Wireless set-ups for the QED.

With the QED best to stick with tried/proven Northeast.
Trust me I spent way too much money trying different things myself but it's all part of the hobby to I guess.

Anyone know if the ML Pro Sonic works with a QED

I tried mine on the QED & wasn't impressed. It worked fine on my SDC & now also on the GPX. I use it all the time on the Minelabs without issue.
Pretty sure Araratgold has also tried one & found it ok on the QED?
If you can I would borrow one & try it out before buying to form your own opinion.
The Quest wireless system (from Phase Technical) seem to get very good reports from QED users but I never tried one myself. It's also cheaper than the Pro Sonic.

mbasko said:

I tried mine on the QED & wasn't impressed. It worked fine on my SDC & now also on the GPX. I use it all the time on the Minelabs without issue.
Pretty sure Araratgold has also tried one & found it ok on the QED?
If you can I would borrow one & try it out before buying to form your own opinion.
The Quest wireless system (from Phase Technical) seem to get very good reports from QED users but I never tried one myself. It's also cheaper than the Pro Sonic.

Click to expand...

The Quest wireless system works fine on the QED (actually most detectors). I was speaking to Reg at the gold bash and he uses it.
The system is $148 and available at both Nenads site and steelphase.com.au.

regards
Pat

I 2nd the quest
Picked one up at the bash and works a treat
:Y:

The quest WiFi system is now my sound system of choice and has been for over a year. Before that I was using the Garrett Z/Lynk unit and found it quite good except that occasionally the transmitter would switch itself off. The faint threshold that I like to operate with would disappear, and upon looking down I would discover that the little red flashing light (indicating transmission) was not operating. It was just a matter of hitting the start button to resume transmission, but annoying.
The Quest system is not only a cheaper option to the Z/Link (and much cheaper than the ML version) but superior to both. It is smaller, (more compact than the others) has volume control which is quite adequate to drive headphones or ear buds.
My choice of headphones are the Aldi Bauhn noise cancelling phones which cost all of forty bucks, and I have found to be better than other much dearer options, though the ultimate are the Bose NC buds which are very expensive, but brilliant.

The only thing that bothers me about the quest is there are still wires running past my face up to earbuds. Its the best option available i guess, so will probably go the quest for now as the lesser of two evils.
Its a damn shame there is no bluetooth option available for true wireless earbuds on qed as there are plenty of great option of earbuds in the standards market that cant be utilised. Maybee something will come up someday.
I spose 150 bucks in the meantime isnt too bad and at least can make use of existing wired earbuds i already own.

Quest also produce cordless WiFi earphones as do Sennheiser, which negates the need for having a wire between the receiver and the headphones. Bluetooth transmitters and cordless earbuds are available, but most have an unacceptable lag time, and need to be paired.

Reg Wilson said:

Quest also produce cordless WiFi earphones as do Sennheiser, which negates the need for having a wire between the receiver and the headphones. Bluetooth transmitters and cordless earbuds are available, but most have an unacceptable lag time, and need to be paired.

Click to expand...

Earphones are more unappealing than having the wires due to hat wearing reasons. And lag or inferior sound quality with current bluetooth is no good to anyone.
Anyway, will be fine with the quest and earbuds for bow and its not a huge outlay $$ wise. Thanks for the heads up reg.
Jason

The biggest issue with Bluetooth & the QED isn't lag time but the QED/QED audio doesn't seem to like most Bluetooth so audio quality isn't good. Good quality & low latency Bluetooth on most devices has very good lag times & in comparison to other RF systems can actually be superior or just as good nowadays.
All RF systems need initial pairing but this is usually fairly easy even with Bluetooth. Some proprietary systems (including some Bluetooth) come pre-paired.
Bluetooth is just another proprietary RF wireless system with different proprietary operating codecs etc. like the Minelab, Garrett, Quest & Seinheisser (Kleer) systems so not sure why others can work better over Bluetooth? Downside is Bluetooth is by far the most popular system for compatible gear.

I have heard recently that steelPHASE has been trying to work through similar issues with the QED audio & the steelPHASE SP01 enhancer? I.e. the audio quality doesn't improve much through it? Maybe Pat can clarify here?

My own testing showed that the SP01, along with other enhancers, were largely ineffective on the QED using wireless systems. I am led to believe that this could have been due to my using good quality higher ohm headphones/earphones (usually recommended for detecting) whereas lower ohm headphones/earphones work better with the QED.
Anyone I've seen have good results with Bluetooth on the QED seem to be using low ohm earphones like those supplied with mobile phones.
Hopefully someone successfully using Bluetooth on the QED might comment here as Bluetooth does open up a lot more wire free options where it's usable.

Reg Wilson said:

The Quest system is not only a cheaper option to the Z/Link (and much cheaper than the ML version) but superior to both. It is smaller, (more compact than the others) has volume control which is quite adequate to drive headphones or ear buds.\

Click to expand...

the ML has the speaker built into the receiver making it big , the transmitters are roughly the same size, so no comparison

i use my pro sonic to drive 30 years old ear buds , worx awesome for me

mbasko said:

The biggest issue with Bluetooth & the QED isn't lag time but the QED/QED audio doesn't seem to like most Bluetooth so audio quality isn't good. Good quality & low latency Bluetooth on most devices has very good lag times & in comparison to other RF systems can actually be superior or just as good nowadays.
All RF systems need initial pairing but this is usually fairly easy even with Bluetooth. Some proprietary systems (including some Bluetooth) come pre-paired.
Bluetooth is just another proprietary RF wireless system with different proprietary operating codecs etc. like the Minelab, Garrett, Quest & Seinheisser (Kleer) systems so not sure why others can work better over Bluetooth? Downside is Bluetooth is by far the most popular system for compatible gear.

