Wireless headphones for metal detecting?

[Tony N (Michigan)]

Does anyone here use wireless headphones for metal detecting?
There are Bluetooth transmitters and headphones that pair with the transmitter.
I need to use one with a 1/8" jack on the transmitter that would plug into where the headphones would normally plug into.

 

[Mudwhale]

I have tried the TROND low latency 4.1 transmitter with bluetooth 4.1 low latency headphones with my Nokta Impact. There is an irritating delay when swinging over a target. It's 1.5 times the width of the coil before you hear the tone while swinging a 3 second single sweep. The tone is accurate though and in pinpointing mode it works fine. I am staying corded because I can't stand the delay. I only use the wireless when in the thick woods.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

.... There is an irritating delay when swinging over a target......

Yes: After-market (radio-shack, etc... ) add-on's have that common complaint: The annoying delay. But supposedly certain manufacturer stock ones being put into detectors nowadays has solved that.

But I have another reason I'd always be skeptical of using any form of wireless headphones: Sub-audible cross-talk. Because the earpiece and sending unit are communicating, after all.

What I mean is: That EVEN though they may be set to different frequencies, such that you don't have AUDIBLE cross-talk, yet I would fear that there might be sub-audible subtle compromises . That you simply don't hear.

For example: We all know that 2 -like machines (same brand and type) will "cross-talk". And we know that NON-similar brands/machines don't necessarily cross-talk. Right ? But have you ever noticed that if you get those 2 non-similar machines close enough , that they DO INDEED cross-talk ? So that means there was an un-known range of feet , when the dis-similar machine was getting closer, that a level of sub-audible could be occurring. That you simply don't hear. And that can affect depth.

By "sub-audible", consider the following true story: I took a buddy to a park (known to still have some deep wheats/silver) to teach him how to use his Explorer II. The idea was, that I was going to flag some good signals, so he could know what type sounds he was supposed to be listening for.

Since we were both using Exp. II, we had to separate ourselves by enough distance where cross-talk would go away. But after 20 minutes, I STILL could not find a classic 4-star signal to show him. DESPITE knowing full well that the area I was in *should* have some. I just couldn't find anything of what I was looking for. FINALLY I got a semi-acceptable iffy signal. I gave him a hand signal to come over to my part of the park.

When he saw me motion for him, he turned off his machine. And walked over to the part of the park I was at. An interesting phenomenon took place: As SOON as he had turned off his machine (even though out of cross-talk range), my signal immediately cleaned up and sounded better. Hmmm. That told me there had STILL been "cross-talk" (albeit below audible), even though we'd been beyond the range where we could hear it.

So too would I fear in having any other sort of transmitter/receivers (bluetooth, cell-phones in the midst of calls, other machines, etc...) too close to me. EVEN if I don't necessarily hear them, it could be causing subtle loss of performance. So I never use anything except chord headphone. JMHO

 

[doc holiday232]

Get the Garrett or Detectnix.

 

[sprchng]

There are numerous well engineered and researched options to go wireless today but all of the popular ones that do not seem to have lag issues are some form of 2.4 ghz. Bluetooth signal processing just doesn't seem to mesh with the human eye/ear synchronization abilities.

 

[Tony N (Michigan)]

Get the Garrett or Detectnix.

If I get the Deteknix, what happens when the batteries run out? They are only good for maximum 6 hours.

 

[Tony N (Michigan)]

A most excellent response, Tom!
Thank you so much for pointing that out.

Not only that, but, I don't really like radio waves going through my brain in the headphones when it is receiving information from the sending unit.
Who knows what that does? I know we always hear we are being bombarded every day by cell phone towers and radio towers, not to mention Satellites beaming
down on us all their information from out in space.

Whenever I go out to California and get in the canyons where no cell phone is possible to communicate, I just find my body totally relaxing. My shoulders drop, I breathe deeper.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

.... what happens when the batteries run out? ....

Alas: And yet another reason to stick with chord headphones.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

.... I don't really like radio waves going through my brain in the headphones when it is receiving information from the sending unit.
Who knows what that does?...

haha, well I won't go so far as to subscribe to various conspiracy stuff about cell-phones being bad for you. Blah blah.

A friend of mine's wife saw something sensational about that one some tabloid type TV sillyness. And insisted they could no longer keep their phones by their bed at night on the night-stand. Doh! After much argument about the validity of any health issues, my friend finally wimped out and gave in to her demands.

The problem is, he's got a job that requires him to .... sometimes .... answer a phone or text at late hours (or even in the night). So the poor guy has to jump out of bed and run to get any calls from the next bedroom now ! Doh! I told him "you're whipped" haha

 

[Tony N (Michigan)]

It's not so much the cell phones but the cell phone towers.

But they have known for years now that cell phones do cause brain cancer due to the microwaves from the cell phone.

 

[sprchng]

Get the Garrett or Detectnix.

If I get the Deteknix, what happens when the batteries run out? They are only good for maximum 6 hours.

Get the Garrett ,,,longer battery life and made in the U.S.
It's nonsense worrying about the RF going through your brain ,,,,, you are going to starve to death before that after the RF finishes killing off all the honey bees.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

....It's nonsense worrying about the RF going through your brain ,,,,, you are going to starve to death before that after the RF finishes killing off all the honey bees.

