 3500 will provide similar outright performance but with less control. Part of the block with the new tech is in the not understanding what the new tech represents, those who grasp early its advantages will reap the rewards.

In America they love the GPX series because it gives operators the ability to use new functions of the GPX (namely the new Quiet Audio feature) to address interference along with variable Gain control, Motion etc. Here in OZ we have options as most of our gold bearing ground areas are well away from man made interference.

I truly believe the GPX series to the GP series represents what the SD2100 was to the SD2000, namely similar outright depth but better overall performance where the gold is easier to find thanks to better electronics. I think in an outright depth competition all the Minelab machines are pretty equal, but you put some heavy mineralisation into the mix especially when using a Monoloop coil (the deepest punching coil of the Minelab PI machines) and the game suddenly changes to a one horse race. Add to the mix that all the pre-loved features of the GP range are still present and accessible to a GPX owner and it soon becomes apparent that the GPX represents good value for money especially with the value of gold these days, my first Minelab PI cost me 9+ ounces of gold, today the latest offering only costs me approx 5 oz.

JP

The question is - what is the best detector, not the most sophisticated, or the most advanced

You know I was out detecting last week and the guy who got the most gold had an Extreme with a Goldstalker coil. The next was a lady who had a 3000 with an 8 inch mono. Then there was me with a 4500 and a 17inch elliptical Nugget Finder Mono. It is not to say I am not happy with changing up to a 4500 with all its variations and benefits but......... as long as my friends are finding gold with what they have, then obviously they have the best detectors for them and the conditions.

Before I start I go through the menu, I check all the readings and settings, making sure they are right. but they just check a few knobs and away they go. It makes me think of washing machines or microwaves and women. Give them something simple to operate and they are much happier, they dont need computer programs so help them wash clothes or cook food. Do we need so much sophistication?

What do you reckon?

G'day Jeffgold,
mate I have to agree with you re the increasingly complex detectors coming onto the market. There's little doubt that Minelab have cornered the market, at least in Oz, and overseas also to a large extent. But each new model seems to embody more technology and probably more complex handling problems. I believe the aim should be to dispense with the multiple 'bells and whistles' and make the operation simpler with each emerging model rather than more complex. As a member of a prospecting club it used to amaze me how groups of people new to the business of electronic prospecting would gather around 'an expert' who would explain the workings of his latest detector. Perhaps the following evening the same group would gather around the same 'expert' who would contradict the advice he'd given the previous evening. Admittedly the 'expert' would find gold each time we went out (some of the nuggets were amazingly shiny as though they'd been in his possession for some time) but what made this farce possible is undoubtedly the fact that detectors are becoming ever more difficult to operate. The catchphrase should be KISS - 'keep it simple, stupid'. Minelab, make your machines more user friendly. Wonder if I'm alone with this viewpoint? I probably am.

Forester

forester01 wrote: Minelab, make your machines more user friendly. Wonder if I'm alone with this viewpoint? I probably am.

Forester

Minelab's best selling treasure hunting machine seems to be the sovereign series, even though it's not their flagship. Why? Because they're simple to use.

Gday

I have used just about every model minelab on the market, with the exeption of the 4000, my last machine being a 3500, it was quite a leap from that to the 4500, but I can say this for sure, within ten minutes of turning it on I knew that I was using something really special.

At present I am hitting areas that I have worked over and over, and the very first lesson I got was the depth improvement on small pieces, not huge amounts of gold, but gold none the less, and gold that I and others had missed before.

It may be a learning curve and a bit daunting for some, but comparing this machine to previous models is a waste of time, quite simply it is a vast improvement and has re inspired me to work known areas all over again.

cheers

stayyerAU

Shinegold wrote:
Minelab's best selling treasure hunting machine seems to be the sovereign series, even though it's not their flagship. Why? Because they're simple to use.

Shinegold:
The guy who got me into Prospecting was Brian (now retired) from the Miner's Den store in NSW... he told me that whilst he owns a Sovereign himself... and it was always his favourite detector for a number of years including the year I was discussing it with him... he said that it had the longest learning curve of any detector he had ever used. He said it took him a YEAR to properly learn and understand but he sure loved it. Perhaps it took so long because he spent some of his time sluicing, but he was a very skilled Prospector who understood detectors quite well on a technical level and he impressed upon me how long it took him to learn to interpret the detector properly.

I believe he's updated recently to a GPX-4500 since retiring. /May have been a parting gift.

See pic below taken on his last day before Christmas...



Jefgold:
People who are intimately familiar with their detectors as well as newbies who have had one set up for them to use will often look pretty confident when they switch on and go. Apart from the forward end-cap dials and switches (usually these can be preset before leaving home), the only tweaking that tends to get done is for the specific soil people are detecting on. Those people you saw who pressed a few switches and began detecting immediately are probably quite seasoned.

I agree that to a new user, the GPX detectors look like a complex detector but they just require a setting up for the conditions they're to be used in. I was a little intimidated when I first used mine but after a couple of trips I found it a breeze. Most of the time I leave the settings the same unless I travel to a vastly new location and then change my coil. Otherwise I can just lay in in the car and wait to use it when I arrive at a spot that interests me. Anyone seen the Tesoro detectors with just one knob? - a discriminator plus the on-off swtich all on the one dial? Easy to use. Then you get the GPXs which have lots of settings, switches, dials, menus etc ... and they certainly confuse new users who don't know what to do. Even experienced detectorists used to the anaologue detectors of the past.

I ran the GP 3500 along side the GPX 4500 for a test last weekend on Private Property on the Goldfields (less junk) and the results were very nice for both detectors. But the 4500 clearly had an edge for smaller (0.30g subgram) bits of Gold which couldn't even be sensed with the 3500 as they lay on the surface. Aside from this, the 3500 was easier to set up and reached similar depths... so I can see why people like it. On most targets it responded much the same as the 4500. But with less options, dials and knobs, the 3500 would be the popular choice for many.

I think the GPX-4500 has the edge over other models for mainly two particular reasons: It can handle soils others previously couldn't (better Ground Balance) & it handles the Mono coils (which offer better depth) with more stability on harsh ground due in part to the new smooth timings. The ability to find smaller Gold means old ground can be very interesting all over again. You make me wish I was out there now, actually. Darn this 40+ degree heatwave!

Cheers,

Marco

[b]AGREE with all of the above (dont rock the boat},only complaint 3500,4000,4500, is the two piece shaft.have changed our 2x4000 units to three piece,they pack beter in our available space.
john jayvee.

All these glowing reports, how about EMI interference? my mates who have 4000/4500`s say some days they have to give it away at lunch time because of this problem, for six grand you think they should do better.
cj

CJ wrote:All these glowing reports, how about EMI interference? my mates who have 4000/4500`s say some days they have to give it away at lunch time because of this problem, for six grand you think they should do better.
cj

I mentioned this elsewhere but the EMF "problems" seem to relate also to the coil used. Large Mono coils put out such a powerful field that swinging too far to the left meant my coil was picking up the knife strapped to my left hip. The Double-D was not a problem, just the larger Mono Coils. Since I don't always wear the same knife nor do I keep in in the same place, the problem of interference had me baffled for some time. But it's a good example of how sensitive these detectors are. Same with other detectorists nearby... even when all are using the same, smaller 11" coil... the interference was impressive. Couldn't get within 50 to 100 feet of another person.

It's not that the detectors are a problem, it's that they are so sensitive and put out such a large bubble of interference that they require a big berth from one another. I suppose you could turn them down too but that's kind of pointless.
See video extract HERE on YouTube - the two detectors come near each other at about 2:55 into the video. Watch in Higher Quality by selecting the option during playback.

I just did an over-nighter at Eagle Beagle at Burrendong Dam.

In all I got 73 sinkers and .177 slugs from a slug gun. I was using a Whites MXT which I got (my first ever detector) so I could hunt for old coins and relics too. The area I searched appears to have been hammered by GPX machines before. Lots of dig holes around but I was still getting targets myself. (I've only ever seen GPX users there).

My advantage was the great target separation. Almost all my targets were next to iron targets or directly under surface pulltabs which were just left in place instead of picking them up and searching the spot again. My machine gave me two or three distinct signals. knowing there were multiple targets and at least one of them gave me an iron grunt. I put the machine into relic mode (instead of prospecting) and slowly turn up the discrimination until I could see what each target id was and decide wether to dig or not. Of course I was not getting the depth that a minelab would get but you've got to be in it to win it.

Having said that I got some lead in open area's as a single target proving to me that not everywhere has been searched.
No gold yet but I still had a lot of fun.

Dicko..

Since the Sd people have hit the ground again and again. I don't doubt that the early models were very good at what they were designed to do. Back in the eighties gold was a little easier to find and since then its hard to find a bit of ground that hasn't had a coil waved over it. I see things as this: Each new model gives a slightly different window into the ground. Combine this with new coils giving yet even more of a clearer window. This new technology gives us signals that may have been passed over in the past that didn't give any obvious response.
There will always be the target that no one has passed over, that any detector could find but in this hobby its getting increasingly harder to find gold. (As much as its like fishing, Nuggets don't breed). Any edge that we can get that might pick up a signal is worth considering.

My question for thought is: Would you rather get one deep one every 2 or more years at lets say 1 ounce with a few dozen little ones thrown in or pick up one or more little ones, nearly every trip that accumulates to 4 or 6 ounces over 2 years? This is by no means an accurate account of what you will find but as there is more little nuggets to be found by percentage, wouldn't it stand to reason that new technology, with its fine tuned abilities might pick up something that wasn't audible in the past?

