You are not logged in.

  • Register to access all forum features  

#126

davent
Member
Joined: 01 September 2015
Posts: 2,539
Member
06 January 2018 06:05 pm

mbasko wrote:

Still finding the odd bit here & there Dave but not getting out near as much as I'd like.
It'll do me for now but still not 100% confident in it yet. Still waiting for Minelab to release a lightweight, lower cost GPZ roll

Me to!

#127

Rush
Member
Joined: 22 May 2015
Posts: 127
Member
07 January 2018 02:23 pm

Gave my wife a run with my QED over the new year break and she was wrapped on how much easier it was for her to detect with it compared to my GPX.
Also as a thunder storm was approaching I was was receiving electric interference with the GPX however she was not complaining at all with the QED.
It confirms why the QED is capable of operating inside the house while the GPX only capable in Cancel mode.
Although not sure if Cancel mode on the GPX can cancel out lighting EMI from an approaching thunder storm?

1 user likes this post: dasenator777

#128

mbasko
Member
From: Central West NSW
Joined: 27 January 2015
Posts: 3,181
Member
11 January 2018 09:25 am

The QED does handle various EMI pretty good. Gets the odd chirp from sherics or planes but nothing compared to the GPX.
It doesn't play well in close proximity to other detectors though or at least the GPZ.
How are you finding the auto ground balance button? Tried mine again the other day (usually balance manually) but it wasn't doing anything even if I manually put the balance way out of whack? Might wait a bit to see if any more updates/upgrades eventuate & send it back.


Everything we use comes from mining or farming.

#129

Rush
Member
Joined: 22 May 2015
Posts: 127
Member
11 January 2018 03:55 pm

mbasko wrote:

How are you finding the auto ground balance button?
Tried mine again the other day (usually balance manually) but it wasn't doing anything even if I manually put the balance way out of whack?

G'day mbasko, I had no problems with my AGB button and using it towards a GB with my QED's during its last trip to the goldfield over the New Year break. I just now walked out into my backyard for another AGB test and all is good.

What I have noticed since the latest update is the GB numbers it registered once GB'd over the same ground are now lower than before the update.
For example the GB readout before the update on the same ground was in the 120 to 130 and now is in the 80 to 90.

Also since the update my QED appears smoother over the same ground and has allowed the use of a higher Gain setting than before.

2 users like this post: mbasko, davent

#130

Cando
Member
From: Caboolture, QLD
Joined: 17 September 2013
Posts: 184
Member
12 April 2018 07:48 pm

Was in the Warwick area a couple of weekends ago with the qed trying out the 8 by 6 Sadie coil. still came away with no gold, what else is new big_smile but I I got a s*** ton of bird shot. Try it against some Z targets a solid hit on 1 out of 3 a very faint hit on 1 Target both were bird shot it didn't hear the third Target which was the gold. In saying that neither did my 4500 it only saw 1 out of 3. gb 130, a little higher than normal. There was a lot of hot rocks in the area and I was constantly bumping it up to 135 to check if it was a digable target or ground in the end I just left it at 135. Bias B 44, bias A 35, gain 3, mode 8 I did move the SMR down one notch from factory settings which knocked out EMI. I seem to find more targets with the qed than I do with the 4500, shame they are not gold smile . Maybe because I find that I used the qed more because it's comfortable, doesn't go stupid every time there's a plane around or electric fence etc so I've ended up selling my GPX 4500 however I will get a z7000 down the path. I didn't digg as many Hot Rocks as I did with the GPX 4500. At the end of the day I believe it qed is on a par with the 4500 and 4 me the qed is the keeper. smile

Last edited by Cando (12 April 2018 07:50 pm)


Noel smile
Gpz 7000 - QED - Equinox 800

3 users like this post: Rockhunter62, mbasko, Prospector B

#131

mbasko
Member
From: Central West NSW
Joined: 27 January 2015
Posts: 3,181
Member
12 April 2018 09:27 pm

