Yep!.....I have given other brand detectors plenty of chances over my 20 years experience on the locations I’ve hunted and my E-trac was a night & day experience. I know for a fact that the other previous machines wouldn’t have ...and didn’t find the deep silver I found in the same locations I’ve hunted. All the Minelab machines I now own have been nothing but proven performers for me.As of now they have my business!
Find's Treasure Forums
Welcome to Find's Treasure Forums, Guests!
You are viewing this forums as a guest which limits you to read only status.
Only registered members may post stories, questions, classifieds, reply to other posts, contact other members using built in messaging and use many other features found on these forums.
Why not register and join us today? It's free! (We don't share your email addresses with anyone.) We keep email addresses of our users to protect them and others from bad people posting things they shouldn't.
Click here to register!
Need Support Help?
Cannot log in?, click here to have new password emailed to you
Changed email? Forgot to update your account with new email address? Need assistance with something else?, click here to go to Find's Support Form and fill out the form.
What has happened to minelab
- Thread starter 7centsworth
- Start date
Well, I have a Minelab Vanquish 540 Pro Pack, currently in their service department, but I also have another 540 Pro Pack on the way to me tomorrow. So I'll have two Minelab models, and I don't hesitate to discuss an quirk or oversight, It's just the way it is. 55 years of Detecting and not a manufacturer has come my way without some sort of issues from time to time. That's just how it is. I don't think a detector maker ought to frown too much on consumer's comments ... just 'fix-the-Glitch' and carry on.
There's not only one place to discuss a favorite model or brand, either. Matter-of-fact, I think I'll go discuss the Vanquish.
Monte
There's not only one place to discuss a favorite model or brand, either. Matter-of-fact, I think I'll go discuss the Vanquish.
Monte
The Vanquish 540 is actually not a bad little machine...It’s a Equinox jr. It works & sounds similar, just less on iron bias accuracy........Yes, all brands will go through problems especially dealing with electronics!
Joe Black:
The Vanquish 540 is actually not a bad little machine...It’s a Equinox jr. It works & sounds similar, just less on iron bias accuracy........Yes, all brands will go through problems especially dealing with electronics!
Yes, all new detectors can have a problem with their electronic circuitry, they search coils design, or with their physical packaging. ..... HOWEVER ....
ALL detectors who have prototype samples sent out to a reasonable number of savvy, experiences field testers to get an honest, in-the-field evaluation to located and isolate problems, both electronic design and physical packaging, and then address those things PRIOR to making a new-detector introduction and release. Not all manufacturers do that. I've been handling prototypes detectors, from several manufacturers, since 1974. I've also bought a new detector for my own outfit, only to find a design glitch that even the manufacturer didn't know about. I had two Fisher F44's with the same glitch in circuitry design and called the factory repair tech ... they didn't know about it and it took three of them to check out my info and get back to me. It isn't 'fixable' and most people won't notice it. The device works fine for what it is so I kept mine on-hand for simple Coin Hunting as a loaner unit.
In this case, it was a design oversight and I hope it can be corrected. If not, I'll live with it and just not use the All Metal Accept Discrimination. The Vanquish 540 Pro performs well in many applications, and as I mentioned, I even ordered a 2nd new 540 Pro that will be mailed off to me today. One glitch, but it doesn't effect all of the detector's performance. I just hope they learn from this, and the release of the Equinox with the few issues it has, that future new products should get more prototype evaluation and then correct any issues prior to production.
Monte
The Vanquish 540 is actually not a bad little machine...It’s a Equinox jr. It works & sounds similar, just less on iron bias accuracy........Yes, all brands will go through problems especially dealing with electronics!
Yes, all new detectors can have a problem with their electronic circuitry, they search coils design, or with their physical packaging. ..... HOWEVER ....