Aaaahhh, but see, that's where you're not up on the latest conspiracy of big corporate cell-phone businesses: The phones *do indeed* cause brain cancer, blah blah blah. But there is a "hush hush" coverup, where big business and big-govt. doesn't want you to know that. Lest it affect their sales dollars, etc.... So they cover up the studies & hush the reports. You have been duped.

Same for UFO captured aliens at area 51, black helicopters, lizard people that control the govt. etc..... It's all true, and you're being duped into not believing.

 

[Tony N (Michigan)]

....It's nonsense worrying about the RF going through your brain ,,,,, you are going to starve to death before that after the RF finishes killing off all the honey bees.

Aaaahhh, but see, that's where you're not up on the latest conspiracy of big corporate cell-phone businesses: The phones *do indeed* cause brain cancer, blah blah blah. But there is a "hush hush" coverup, where big business and big-govt. doesn't want you to know that. Lest it affect their sales dollars, etc.... So they cover up the studies & hush the reports. You have been duped.

Same for UFO captured aliens at area 51, black helicopters, lizard people that control the govt. etc..... It's all true, and you're being duped into not believing.

You are using a fallacy that if one thing is outrageous, then, using guilt by association, you feel you can easily sweep the issue to the side with the wave of the hand as it relates to the dangers of cell phone usage.
You see, Tom, I'm not as dumb as you look.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

... You are using a fallacy that if one thing is outrageous, then, using guilt by association.....

So too would the proponent believer say, of any effort to dismiss his lizard people notion. Eh ?

 

[sprchng]

Is " Sub-audible cross-talk. " the same as the noise a tree makes when it falls in the forest when no one is around? or the bullet that gets you?

 

[Mudwhale]

There are numerous well engineered and researched options to go wireless today but all of the popular ones that do not seem to have lag issues are some form of 2.4 ghz. Bluetooth signal processing just doesn't seem to mesh with the human eye/ear synchronization abilities.

4.1 is almost twice as fast as 2.4 ghz and here is still huge lag in response. How can slower be faster?

 

[Tony N (Michigan)]

... You are using a fallacy that if one thing is outrageous, then, using guilt by association.....

[size=large]So too would the proponent believer say, of any effort to dismiss his lizard people notion. Eh ?

It is one thing for a person to believe lizard people exist (I don't) and it is quite another thing to see scientific proof through MRI's of a person's brain after a person has been subjected to their cellphone radiation.

You see, Tom, it is improper to use guilt by association. It's a fallacy of argument.
Most often, guilt by association has to do with relationships with other people, i.e., if your friends do dope and you run around with them, people will believe you do dope too.
But there are other scenarios where guilt by association is used such as is the case in this thread. Since there are people who believe in lizard people, if one believes cell phones are dangerous to the human mind, that's as bad as people believing in lizard people
So the arguer tries to associate the one person who does not believe like Tom, for instance and so Tom, in an effort to win an argument, associates that person with nut jobs who believe in lizard people. See how that works?[/size]

 

[Tony N (Michigan)]

There are numerous well engineered and researched options to go wireless today but all of the popular ones that do not seem to have lag issues are some form of 2.4 ghz. Bluetooth signal processing just doesn't seem to mesh with the human eye/ear synchronization abilities.

4.1 is almost twice as fast as 2.4 ghz and here is still huge lag in response. How can slower be faster?

I don't know, but I do know you can save money getting your insurance through Geico. LOL.

 

[Mudwhale]

As far as the brain cancer is concerned.....YES if you are spending most of your time within 100 feet of a cell tower like, partying there every night with your buds 'cause it's out of the way of the cops... Yes if you think climbing one and having lunch there everyday just for the view for an hour or so within 10 feet of the transmitter.( At this distance your food will cook and stay warm according to the distance) No to almost everything else. Of the 100 million or so users of cell service in this country, not one has been verified in any diagnosis of getting brain cancer specifically from cell phones....Except test mice that were in a cage on the cell tower since birth.... I haven't even heard of a personal brain cancer case in my life. Have You?

Here's another thing, MRI, "Magnetic Resonance Imaging" Is NOT the same technology of Cellular Communication. MRI is NOT radiation but a collection of data from inducing a strong magnetic field in a human body. This is based on our Iron content and gives an image of abnormalities in our structure as humans. It does not cause cancer but, discovers it. Micro Wave radiation is also a misnomer because there are about a million different frequency's in this spectrum that constitute as being "Micro Waves". Some is for communication and others cook food.
Ed

 

[Tom_in_CA]

.... No to almost everything else. Of the 100 million or so users of cell service in this country, not one has been verified in any diagnosis of getting brain cancer specifically from cell phones....Except test mice that were in a cage on the cell tower since birth.... I haven't even heard of a personal brain cancer case in my life. Have You? ...

Then it sounds like you are likening this to junk science conspiracy theory stuff. If so, then Tony N' Michigan would beg to differ with you

I had this conversation with a fellow about 15 yrs. ago (when I guess the claim was getting tossed around in debates). And when I tried to point out the counter evidence , he claimed that any such studies (that said cell-phones were safe) was highly suspect. Because they'd been paid for by the cell-phone companies, hence .... biased, and hence ...... a cover-up. To protect their profits. I KID YOU NOT ! Now gee .... how is a person supposed to refute that ?