GypsyGoldAu said:
QED manual said:
QED
- Thread starter davent
- Start date
Help Support Prospecting Australia:
Maybe someone from Goldsearch or the QED team made a complaint? Either way the mods made a decision & unless Dean from Goldsearch came here to post that info it's only hearsay. Move on...
- Joined
- Sep 4, 2014
- Messages
- 8,936
- Reaction score
- 6,782
Ok folks sorry about that, I jumped the Gun and posted Dougs Chart, Of which I should of asked, I since ask Doug for permission and I have apologized and he has Kindly said that I can post it,
Thanks Doug.
John.
Please Note that those targets with a * next to them are 3mm thick and the 10x5cm x1cm at the bottom is a block of alloy.
Thanks Doug.
John.
Please Note that those targets with a * next to them are 3mm thick and the 10x5cm x1cm at the bottom is a block of alloy.
Ridge Runner said:
Sorry but that chart is a bit of rubbish. Whoever is using the 7000 obviously has no idea how to use it properly especially when the results are so different to the 5000. I know my own results using a 7000 compared to other machines that the 7000 is better on most targets (I wont say all because I did get very similar results on some targets).
Unfortunately some on that forum are very anti Minelab. There can be no independent testing there.
- Joined
- Sep 4, 2014
- Messages
- 8,936
- Reaction score
- 6,782
SteelPat said:
I don't know who those people are but I am sure different people will get varied results'
Air tests on PI machines display the opposite of what happens with a VLF which is why Air Tests are impractical for both types of detectors.
Araratgold
Rick
mbasko said:
Why the hell you would do that chart with the ZED in HY DIFF is beyond me, unless of course you want to understate the ZED's capabilities dramatically, because you have an agenda to make the QED look better.
Also, why would you leave the GPX in fine gold on those bigger targets ? Redundant question ! See above !
The ZED should have been in Normal ground mode for all tests, and general or very deep on the bigger targets to get the best readings !
Rick
- Joined
- Aug 13, 2015
- Messages
- 1,427
- Reaction score
- 1,281
Well Araratgold.... i imagine one could be described as "comparative" testing, whilst your methodology is more 'definitive' testing....imo.
It could just be a matter of 'semantics' being utilized....(Sorta like most product promotions and supportive materials.. )
Bear in mind..."comparative" does not also automatically mean "testing the same features side by side"...you can compare for eg; the strong/weak, or good/bad...etc. Semantics at play...
May not be close to the point, i imagine you'd have to ask the tester's why they chose those settings...:dunno:
Gypsy
It could just be a matter of 'semantics' being utilized....(Sorta like most product promotions and supportive materials..
)Bear in mind..."comparative" does not also automatically mean "testing the same features side by side"...you can compare for eg; the strong/weak, or good/bad...etc. Semantics at play...
May not be close to the point, i imagine you'd have to ask the tester's why they chose those settings...:dunno:
Gypsy
Araratgold
Rick
Marauder said:
Inches !
Araratgold
Rick
Marauder said:
But did it really win ??????????
Read my comments above about handicapping the ZED and GPX !
Rick
- Joined
- Aug 13, 2015
- Messages
- 1,427
- Reaction score
- 1,281
I guess,...if you 'hobble' the ML, and run the QED flat out to beat it...that would satisfy "as good as"...???
:dunno:
:dunno:
It really bugs me that stuff like that chart gets put out which is obviously biased (or put together by someone who is totally incompetent). The QED MAY be a good detector but stuff like this really colours my judgement.
We know Minelab tends to fudge the depth charts a little but (besides not publishing comparisons vs other brands) they have a proven track record.
People who have bought the machine, those that have a dislike for Minelab or friends of the manufacturer will already have a slight bias as they WANT it to perform well. They are not independent enough to have reliable results. Lets face it, if you have forked out a cpl of grand you are not going to admit to buying something that doesnt perform, especially if you have been talking it up.
What the QED mob need to do is get an independent tester (or an independent witness) to go to the test bed in the GT, test the machine and publish the results alone. Then others can test their own machines and compare results for themselves.