ALL detectors who have prototype samples sent out to a reasonable number of savvy, experiences field testers to get an honest, in-the-field evaluation to located and isolate problems, both electronic design and physical packaging, and then address those things PRIOR to making a new-detector introduction and release. Not all manufacturers do that. I've been handling prototypes detectors, from several manufacturers, since 1974. I've also bought a new detector for my own outfit, only to find a design glitch that even the manufacturer didn't know about. I had two Fisher F44's with the same glitch in circuitry design and called the factory repair tech ... they didn't know about it and it took three of them to check out my info and get back to me. It isn't 'fixable' and most people won't notice it. The device works fine for what it is so I kept mine on-hand for simple Coin Hunting as a loaner unit.
In this case, it was a design oversight and I hope it can be corrected. If not, I'll live with it and just not use the All Metal Accept Discrimination. The Vanquish 540 Pro performs well in many applications, and as I mentioned, I even ordered a 2nd new 540 Pro that will be mailed off to me today. One glitch, but it doesn't effect all of the detector's performance. I just hope they learn from this, and the release of the Equinox with the few issues it has, that future new products should get more prototype evaluation and then correct any issues prior to production.
Monte
...Agreed!looknforgold
Member
People can say what they want, but Minelab is king of the Detecting World. They should sponsor this site. It's embarrassing, for them IMO not too.
Dancer
Well-known member
I never owned a Minelab. But my unscientific guess is the Minelab forums have the most chatter on Findmall. They definitely got a bang for their buck. Also I'd say their Nox products are doing quite well. So it's unfair to put Findmall in this position. They know their popular, so they want a free ride. Maybe , this problem needs to go higher up in Minelabs management. Or maybe that's where it started.
Desi Dunne
Member
Correct!
It should have had its fair share of professional knowledgeable assessment in the fields and beaches before release!
God knows they had enough time having 'show-released it in 2019!'
Cutbacks in marketing budgets cut out giving 'free machines' to many (some who might have previously tested the Eqx?)
But 'some test units' were given to amateur 'tester's' and possibly a few 'professional tester's', and the bulk of the development time fell to staff who 'may not be experienced detector users?' They are highly qualified in other areas, software development, Customer Service reps for example but are not "hardened users", and therefore wouldn't "pick up" on idiosyncrasies. And 'the devil is in the detail!'
Are these 'inexperienced tester's' just so 'excited' to have [ been chosen ] and got ' a free machine' to use and to show off and make 'poor video clips', are they just in it for "What'll it find me?" and not at all interested in the 'detail's' of a proper testing sequence!
Can they in fact "even assess" a prototype detector and possess the wherewithal to report back on the topic?
It shouldn't fall on 'new buyer owners' to 'troubleshoot their purchases! Case in point, "Equinox" had its share of issues, inaccurate ferrous rejection, completely inaccurate beer bottle crown cap recognition, for example. Those and other 'flaws' were eventually addressed in Software Upgrades but...why were they necessary in the first instance?
Another point to consider is, if a tester finds a flaw will they be believed?
During my 14yrs with a detector designer/maker, I came across this on a number of occasions. "Shock and Horror" from the software design guys!!!
Fortunately for us all (including new buyers) such claims were investigated and we got 'better products' as a Result.
DD
It should have had its fair share of professional knowledgeable assessment in the fields and beaches before release!
God knows they had enough time having 'show-released it in 2019!'
Cutbacks in marketing budgets cut out giving 'free machines' to many (some who might have previously tested the Eqx?)
But 'some test units' were given to amateur 'tester's' and possibly a few 'professional tester's', and the bulk of the development time fell to staff who 'may not be experienced detector users?' They are highly qualified in other areas, software development, Customer Service reps for example but are not "hardened users", and therefore wouldn't "pick up" on idiosyncrasies. And 'the devil is in the detail!'
Are these 'inexperienced tester's' just so 'excited' to have [ been chosen ] and got ' a free machine' to use and to show off and make 'poor video clips', are they just in it for "What'll it find me?" and not at all interested in the 'detail's' of a proper testing sequence!
Can they in fact "even assess" a prototype detector and possess the wherewithal to report back on the topic?
It shouldn't fall on 'new buyer owners' to 'troubleshoot their purchases! Case in point, "Equinox" had its share of issues, inaccurate ferrous rejection, completely inaccurate beer bottle crown cap recognition, for example. Those and other 'flaws' were eventually addressed in Software Upgrades but...why were they necessary in the first instance?