That's pretty much all that matters at the end of the day Cando - using whatever you're more comfortable with.
I've pretty much decided after a lot of different coils, finding some in situ gold etc. that I'll be using the QED in deeper ground with a minimum 11" coil. I find it runs really good with the 11" Detech Ultra Mono & that will be my go to coil on the QED. Found the 16" NFA mono coil goes well to & keen to try out the Coiltek 14" camo mono elite as there are good reports on it with the QED too. I didn't really think in my experience that the 8" Commander offered any great advantage to me over the 11" Detech which seemed just as sensitive to tiddlers but should go deeper.
For shallower ground, where I know that there is sub gram gold to be had, I'll be using the SDC2300. In my experience I cannot get the QED to run well enough in the settings/mode recommended for that type of detecting with the 8" Commander mono so usually used a higher mode etc. It's still a sensitive detector but I just can't see how it has been touted as a "SDC slayer" by some. Maybe it's me being more comfortable with the SDC?
I tried several areas & in all cases found more in situ gold with the SDC (I ran the QED first in all but one area to give it the best chance). I did find gold in most of these areas with the QED (2 × duck eggs) but just not as consistently - the SDC won over it by 2 or 3 to 1. I reckon that result would be similar SDC v GPX? Just my opinion so no rocks please.
Where the ground gets a bit deeper then the QED will still be getting used. It has still found me a few good bits & IMO it is most comparable to the GPX. The main area the GPX wins out for me is auto tracking & quick track (in fixed) capabilities.


Everything we use comes from mining or farming.

#132

Rush
Member
Joined: 22 May 2015
Posts: 127
Member
13 April 2018 01:28 am

mbasko wrote:

For shallower ground.........In my experience I cannot get the QED to run well enough in the settings/mode recommended for that type of detecting with the 8" Commander mono so usually used a higher mode etc.

Mbasko I have no problems operating my QED with my 8" Commander whatsoever in its lowest mode 1 settings and had no reason to use a higher mode setting even with the gain set at 4. If my QED became unstable to the ground I have only had to raise my Bias, in my case from 36 to 38. I have found Mode 1 to handle hot ground as good as any other mode with no loss of depth on larger targets.

Last edited by Rush (13 April 2018 01:29 am)

1 user likes this post: Cando

#133

mbasko
Member
From: Central West NSW
Joined: 27 January 2015
Posts: 3,181
Member
13 April 2018 05:11 am

I must be in rough ground then because in mode 1 it sounds off on every hot rock - nearly 1 every swing in one area & groans/signals at any hotter pockets. It settles down better in mode 3 but in that one area even that liked the hot rocks but +/- 4 on GB does sort them out. Still a lot of mucking around in hot, variable ground. It still pinged a 0.2gram speck of gold there though just not as user friendly as the SDC which picked up 2 x speccis + a similar sized bit of flychit & handled that ground well.
There's also no way I can run the bias that low. With the 8" Commander mono it wants to settle close to 50 (48-49). This was confirmed with another QED user that has the 8" Commander who told me his also liked to he close to neutral bias but he also finds mode 1 ok?
You's might have a "special" model? Have you found any gold with the 8" Commander?
The 11" Detech Ultra Mono coil likes mode 3 too & bias around 51-52. It runs nicely & have pinged little bits down to 0.2grams with it too. It seems to me to be just as sensitive but more punch as it should have.
I've tested some very small bits that the SDC picks up no worries but regardless of settings the QED needs them rubbed on the coil to pick up or doesn't get them at all regardless of coil, mode, bias & in some cases the settings used for testing are unusable on the ground i.e. too much ground noise. Other little bits the QED picks up well.


Everything we use comes from mining or farming.

2 users like this post: Araratgold, Cando

#134

Araratgold
Member
From: Ararat, VIC
Joined: 31 July 2014
Posts: 178
Member
13 April 2018 11:28 am

I'm with you mbasko,

After at least 20 hours with the QED I am confident in saying that it is NOT an SDC slayer, and doesn't have the ease of use or performance of a 4500 / 5000.

They are not for everyone, as they are not all that user friendly ! Anyone who has never used a manual GB detector will probably stuggle with it.
A bit fiddly is how I would summarise the QED.

The trouble with fixed ground balance is that you can compensate for the noisy ground, then walk onto an area that is quieter without realising it, because the machines GB is " over compensating " for the noisy stuff. By over compensating, you will lose depth and sensitivity. Bit like running a 4500 in " smooth " over noisy ground, then leaving it in smooth when you walk accross quieter ground, without switching back to " enhance " or " normal ". thumbsdown Although the QED has a digital readout of the GB number, it doesn't change as you walk, it stays fixed at whatever the initial GB was. If Howard could get that number to " track ", for want of a better word, that would be very helpful !

IMHO, it's only advantage is price and weight. Having said that, it's not a bad detector for the money, and Howard is working on improving it all the time. He has already addressed one of my initial gripes, re the exposed ribbon cable. thumbsup

The QED, as a fixed GB, single channel detector, is always going to have limitations, but it will have it's place, such as raw prospecting in lesser known areas, particularly WA ( as long as it can handle the atrocious salt and iron rich ground ).

Rick

Last edited by Araratgold (13 April 2018 11:45 am)

2 users like this post: mbasko, Cando

#135

roddosnow
Member
Joined: 19 March 2014
Posts: 60
Member
13 April 2018 02:23 pm

I have been following this thread since it started as i am very interested in the development and use of the QED as it is definitely an attractive option for a good price, reading the info provided by experienced users, cando, rush, Mbasko & Davent, Araratgold I cant help feeling that aside from the potential differences in the ground types that are being detected it seems as though there may be a level of variance in the performances of the detector themselves, whether due to slight differences in components used or even slight irregularities in the same components. It seems that some are able to cope with different scenarios better, and have different levels of performance with the same coils, eg the 8" mono experiences explained above seem to be very different likewise with the auto GB, one seems to work great and the other seems not to do anything. Do you guys have any thoughts on this?

nb; I do understand that there is always a level of variance in all sensitive electronic devices,and would also be interested to know how that would be managed from a production standpoint.

Cheers,

#136

davent
Member
Joined: 01 September 2015
Posts: 2,539
Member
13 April 2018 02:50 pm

The variations are quite normal IMO.
Given the different areas,coils,users,and settings available.
For example, in one area I used it witha 12" NF evo, the mode was set differently to other areas. Also gain was turned down. I found one piece, a .8 of a gram if I remember. It was on a very well hit patch, and I couldn't find anything on it with my 4500 and 14*9 evo.
In another area, I just couldn't use the QED due continual need to conduct a ground balance and re set every 5-10 meters, it drove me nuts!
All in all, I think in some areas, the QED is by far and away the best value for money. In areas with benign ground, stable ground it would be an absolute killer, I'm thinking the USA and parts of Australia and Africa.
But not where I go unfortunately.
I'm on very well detected ground, where minerals are washes into hot pockets by every wet season. Some areas are easy, but others are a nightmare!

4 users like this post: Araratgold, roddosnow, mbasko, Cando

#137

Rush
Member
Joined: 22 May 2015
Posts: 127
Member
14 April 2018 05:26 pm

mbasko wrote:

There's also no way I can run the bias that low. With the 8" Commander mono it wants to settle close to 50 (48-49).
You's might have a "special" model? Have you found any gold with the 8" Commander?

My QED is no special model other than having the latest software update along with the front and rear panel update to the control box.

In regards to my THS-B (Bias) setting I have only been able to operate with it as low as 36 & 38 after the update as previous to the update the lowest I could comfortably operate the 8" mono was with the Bias set at 42 over the same ground.

The update has lowered the GB figure compared to the previous GB figure when GB'd over the same ground.
Previously my QED would GB with the 8" mono at 145 whereas now it is down in the 90s over the same ground.

Another advantage since the update, is I have been able to operate with the Gain on 4 whereas previously the Gain at 1 was only possible with the 8" coil.

Also I have had no issues with operating ONLY in Mode 1 which I feel is an advantage due it having the fastest sample delay.

And yes I have found gold with the Commander 8" coil and is my favorite coil after trying the 12" Adv and Evo especially since the majority of the nuggets where I detect are of the small variety.

Last edited by Rush (14 April 2018 05:54 pm)

2 users like this post: mbasko, Cando

#138

Cando
Member
From: Caboolture, QLD
Joined: 17 September 2013
Posts: 184
Member
15 April 2018 09:38 am

Wow Rush I have never got close to those settings.. thumbsup
I have the qed pl2 and in the area I've been working in (Warwick qld) the best settings, ground balance has been around 120 / 125 up to 135 in some areas.. using the six by 8x6 sadie, Bias B set 44 could use 42 butt pushing the limits and at 44 it came through a lot cleaner. I have never been able to go under 42. Gain set to 3 very rarely moves maybe to 4, 2 starts to get chippy and this is pretty much the same for all my coils.. mode could be set on 4, but I found using 8 slightly better. bias A is generally set in the 25 to 40 area and it's only tweet a small bit for every coil I use if it all. Maybe it's the areas we are working in, is why our numbers/ settings are coming in so different.
With the 11 inch detech bios b 50 to 54 and a 15 x 10 detech 52 to 58.. I have found so far mode 8 appears to be the best setting from most of my coils listed this is where I generally start anyway and generally end up. I found the advantage 14 x 9 and 17 x 13 I think, best run on mode11 for me, go figure hmm . When I first got this machine I didn't really play with the SMR however these days after setting my machine up to run as quiet as possible I always give the smr quick look. I go up and down either side of where it's set, 107 say and I'll go down to 103 and back up to 112 seeing if it get it quieter. the results are quite surprising sometimes. once I've got the coil setup which takes a few minutes, ground balance is the only thing I will change for hours, and that is just a few taps at the button up or down when needed. smile

Last edited by Cando (15 April 2018 09:41 am)


Noel smile
Gpz 7000 - QED - Equinox 800

2 users like this post: mbasko, Rush

#139

mbasko
Member
From: Central West NSW
Joined: 27 January 2015
Posts: 3,181
Member
15 April 2018 09:05 pm

Mines PL2 too & recently upgraded again to the latest configuration + had the beach mode added.
Even with the PL2 my ground balance here would average between 105-115. Lowest has been 98 & high in the 140's. After upgrading from the original QED to PL2 my ground balance numbers did come down a bit but not a huge margin i.e. maybe 5-10 but definitely not up to 40-50.
Last day out I tried the AGB again & after a couple of tries it settled on 121 which ran very good in the area. Only changed between 116-121 all day so that was good.
Bias 51, Threshold A 40, gain 4, mode 3. Was using the 11" Detech.
Agree Rush that I can now run at higher gain settings than previously. Runs nicely like this but it all seems to go out the window with mode 1 & even 2 here. Depending on coil my bias seems best for me between around 48 to 54. I think the lowest I've had it & could detect with was 46.
I don't think that there is any great deal of variance in the detectors but the difference is in areas, coils etc. but a lot too our own preference in how we like it set up/running I guess. From here on in I won't be getting too hung up on small coils & low modes but more getting it running to my liking to suit coil/area. It's pretty sensitive anyway really.


Everything we use comes from mining or farming.

3 users like this post: Cando, Rush, roddosnow

#140

Rush
Member
Joined: 22 May 2015
Posts: 127
Member
15 April 2018 09:25 pm

mbasko wrote:

I don't think that there is any great deal of variance in the detectors but the difference is in areas, coils etc. but a lot too our own preference in how we like it set up/running I guess.

I agree.

#141

Reg Wilson
Member
Joined: 06 September 2017
Posts: 83
Member
17 April 2018 12:23 am

Roddosnow, Your question is very interesting, and I shall try to answer it as best as I can.
Over the years I have used all sorts of detectors both prototype and production models. Detectors are no different from most other types of equipment, in that variations will exist in supposedly identical products. You have probably experienced this yourself. Let's use motor cars as an example. I myself have seen that two cars, supposedly identical, but one just seems to have a bit more get up and go than the other, or uses more fuel, or runs smoother. How can this be, when they were built in the same factory, same engine and transmission, and same everything.
Getting in back to detectors. When I first bought my GPZ7000 it ran smooth as silk, and disregarding the weight, it was a ripper. My friend was not so lucky. His was a temperamental, ill mannered dog of a machine. At first I thought he was just having trouble adjusting to the new technology, but when I used it I understood what he was complaining about. It was not right. He returned it, but was told that after testing it was found to be faultless. Then the ferite ring was brought out to remedy a problem that supposedly did not exist. It made a slight difference, but it still did not behave anywhere near mine. The next supposed problem fixer was a software update. It made no difference to my machine that I could discern, but once again my mates detector showed minor improvement, but still below par. In the end he sold it, after being honest with the buyer that he did not think it was as good as it should have been. He took quite a hit on the price, and we have since learned that his was not a totally isolated case.
How could that have happened? The components are supposed to be identical, but that is an impossibility. Perfection exists only in theory. Two components may be very close to identical, but not identical. A machine that is constructed of components that are very close to their specified design and function will run very well, but you only need to have a few bits not close enough to tolerance and the finished product is faulty. Testing and quality control may not always show any faults, but in the field you are in possession of a 'dog'.
In the case of the QED Howard goes to extreme lengths in his choice of components, and final testing, however small variations may occur, and I have yet to see a sub standard detector that he has built slip through. In the unlikely event of this happening Howard would replace it immediately as he is a stickler for quality. (unlike some others)


Walmer Central Victoria
Began detecting 1979 Best colour 3Kgs Best patch 340 ozs.

3 users like this post: Rush, mbasko, roddosnow

#142

Rush
Member
Joined: 22 May 2015
Posts: 127
Member
17 April 2018 01:10 am

Reg Wilson wrote:

In the case of the QED Howard goes to extreme lengths in his choice of components, and final testing, however small variations may occur, and I have yet to see a sub standard detector that he has built slip through. In the unlikely event of this happening Howard would replace it immediately as he is a stickler for quality. (unlike some others)

Well said Reg.

Also apparently he uses a certain test piece and procedure to check each QED for parity before being released for sale.

#143

Cando
Member
From: Caboolture, QLD
Joined: 17 September 2013
Posts: 184
Member
17 April 2018 10:32 am

Has there been an update recently? I just noticed something about Beach mode, I know nothing about. Or is it part of the PL2 update?

Last edited by Cando (17 April 2018 10:46 am)


Noel smile
Gpz 7000 - QED - Equinox 800

#144

Prospector B
Member
Joined: 25 September 2013
Posts: 239
Member
17 April 2018 06:29 pm

Mine came with the beach mode but haven’t used it yet. As for what update it’s part of I don’t know. Mode 16 is used when there is effectively no ground to balance against like sand, I think it can give you more depth. I’m sure someone with more knowledge will add to this.

B

#145

mbasko
Member
From: Central West NSW
Joined: 27 January 2015
Posts: 3,181
Member
17 April 2018 08:27 pm

It's not part of any particular update - just the latest improvement you can get done if you wanted to.
I only got it as mine was being upgraded to the same PL2 configuration as being sold now (control box under arm cuff) so while there any software updates were done free.
Beach mode (Mode 16) has no effective ground balance so is only for use on dry beach/benign ground. Possibly could be ok as a relic mode also? Haven't tried it either but should punch deep in benign ground.
Not sure if I'll ever use it but it's there if I wanted to. Could be interesting on the beach with 16" NFA coil attached big_smile


Everything we use comes from mining or farming.

#146

Cando
Member
From: Caboolture, QLD
Joined: 17 September 2013
Posts: 184
Member
17 April 2018 08:43 pm

I have one of the PL2 (control box under arm cuff), but mine only goes to mode 15 so I might have to send mine back. I will check more into it as there Mite be more tweaks to the box in some more areas. thanks guys thumbsup

Last edited by Cando (17 April 2018 08:45 pm)


Noel smile
Gpz 7000 - QED - Equinox 800

#147

Reg Wilson
Member
Joined: 06 September 2017
Posts: 83
Member
17 April 2018 11:35 pm

Have only used it on the beach at Nha Trang in Vietnam. Worked real well with no apparent difference between dry or wet sand. Dug a lot of Saigon beer caps, but we did manage a few Russian coins. Bris Dave was going to try a spot near an outdoor beach bar after I left on Saturday, but havn't heard result yet.
I wouldn't worry about the extra mode as it worked well in all modes.

Last edited by Reg Wilson (17 April 2018 11:37 pm)


Walmer Central Victoria
Began detecting 1979 Best colour 3Kgs Best patch 340 ozs.

#148

Bogger
Member
Joined: 01 April 2016
Posts: 1,507
Member
18 April 2018 01:39 am

Reg, just for you ...................... going on what you wrote regards time frame, the beaches at Nha Trang had just been cleaned days prior to your QED visit with an SDC and it pulled lots of lovely bling. No 9ct gold in Russia, it's all the good stuff 18ct + wink thumbsup thumbsup Gold buyers at Ben Thanh quickly converted finds to cash lol Well free trip along with a root canal and a crown at least for the swinger roll ................. now that's gold yikes
Hope this clarifies for you and only posted as would hate you to have thought that the QED was only working on bottle tops and coins sad
Footnote ................ Russians just love the big bulky bling .................. and so do the scales thumbsup

Some ones making money in Viet so I'm told ?

1523977036_pov_viet.jpg

Waiting Waiting

1523977267_viet_vendor.jpg

A BYO restaurant Vietnamese style thumbsup

1523977615_byo_in_viet.jpg

Last edited by Bogger (18 April 2018 02:06 am)

#149

Rush
Member
Joined: 22 May 2015
Posts: 127
Member
18 April 2018 10:25 am

Reg Wilson wrote:

The reason for our visit to the beach was mainly to see how the QED would handle wet sand with the extended mode.
I'm happy to report that it had no problems at all, running smoothly.
.

Reg if that extended mode was Beach Mode 16 then it appears it is able to handle wet salty sand and not only dry benign sand.

I would have thought wet salty ground at a beach would have required to be ground balanced out?

#150

Reg Wilson
Member
Joined: 06 September 2017
Posts: 83
Member
18 April 2018 11:28 am

Rush, not only did it handle the wet sand in the extended mode, but all the way through the modes. Moving from dry to wet sands seemed to make no difference at all. To say we were surprised would be an understatement.
Bris Dave now has his QED in Nha Trang, and a lot of interest has been generated. Hence the demo on the beach.


Walmer Central Victoria
Began detecting 1979 Best colour 3Kgs Best patch 340 ozs.


Contact Us - Privacy Policy - Terms Of Service

View Desktop Site

Top