The GPX 4000 performance question?

[Pilot Mark]

Hi all, Just want to say up front I have owned Minelab detectors the SD-2100, GP3000 and think they are wonderful gold finding machines. My first nuggets ever found was with the sd-2100.
The reason I'm posting this,is because I would like to know if anyone has concluded to any added performance with their GPX 4000 other than it being more smooth to certain situations. I feel definitely there are times when the wobbling and unstable conditions of my GP3000 make it difficult to here signals that need to be heard, but sometimes that sensitivity can be important if your looking forward to staying deep. Definitely by putting on the mono coil in high mineral conditions other than the DD coil helps reduce loss of net depth for the 4000. From what I'm hearing and reading it may be the gain and balance adjustment on the new 4000 that make me wonder by tuning out the interferences if I might be jeopardizing overall net depth and end up equal to my sd-2100. I prefer most of the time using a mono coil questionable to others in high mineralization if I can help it.I don't mind going slow and hearing the ground with some interferences, but I would not want to lose a lot of depth if I were to try eliminating the interferences for smoothness (ground or magnetic with this 4000).
I'm wondering if and how much has anyone noticed this trade off smoothness to depth performance compared with previous ML detectors? If there is any trade off at all to get it smooth?

 

[rexb]

Depends on who you ask but I guess time will tell, from what I can tell in the US it appears to be somewhat more popular and perform well while in Aussieland it appears in general they're a little more apt to unleash some skepticism and at times venom. There is a pretty good discussion between Doug and JP on the Prospecting OZ forum. JP jumps in on post no. 1899 (the seventh post down) The topic and replys are entitled, "GPX 4000 smooth mode".

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ProspectinginOz/message/1883
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ProspectinginOz/message/1884
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ProspectinginOz/message/1885
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ProspectinginOz/message/1887
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ProspectinginOz/message/1888
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ProspectinginOz/message/1889
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ProspectinginOz/message/1899
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ProspectinginOz/message/1900
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ProspectinginOz/message/1905
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ProspectinginOz/message/1907
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ProspectinginOz/message/1908
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ProspectinginOz/message/1912
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ProspectinginOz/message/1915
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ProspectinginOz/message/1929

Rex

 

[Pilot Mark]

Thanks Rex. I will probably end up buying it anyway. I was kind of wondering if that extra voltage might be there for added depth. I know that can be done as long as you shorten the voltage pulses to keep from wearing out the transistor already there, or modify a new transistor to handle the added voltage. That would be an expensive thing to do though, but that design is very possible according to a friend who has a masters in electrical engineering. I guess that is something I will never no for sure if that was a change or not. I do like the idea of running smoother than what I have been. I will wait a little longer for more feed back. By the way, I know JP. I can't get him to fly with me here in the U.S. I think he gets air sick easily.

P.S. Thanks for the web info.

Mark

 

[Pilot Mark]

Rex, I just read those posts you sent me. I'm out of town a lot so I guess I don't get plugged in this info. like everyone else does. Those posts were a very big help to what I was looking for. Thx a mill. I wasn't aware of that forum of info. at all.

Mark

 

[Jonathan Porter]

Hello Mark, I don't fly with you because I listened in on your conversation with another pilot at Stanton earlier this year and will probably never want to fly again!!!

Bob Montana has been having some good success with the GPX4000 and has come up with some interesting settings to suit his style of detecting, Chris Gholson has also made some revelations about interference which is of huge interest to all American electronic prospectors. Essentially the GPX is a GP3500 with a digital front end, so from that stand point should have similar performance levels, however the ability to adjust gain along with a number of other options (such as the new SMOOTH mode)should see the GPX4000 outperforming its predecessor's.

Jonathan Porter

 

[bris dave]

That is your assessment?
Why then would anyone wish to "upgrade" to a machine which has "similar performance levels"?

This is my gripe with Minelab and their new models. There has been very little real improvement since the SD2200d yet they keep bringing out new models.

I rather fancy there is no real improvement possible with the technology we are using and nothing "revolutionary" such as the release of the SD2000 is likely in the foreseeable future.

 

[Jonathan Porter]

Dave, in the right hands the GPX is going to produce gold where the others have missed, but by the look of things it will not be your hands or for that matter will ever any of the other previous Minelab machines since the SD2000, so I suppose the question should be; why do you bother?

For years now you have been barking up Minelab's tree like some sort of rabid "industry standards" watch dog when all around you hundreds upon hundreds of ounces have been extracted with those self same machines you describe as having "no real improvement in performance".

I have plenty to say about the GPX4000 but like my grandmother once said, "don't cast your pearls before swine" or was it? "you can't make a silk purse out of a sows ear", either way I am not going to waste valuable time trying to direct you towards the light!

Regards

JP

 

[steve herschbach]

Hi Dave,

Why indeed. I've been detecting for 35 years, and real breakthroughs only occur about every ten years on average from what I've seen. There was BFO. Then TR machines replaced BFO. Then VLF replaced TR. Simultaneous to this has been PI development, with ground balancing PI units improving on non-ground balancing units in much the same way as ground balancing VLF improved on non-ground balancing TR.

ALL detector manufacturers tweak and tune and release new units on about a two year cycle. Minelab is only doing what everyone else does, so why are you surprised? I'm not. Oh yes, let's not forget cars, golf clubs, fishing poles and almost every other item sold in the world. True advances are rare, with the balance made up by incremental improvements. Which are improvements none the less.

My answer as a Minelab dealer to any who ask is "if you are happy with your current Minelab, great". I'm happy for you.

But what about the new buyer? Would you deny them a chance at incremental improvements? As a person considering my first new Minelab (not used) I have a number of new units to choose from. Minelab still builds earlier models because they do work, and they do offer value for the dollar.

But the GPX-4000 offers features some might find valuable. I believe this machine will excel in the United States. As an Alaskan dealer familiar with our mineralization and most common gold types, I can honestly say the GPX-4000 looks to be the best Minelab ever produced for Alaskan conditions. So if a new buyer asks me which Minelab is best for Alaska, I'm going to tell him GPX-4000. We are froze up tight here with below zero temps, but my GP 3500 is sold, and I can't wait to hit the ground with a GPX-4000 next summer. I'll pay for it in less than a weeks worth of hunting, so what's a few bucks for an upgrade?

But if a person who has a Minelab already asks, I'll be the first to point out it is another incremental improvement on existing technology. Just like 99% of the metal detectors I've personally purchased in the last 35 years.

I've not seen the Minelab ad that says your unit is obsolete and that you must ditch it ASAP to get a GPX-4000? In lieu of such an ad, why the big issue with Minelab?

Steve Herschbach

 

[bris dave]

I can see your point about the release of new models every 2 years or so and take your point.
However, I guess Minelab have lost the trust of some people.
You of course recall their promise to let the owners of the SD2200d upgrade their box on the relaese of the new models. They lied.
To upgrade costs an outlay of around AUD$6,000 for the new model and one can expect to get around $4000 for the old machine.