Another point to consider is, if a tester finds a flaw will they be believed?
During my 14yrs with a detector designer/maker, I came across this on a number of occasions. "Shock and Horror" from the software design guys!!!
Fortunately for us all (including new buyers) such claims were investigated and we got 'better products' as a Result.
DD
Desi Dunne:
Correct!
It should have had its fair share of professional knowledgeable assessment in the fields and beaches before release! ....
It shouldn't fall on 'new buyer owners' to 'troubleshoot their purchases! Case in point, "Equinox" had its share of issues, inaccurate ferrous rejection, completely inaccurate beer bottle crown cap recognition, for example. Those and other 'flaws' were eventually addressed in Software Upgrades but...why were they necessary in the first instance?
Another point to consider is, if a tester finds a flaw will they be believed?
During my 14yrs with a detector designer/maker, I came across this on a number of occasions. "Shock and Horror" from the software design guys!!!
Fortunately for us all (including new buyers) such claims were investigated and we got 'better products' as a Result.
It has ben interesting through the years to see how many companies do a "rush-to-market" with a new model before it is truly evaluated afield by knowledgeable people to note quirks to be addressed. it sure doesn't present a very good image of a company when they do that, and it's kind of sad when overall t new device works pretty well, except for one or two things. Sadly, many consumers and people doing their You Tube videos aren't aware of it as I listen to a lot of noise not caused by ferrous trash, but by an errant design glitch. You are correct when you said "if a tester finds a flaw with the be believed." Often a manufacturer just fluffs it off and leave consumers to figure it out.
Minelab has the glitch with the Equinox but it's 'fixable' with a Ground balance, but I have to live with it with my vanquish 540's ... unless they come up with a software remedy to have them updated/fixed. Minelab certainly is not the 'king of the detecting world" as ''ookingforgold' imagines, but they can produce some worthwhile products, most of the time. I just wish ALL manufacturers would circulate some prototypes to savvy users and then listen to their reports and, if necessary, make some pre-production corrections.
Monte
Correct!
It should have had its fair share of professional knowledgeable assessment in the fields and beaches before release! ....
It shouldn't fall on 'new buyer owners' to 'troubleshoot their purchases! Case in point, "Equinox" had its share of issues, inaccurate ferrous rejection, completely inaccurate beer bottle crown cap recognition, for example. Those and other 'flaws' were eventually addressed in Software Upgrades but...why were they necessary in the first instance?
Another point to consider is, if a tester finds a flaw will they be believed?
During my 14yrs with a detector designer/maker, I came across this on a number of occasions. "Shock and Horror" from the software design guys!!!
Fortunately for us all (including new buyers) such claims were investigated and we got 'better products' as a Result.
It has ben interesting through the years to see how many companies do a "rush-to-market" with a new model before it is truly evaluated afield by knowledgeable people to note quirks to be addressed. it sure doesn't present a very good image of a company when they do that, and it's kind of sad when overall t new device works pretty well, except for one or two things. Sadly, many consumers and people doing their You Tube videos aren't aware of it as I listen to a lot of noise not caused by ferrous trash, but by an errant design glitch. You are correct when you said "if a tester finds a flaw with the be believed." Often a manufacturer just fluffs it off and leave consumers to figure it out.
Minelab has the glitch with the Equinox but it's 'fixable' with a Ground balance, but I have to live with it with my vanquish 540's ... unless they come up with a software remedy to have them updated/fixed. Minelab certainly is not the 'king of the detecting world" as ''ookingforgold' imagines, but they can produce some worthwhile products, most of the time. I just wish ALL manufacturers would circulate some prototypes to savvy users and then listen to their reports and, if necessary, make some pre-production corrections.
Monte
Desi Dunne
Member
A large 'faux-pas', occurred during development of the "Explorer 2".
A ' guy' who was mainly involved with 'Halcro', (an upmarket audio line) decided to listen to the 'in development 'Explorer 2' with headphones on and got his head 'blasted off!' (he was not a detector user)
Not realising the audio could be turned down via the Menu, he submitted a 'fix' and a 'limiter' was programmed to "limit the available Volume through headphones!"