I have heard recently that steelPHASE has been trying to work through similar issues with the QED audio & the steelPHASE SP01 enhancer? I.e. the audio quality doesn't improve much through it? Maybe Pat can clarify here?

My own testing showed that the SP01, along with other enhancers, were largely ineffective on the QED using wireless systems. I am led to believe that this could have been due to my using good quality higher ohm headphones/earphones (usually recommended for detecting) whereas lower ohm headphones/earphones work better with the QED.
Anyone I've seen have good results with Bluetooth on the QED seem to be using low ohm earphones like those supplied with mobile phones.
Hopefully someone successfully using Bluetooth on the QED might comment here as Bluetooth does open up a lot more wire free options where it's usable.

Click to expand...

That sounds promising enough to give that idea a shot first thanks mbasko.
I should be able to get a bluetooth sender over bt 4.0 (i would guess bt 4.2 would be the most reliable a.t.m) and some low ohm bt earbuds pretty cheap. I would chance it for the $50 it would likely cost max.
Yes. It would be great if a satisfied bluetooth headphones or earbuds qed user would share the details of their setup.
Will have a look on ebay for something with those type of specs.

The main issue when connecting to the QED is that it has a low audio level output. When connected to any RF transmitter it wont matter what impedance the headphones/earbuds are as they are AFTER the receiver unit. Impedance of the headphones/earbuds will only matter when connected directly to the QED.
Most TX/RX units are designed for a standard earphone level output which is higher than that of the QED. This means that the levels transmitted are generally lower when connected to the QED.Turning the gain up on these units can make them a little noisy.

As for using enhancers and boosters - as stated previously the main issue is that the QED has a low output level compared to other detectors on the market. Enhancers and boosters need to have a higher gain to compensate for this. If the gain is increased for the QED then it is too high for other detectors and can introduce unwanted noise.
On a side note, I am working on a enhancer with more gain and higher volumes designed to run speakers only. This should work well with the QED. I expect them to be released in about a month or so.

regards
Pat

Thanks for clarifying about the lower impedance Pat. Hadn't tried that theory myself as all my headphones tried were 64ohm or higher. Obviously none of them made a difference wirelessly but my lower 64ohm Seinheissers seemed best plugged directly to the QED. I never tried anything lower but have seen Howard recommend mobile phone type earbuds (which are low ohm) a number of times so I may have confused that too.
The QED's low audio level output is definately the main stumbling block for wireless though. The Bluetooth units I tried (ranging from cheap to more expensive Aptx low latency units) were either very low in volume or seemed to "cycle" for want of a better word to describe. Lag time seemed to be mostly acceptable but the low wireless audio &/or "cycling" wasn't on the units I tried (Avantree Aptx low latency, Tao Tronics Aptx low latency & other generic low priced units). The Minelab Pro Sonic was very low on volume even turned up fully which I assume is also from the QED low audio level output & the Pro Sonic being made to suit the Minelab output level?
I think I replied to you before that I found the SP01 worked ok on the QED if wired directly to it but wasn't any good through the wireless systems. Hopefully the new model SP01 will solve this problem for QED users.

hippyhunter - the Seinheisser Kleer wireless RS160 headphones were the best of all that I tried on the QED but you are limited to the supplied headphones. Kleer never really took off for whatever reason (most likely higher cost than Bluetooth at the time) so options are limited.
To be honest if it were me I'd just go for the Quest wireless system that Reg & others recommend & agree works. For mine Bluetooth is too hit & miss on the QED + starts getting expensive testing/trying various different systems - trust me

Well that was a great discussion. Thank you all. I am going to look into Quest setup. Again Thank you for sharing all of your experience

Can someone post a link to the Quest sound option. Had a look around so much stuff to sift through

https://www.seriousdetecting.com/product-category/quest-products/quest-headphones/

AM I on the right track here. Which ones now

Available from either of these:
http://phasetechnical.com.au/product/quest-wirefree-mate-kit/

https://www.steelphase.com.au/index.php/front-page/audio/quest-wirefree-mate-wireless-kit

P.s. the tx/rx kit above allows you to use whatever headphones/earphones you prefer or a speaker/enhancer set up. There are Quest wireless headphones also as per your USA site link. It all depends on your own preference/s.

steelPhase/Pat, could it simply be solved by adding a High Gain/Low Gain switch, along with the necessary electronic bits inside to provide that function?
That way it could easily be changed over for either type of unit.

DED

Excellent.

Ded Driver said:

steelPhase/Pat, could it simply be solved by adding a High Gain/Low Gain switch, along with the necessary electronic bits inside to provide that function?
That way it could easily be changed over for either type of unit.

DED

Click to expand...

Electrically yes its an easy thing to do. Physically there is just no room to add another switch. Plus its another thing for some prospectors to get confused over. I have enough trouble explaining things as they are to some lol

Sorry it took so long. Had to order a different sender unit as i didnt notice the first one had no internal battery. The new sender arrived this morning. Plugged it in and fired them up turned up the volume on the earbuds to full and it was very adequate. The volume was definately not lower than needed in fine conditions. The clarity is much better than the logitech speaker. No crackling or backround noise no dropouts or anything at all. I watched tv using them to test for dropouts. It even stayed connected when i went 2 rooms away from the signal sender. All up weighs 40 grams. Will need a 2nd set also because it is only a 6 hr battery. Thats ok for 35$.
Will just be a case of swap over and plug the used ones on the usb for charging.

I will however turn the volume up internally on the qed about 15% or so more (easily done) so i have a bit extra volume for windy days.

So maybee bt 4.2 gear is ok on qed?. I would expect 4.2 to be more stable than bt 5.0. Seems 100% than acceptable to me, so maybee its a valid option again.

Ahh. Feels just like not wearing underpants :lol:
Posted a photo