Overall depth is dictated more by coil choice rather than minelab model. There can even be a difference between two of the same coils.
The machines ability to interpret the ground under the coil is where newer models are gaining technological advances and popularity.
However, I do have concerns that the 4500 has prospectors digging more deep holes than ever before, only to to discover its mineralized soil that has been detected.
The operators fatigue is probably the number one biggest reason for missing faint or hard to decifer signals. Digging unnecessary holes or targets is, in my mind, the reason that our human discriminator gets hazy and targets may get overlooked or simply not heard.
Brett.

Hi All
The truth is that its always the newest model.Each 18 months a new model comes on the market that is slightly better than the previous.Because of the myriad of gold sizes,depth,ground conditions and coils.Each machine seems to have a different "gold signature" be it timings or frequency of pulse rates (one for you Marco).Many of us are finding gold on old patches that our previous machine didnt recognise.Mono coils are becoming the order of the day and more gold is being found in hot ground.Also smaller gold is being found deeper.What would be nice thought would be "specs" when you spend $6000.00 on the next one it would be great to know what it has been specifically designed for as compared to the previous,Its likely stronger point relating to target size depth and ground condition.(JP is the only one I know of that has readly fowarded info on tracking speeds etc) New cars come with "specs".The next minelab machine I buy will come with "specs".

Cheers Dig

Dig, You have a very valid point. All new technology now days comes with specifics outlining a promise of capabilities.
6K is a lot to pay for hear say and speculation.
I hadn't thought about it this way until I read your post.
Brett.

Gday

In the past I have always been a couple of models behind in the minelabs, and it has not been because of the price of upgrading its simply because I get to the point where I have all the accessories that suit, and have tested most of the available coils and selected the ones that work best for me.

By that time I have become comfortable with the machine and familiar with its operation, so I become reluctant to change, what happens is that if you are primarily going to the same locations you slowly get less and less gold, and then you start to feel that upgrading to a newer model will be the way to go, to some degree this is right and I have been finding gold in areas that stopped producing and as I have so many areas that I have found gold in I can continue to go back to these over the next couple of seasons and still do ok.

I see comments on the depth of the holes that people are digging, and comments about digging ground noise, well one thing for sure is when I have used my 4500 I hardly get anything that is only ground noise, and dont get any hot rocks, anything that gives a signal has been either gold or rubbish, and the iffy signals have all been small nuggets down deep, thats good enough for me.

Anything that gives a signal needs to be dug up no matter what machine you are using, comments like that can only come from not using one of these machines for any length of time and not being familiar with it in the field, its hard to recommend specs to anyone on these machine, only general type settings, as things change from place to place, but as least with the 4500 if there are changes to be made then you at least have the options to make the changes and improve the way it operates.

cheers

stayyerAU

jayvee wrote:[b]AGREE with all of the above (dont rock the boat},only complaint 3500,4000,4500, is the two piece shaft.have changed our 2x4000 units to three piece,they pack beter in our available space.
john jayvee.

Hi Jayvee,
Would you mind telling me where you scored the 3 piece shaft?
I've had a scout around but not found anything other than the X-Terra ones, and don't know if they'e fit the GPX.

Cheers
Grey

Gday

I have seen the three piece shafts on the early green box sd2100s, and possibly the sd2000s had them as well, I recall that they were good for the ability to take them down for packing but they seemed to have a fair bit of movement in the joins, so that as you were swinging they tended to wobble about.

Also I think that they had O rings fitted as well, so maybe fitting new ones would reduce the movement, unless the shafts are worn too much.

cheers

stayyerAU

[b]hi all,i got the shafts from miners den vic,maybee they have all gone dont know.we bought 2 sets,and while i was in cleremont my mate bough 2.
no we dont have any trouble with the joints,yes but keep up the o rings.shure make a difference when packing,yes all the gp and sd 3 piece shafts will fit the 3500,4000,4500. john jayvee,in johs country.

I've always subscribed to the theory that the best detector is the one that wins you the most gold - for some it is the older models because it is all they have ever used, they have found a lot of gold with them, still do and see no reason to upgrade. In saying that, the best detector I have ever owned based on the amount of gold won is the Garrett A2B - back in the 'good old days' of the late 70's through to the late 80's in WA I detected more than 250 ounces with the old Groundhog. Could I do it today with the same detector? No way.

Nobody could deny that based on advanced technology, the best detector is without a doubt the flagship of the ML range - GPX4500. I don't use one myself because I am still happy with my current machine, the GP3500. It has won me a lot of gold over the past few years - nowhere near the amount I got with the Garrett or even a Goldseeker GT15000 that I purchased in early 1989 for the staggering sum of $650 brand new - I found well over 100 ounces with it.

I really do think that the best detector is the one that you can use with competence and the knowledge that if there is gold in the spot that you are detecting, you will find it with all other things taken into consideration - coil selection, weather conditions, your attitude and a dash of good luck.

caveman

Hi all,
I think the best detecter is one that can be set up to handle any ground condition
you come across and you can use any coil you wish to from a small dd to a large
mono.
only one detecter comes to mind gpx 4500
cheers fencejumper