On my return from Florida where I had been testing another detector in the warm waters (it was a cold February) I didn't know anything about this "change" and the day I returned to the factory, I walked down the production line and took 'one off the line' and took it to the beach for "evaluation / quality control"
It was then I discovered the 'monumental error' that had just taken place and I canvassed "strongly" over a two week period to have the change reversed!
What occurred was: what owner/customer/users had been accustomed to hearing through their headsets and manually making their own adjustments to their 'preferred' liking in the 'audio department', had been taken away to a large extent. The available Volume though headphones had been reduced to a large degree. This transpired in the following.
1. Could not distinguish between deep targets and shallow ones
2. Could not distinguish small coin sized targets from longer elongated pieces of aluminium scrap measuring 6" x 1" - they sounded the same
3. In Pin Point signal return was very weak and resulted in "iffy" signals if deeper than 6" in wet sand (small coins especially) The existing 'Explorer XS', gave a 100% rounded signal on the same targets confirmed by using another 'Explorer XS' side-by-side
4. New 'Explorer 2', did not return a totally positive signal on a small 5c buried at 6" in loose, wet sand whereas the existing 'XS' 'boomed'
5. This equated to an 87% loss in usable signal information that was now lost as what I was hearing (or not hearing) was a 'weakish iffy signal', and possibly of a type one would not investigate due to our familiarity with the 'Explorer' delivering usually 'booming solid signals!' The difference is hugely noticeable. Customer will compare the 'new' and the 'old' and will not like the new. I believed it could fall flat for this reason and be condemned as experienced users would say the 'New unit is much worse compared to the old 'XS' units!'
Eventually, the MD in Australia finally agreed it should be changed back and I won out. We got what we were used to and even better with the new FE CO number system.
(excerpts re-written from my E-Mail dated 27 February 2003 17.50 entitled URGENT: POOR quality audio in Explorer ll)
A ' guy' who was mainly involved with 'Halcro', (an upmarket audio line) decided to listen to the 'in development 'Explorer 2' with headphones on and got his head 'blasted off!' (he was not a detector user)
Not realising the audio could be turned down via the Menu, he submitted a 'fix' and a 'limiter' was programmed to "limit the available Volume through headphones!"
On my return from Florida where I had been testing another detector in the warm waters (it was a cold February) I didn't know anything about this "change" and the day I returned to the factory, I walked down the production line and took 'one off the line' and took it to the beach for "evaluation / quality control"
It was then I discovered the 'monumental error' that had just taken place and I canvassed "strongly" over a two week period to have the change reversed!
What occurred was: what owner/customer/users had been accustomed to hearing through their headsets and manually making their own adjustments to their 'preferred' liking in the 'audio department', had been taken away to a large extent. The available Volume though headphones had been reduced to a large degree. This transpired in the following.
1. Could not distinguish between deep targets and shallow ones
2. Could not distinguish small coin sized targets from longer elongated pieces of aluminium scrap measuring 6" x 1" - they sounded the same
3. In Pin Point signal return was very weak and resulted in "iffy" signals if deeper than 6" in wet sand (small coins especially) The existing 'Explorer XS', gave a 100% rounded signal on the same targets confirmed by using another 'Explorer XS' side-by-side
4. New 'Explorer 2', did not return a totally positive signal on a small 5c buried at 6" in loose, wet sand whereas the existing 'XS' 'boomed'
5. This equated to an 87% loss in usable signal information that was now lost as what I was hearing (or not hearing) was a 'weakish iffy signal', and possibly of a type one would not investigate due to our familiarity with the 'Explorer' delivering usually 'booming solid signals!' The difference is hugely noticeable. Customer will compare the 'new' and the 'old' and will not like the new. I believed it could fall flat for this reason and be condemned as experienced users would say the 'New unit is much worse compared to the old 'XS' units!'
Eventually, the MD in Australia finally agreed it should be changed back and I won out. We got what we were used to and even better with the new FE CO number system.
(excerpts re-written from my E-Mail dated 27 February 2003 17.50 entitled URGENT: POOR quality audio in Explorer ll)
Last edited: