Starting to wonder about the GPX 5000

I snapped and its sitting in the bottom of macintryre river.

Byteman wrote:

Based on what I've seen in instructional videos and in the "Minelab Times" (not from personal experience) I think you should try the special timing "Sensitive Extra" and then flip the search mode switch to general instead of deep. In addition to this I would also consider getting a smaller coil. You probably already know this, but make sure that when you're using the special timings you move the soil timings switch on the front panel to the special position.

Byteman wrote:
The whole menu system and switches on the front are counter-intuitive, awkward and cumbersome. The fact that you need to physically switch the timings switch to special when you select a special timing in the menu is absolutely ludicrous. For the price these detectors command I really think they are an unpolished work in progress. The electronics are an archaic five-stage sample-and-hold based analogue detector cobbled to a microcontroller driven LCD display. I am at a complete and total loss as to why another company hasn't come forth and wiped minelab off the board with a reasonably priced machine that has equal or better performance. Perhaps it is because Minelab would tie up their competition in court with all their patents, or maybe they have got some kind of black-magic happening in their box which nobody else has figured out yet.

Wedge wrote:What would you suggest Byteman, an 8 position mechanical switch/dial for timing selection?

• I'd suggest first and foremost that the unit have a well performing and selectable "Autopilot" mode that constantly reads the conditions and adapts to give the best response possible without the user having to worry about anything rather than where he's swinging the coil. Of course a full manual mode will still be available to more advanced users and those that like to tweak. Engine management computers in cars have been doing this for 25 years, surely some level of automatic condition adaption is possible in a metal detector which only has to process a single input variable.

• Scrap the poorly designed user interface which is composed of two rotary encoders, a tiny LCD screen, and a bunch of ridiculous toggle switches which are difficult to access with a larger, higher resolution monochrome LCD touch screen.

• Harden the control box to withstand harsh environmental conditions. At present the control box has no seals or gaskets on the two plastic end plates, nor are the switches, plugs or encoders protected (or rated) to prevent the ingress of dust and water. They could also use something a lot more robust than the crappy, el-cheapo 5-pin microphone plugs that they insist on using

• Lighten and miniaturise the control box or make it wearable and also include an integral speaker. The current set up with a harness interconnected with curly cables to a bulky battery pack and headphones/speaker is asinine and more like something a military minesweeper would use in the second world war.

• Drop all the antiquated mumbo-jumbo terms like stabiliser, threshold, timings etc with something more meaningful and relevant. Many of these terms were coined in the early days when the first PI's were based on counters, dividers and timers made from TTL logic gates and is mainly relevant to the tinkerers at that time, and certainly not to a new user.

• Include a much more detailed instruction manual of how one might use the machine in the field. Ideally the manual would be complemented with a DVD set explicitly detailing the use of the product in the field.

Byteman wrote:

• I'd suggest first and foremost that the unit have a well performing and selectable "Autopilot" mode that constantly reads the conditions and adapts to give the best response possible without the user having to worry about anything rather than where he's swinging the coil. Of course a full manual mode will still be available to more advanced users and those that like to tweak. Engine management computers in cars have been doing this for 25 years, surely some level of automatic condition adaption is possible in a metal detector which only has to process a single input variable.

Byteman wrote:

• Scrap the poorly designed user interface which is composed of two rotary encoders, a tiny LCD screen, and a bunch of ridiculous toggle switches which are difficult to access with a larger, higher resolution monochrome LCD touch screen.

Byteman wrote:

• Harden the control box to withstand harsh environmental conditions. At present the control box has no seals or gaskets on the two plastic end plates, nor are the switches, plugs or encoders protected (or rated) to prevent the ingress of dust and water. They could also use something a lot more robust than the crappy, el-cheapo 5-pin microphone plugs that they insist on using

Byteman wrote:

• Drop all the antiquated mumbo-jumbo terms like stabiliser, threshold, timings etc with something more meaningful and relevant. Many of these terms were coined in the early days when the first PI's were based on counters, dividers and timers made from TTL logic gates and is mainly relevant to the tinkerers at that time, and certainly not to a new user.

Byteman wrote:

• Include a much more detailed instruction manual of how one might use the machine in the field. Ideally the manual would be complemented with a DVD set explicitly detailing the use of the product in the field.

Byteman wrote:
Of course I could go on and on, but I think the GPX5000 can be best summarised as a work-in-progress and unpolished as I stated earlier. I can state with a fair degree of certainty that they manufacture their machines for between $120.00 - $200.00 and this figure would include the coil, all accessories and packaging etcetera. They are making an incredibly large profit on their units yet the actual build quality is rather poor considering the outrageous price. I guess they just don't care as for now they don't seem to be threatened by any competition.