Anyway I do hope the QED performs as there certainly is a need for another mid priced detector.
We know Minelab tends to fudge the depth charts a little but (besides not publishing comparisons vs other brands) they have a proven track record.
People who have bought the machine, those that have a dislike for Minelab or friends of the manufacturer will already have a slight bias as they WANT it to perform well. They are not independent enough to have reliable results. Lets face it, if you have forked out a cpl of grand you are not going to admit to buying something that doesnt perform, especially if you have been talking it up.
What the QED mob need to do is get an independent tester (or an independent witness) to go to the test bed in the GT, test the machine and publish the results alone. Then others can test their own machines and compare results for themselves.
Anyway I do hope the QED performs as there certainly is a need for another mid priced detector.
Steelpat & all , Time will tell all. but the PPL in the tests appear to be independent. I cannot believe that the PPL in this test were "bought", how much $$$ do you think a startup has? these PPL brought their own detector and would obviously not allow others to tell them how to run them except some settings to make them run smoothly on that bit of ground. but if Others want to believe that all of these people are in "bought" that is their prerogative.
Araratgold - I would imagine the settings stated were used because A. most users in the G.T run those settings B. the ground would not allow detector to be managable with other settings. Also i don't know about you but if all the machines are using 12inch coil i would assume that settings should be suited towards small-mid size gold , but either way you would want to use settings that maximise your range of targets.. these settings seem to follow this...
It would be good to know what gain/more specific settings were used. Unfortunately we cannot judge the competency of the gpz user.
I own a GPZ, a QED and F1a4 and i'm just going to test them out with inground targets, starting this weekend. i suggest others do the same what may be a winner for some is not a winner for others.
Araratgold - I would imagine the settings stated were used because A. most users in the G.T run those settings B. the ground would not allow detector to be managable with other settings. Also i don't know about you but if all the machines are using 12inch coil i would assume that settings should be suited towards small-mid size gold , but either way you would want to use settings that maximise your range of targets.. these settings seem to follow this...
It would be good to know what gain/more specific settings were used. Unfortunately we cannot judge the competency of the gpz user.
I own a GPZ, a QED and F1a4 and i'm just going to test them out with inground targets, starting this weekend. i suggest others do the same what may be a winner for some is not a winner for others.
Eski said:
Never said they were bought. Most of the reports seem to come from those that are not fans of Minelab or have an axe to grind. For some reason there seems to be a bit of the tall poppy syndrome happening within some of the prospecting community.
As for the GPZ settings - those are not the settings I used to run in the GT. They are comparing average Zed settings with the QED being used by the developer. Pretty sure he would be using the best settings possible not just settings 'most users would use'.
As I said I hope the detector works well but I would like a bit of honesty when it comes to the results.
- Joined
- Sep 4, 2014
- Messages
- 8,936
- Reaction score
- 6,782
Regardless of what brand releases a new machine somehow it always comes round to comparing them to ML machines, When comparing them to ML PI's that never ends well and many a newcomer has had to eat humble pie, But within the VLF market ML has more to worry about, So there is a bit more room to move there,
No two users set their machines up the same, when testing a machine I try to set it at its peak performance and anything else I get from it is a bonus,
John.
No two users set their machines up the same, when testing a machine I try to set it at its peak performance and anything else I get from it is a bonus,
John.
Hey Steelpat, Agree you never said they were bought - just an expression... I know one of the testers in there and he would not have backed off and he certainly does not have an axe to grind. but i can't vouch for all of them. Then again they all had minelab machines so i don't see how they have an axe to grind.
I like my zed... i would not have backed off , i would have wanted to smash the other machines. but that is me...
I won't make any assumption, but i will rely on my own tests.
I agree with you about honesty.
I like my zed... i would not have backed off , i would have wanted to smash the other machines. but that is me...
I won't make any assumption, but i will rely on my own tests.
I agree with you about honesty.
When Minelab release a new machine it gets compared to other Minelabs & bitched about. Why would a different brand be any different :lol:Ridge Runner said:
