Questions about prices and certain functions

[Theecstasyofold]

Hi there,

Melbournian here. Long time lurker on PA and watcher of Youtube prospecting videos.

Have only been out prospecting a few times, but am now looking to purchase a ML model.

Sincere questions, if you don't mind.

1. The SDC 2300 has been out on the market for many years now. Why is it priced at the $4000-4400 (AUD) range (for new ones)? What does it cost ML to manufacture?
2. Tied to the first question, are later iterations of the 2300, such that it makes it worthwhile to invest in the latest model, rather than get an older one (ignoring warranty considerations for now)?
3. Why are the GPX 6000 and GPZ 7000 priced so high? Is it simply a function of demand? What does each cost ML to manufacture?
4. Why can't ML make these machines with visual response, rather than audio noises, and/or with a buzzing function that let's the user know when some threshold response/target has been detected? Additionally, is there no way for ML to alter the sound to make it more pleasant?

Not looking for a general discussion about ML or other companies, the way things are these days, etc. Please, I'm just looking for specific answers to these questions.

Thank you. Looking forward to your responses.

 

[grubstake]

How would you ever imagine that anybody here or elsewhere can answer questions about what it costs Minelab to manufacture their products? There are no 'specific answers' to such questions, especially bearing in mind that such costs include a multitude of unknowable costs of doing business that go way beyond the basic componentry used.

 

[Theecstasyofold]

Well, for one thing, certain people associated with the company occasionally post(ed) here...

Funnily enough, moreover, in spite of your claim of there being a multitude of unknowable costs, the machine prices have nevertheless seemed to have remained fairly stable over considerable time horizons... But if you don't want to be helpful, that's your prerogative.

 

[grubstake]

4. Why can't ML make these machines with visual response, rather than audio noises

That one has a very simple answer. Any serious prospector will tell you that the only time they look at the control panel is if a setting needs checking or adjusting. Audio sounds are probably more than 95% of what is required for effective, efficient prospecting. Some excellent machines used to have no screen at all, however nowadays customers expect complex electronic devices to look as much as possible like their smartphones, so detectors cop vulnerable LCD screens full of illegibly tiny icons.

 

[Theecstasyofold]

So, something like (effective, workable) Google glasses that only displayed relevant data wouldn't be a dramatic improvement over the way serious prospectors have worked before (relying predominantly on sound)?

Regardless, what about altering the kind of sound produced?

 

[Aries]

"Why can't ML make these machines with visual response, rather than audio noises, and/or with a buzzing function that let's the user know when some threshold response/target has been detected? Additionally, is there no way for ML to alter the sound to make it more pleasant?"

FFS sometimes it may be more important to look where you are going than looking at a screen.

 

[Theecstasyofold]

That can be done with more pleasant sounds and/or a buzzing function, FFS...

 

[Aries]

If you owned a detector you would know that on most you can change pitch, volume or even invert the high/low but I won't go into why you would do this as with your know all attitude you are unlikely to ever get to hear a big low high whoop.

 

[Theecstasyofold]

Aries, why are you wasting both of our time responding to me?

 

[grubstake]

Theecstayofold: Regardless, what about altering the kind of sound produced?

I'd assume that altering the kind of sound produced is possible. If you're familiar with some of Minelab's past treasure detectors, the computer-generated beeps and chimes in response to varying targets are remarkable.

But when you're seeking gold, any such audio modification to the sound of a target, risks losing the very small changes in audio level typically produced by tiny or deep nuggets. Experienced prospectors want to get as close as possible to hearing just the actual sound of their threshold setting, so that they can pick up the slightest possible repeatable variation in it. Audio bells and whistles are irrelevant for prospecting use.

 

[Aries]

I was being helpful, saving you from being bitten by a snake or falling down a mineshaft while you where looking at your visual display.
Don't know why I bothered, knock yourself out.

 

[Aries]

You were the one coming on here pestering people with your preconceived ideas for metal detecting when you have never done it?
Learn to be a bit more humble and you may get some advice on how to do it.

 

[Theecstasyofold]

Hmmm, looks like someone moderated/cut my last reply to you from this thread...

I asked sincere questions, which anyone can read above in the original post. From the outset, you responded rudely. I challenged Grubstake's claims about market prices (an empirical claim, which hasn't been met yet), and asked about future tech.

All you've demonstrated, in turn, is that you don't know how to read well, eg about the meaning of 'and/or', about whether I've ever detected before or not, etc.

You've also added nothing of value here. Can you not control yourself to just stop replying?

 

[XLOOX]

Older BFO & VLF metal detectors had a VCO ( go look it up yourself) to interpret the analogue signal ( modulate it from the detectors mostly ultrasonic frequency to an audible one & amplify the miniscule amplitude) .

The VCO sound provides the user WAY more info in a rapidly intelligible way than any display could, especially when you are watching the ground to not trip over stuff. Modern detectors try to digitally emulate a VCO. If you dont like that "noise" then bad luck.

Justifying MLs cost is simple - people are willing to pay it. The "real" manufacturing cost is almost irrelevant. Could they halve the price & still make a profit - probably but why should they?

Also I have to say you get zero credit for watching youtube prospecting videos unless they are from esteemed members of PA

I can make it simple for you :

1) If you can afford a 6000 buy it - nothing, but NOTHING will currently find you more bits of gold ( note I didnt say total weight).

2) If you cant afford a 6000 then buy a 5000 or an SDC. You will find 1/3- 1/5th of the number of nuggets a 6000 will find.

3) If you cant afford a SDC then buy an Equinox 800/900 but be prepared that it will simply not work at all in some of the best spots due to mineralisation and you will find 1/20th to 1/100th of the nuggets a 6000 will find.

4) If you cant afford a NOX then forget it, A Vanquish wont handle mineralisation

5) As far as the sound goes you are going to have to suck it up - Close your eyes & use the Force !. Even if you had a Manticore or V3i with graphical display you are not going to look at it until your ears tell you you have a target.

 

[Hippyty79]

Here’s one with visual response

 

[Theecstasyofold]

Older BFO & VLF metal detectors had a VCO ( go look it up yourself) to interpret the analogue signal ( modulate it from the detectors mostly ultrasonic frequency to an audible one & amplify the miniscule amplitude) .

The VCO sound provides the user WAY more info in a rapidly intelligible way than any display could, especially when you are watching the ground to not trip over stuff. Modern detectors try to digitally emulate a VCO. If you dont like that "noise" then bad luck.

Justifying MLs cost is simple - people are willing to pay it. The "real" manufacturing cost is almost irrelevant. Could they halve the price & still make a profit - probably but why should they?

Also I have to say you get zero credit for watching youtube prospecting videos unless they are from esteemed members of PA

I can make it simple for you :

1) If you can afford a 6000 buy it - nothing, but NOTHING will currently find you more bits of gold ( note I didnt say total weight).

2) If you cant afford a 6000 then buy a 5000 or an SDC. You will find 1/3- 1/5th of the number of nuggets a 6000 will find.

3) If you cant afford a SDC then buy an Equinox 800/900 but be prepared that it will simply not work at all in some of the best spots due to mineralisation and you will find 1/20th to 1/100th of the nuggets a 6000 will find.

4) If you cant afford a NOX then forget it, A Vanquish wont handle mineralisation

5) As far as the sound goes you are going to have to suck it up - Close your eyes & use the Force !. Even if you had a Manticore or V3i with graphical display you are not going to look at it until your ears tell you you have a target.

Thanks. That's very helpful.

Do you have info about earlier versus later models of the 2300, 6000, or 7000 (if there are any) and, if so, whether that should influence someone's decision in terms of buying (particular) used ones?

 

[XLOOX]

7000 - no direct experience, just mates, but a generally solid build, no distinguishing earlier model I know of.

6000 - suffers quality issues both coil & box. Earlier ones more so but even current ones are not perfect. read the PA posts. Just have to decide if risk is worth it. Plenty of us that swore they would wait until bugs ironed out have ended getting one now as we watched our mates out gun us 3 to 1. I wouldnt buy a used 6000 unless it was from my grandmother as anyone who is moving it is prob doing it because it is faulty.

2300 - Electronically & physically no diff from launch to now - same rugged box & stable electronics. headphone jack, shaft locks & knuckle might be worn in older units. "new" model is just the old one but comes with knuckle protector & lithium battery. The Li-ion just drops in where the C cells went so you can buy an old 2300 and put in a new lithium battery.

 

[user 4485]

7000 - no direct experience, just mates, but a generally solid build, no distinguishing earlier model I know of.

6000 - suffers quality issues both coil & box. Earlier ones more so but even current ones are not perfect. read the PA posts. Just have to decide if risk is worth it. Plenty of us that swore they would wait until bugs ironed out have ended getting one now as we watched our mates out gun us 3 to 1. I wouldnt buy a used 6000 unless it was from my grandmother as anyone who is moving it is prob doing it because it is faulty.

2300 - Electronically & physically no diff from launch to now - same rugged box & stable electronics. headphone jack, shaft locks & knuckle might be worn in older units. "new" model is just the old one but comes with knuckle protector & lithium battery. The Li-ion just drops in where the C cells went so you can buy an old 2300 and put in a new lithium battery.

Just to add to the above.
Both the GPZ7000 & GPX6000 are able to have software updated by users, although there are currently no updates for the GPX6000 & a few for the GPZ7000.
Basically if you can find a lightly used or well looked after GPX6 or GPZ then you can update any existing or future software improvements yourself (if not done by the previous owner).
If looking at an older used GPX6000 I would at the least make sure it's been updated with the "Speaker Update" which needs returning to an authorised dealer repairer or Minelab themselves. They should also get a check over when this is done (newer models are sold with it & can be checked with Minelab via serial number).
As for Minelab pricing, nobody is happy about their cost but there is no denying that they are the gold prospecting benchmark. People fall over themselves to pay for them for good reason.
Minelab also invest a large amount of money into R&D of future detectors. New releases are slow & generally these days consist of more "bells & whistles"; like ease of operation, user interface screens, wifi/Bluetooth, rather than raw outright performance.
To my knowledge there are no current announcements (usually made in half/yearly ASX reports) of any new prospecting detectors.

 

[PhaseTech]

Visual vs Audio responses.

A visual response is easy on a coin machine (if you use conservative settings) because it is generally silent and goes beep when you go over a coin.

On a gold detector, unfortunately the days of 3 gram nuggets sitting on the surface are long gone. What we are looking for these days is smaller and deeper, and less responsive gold like reef gold or complex species. As a result detectors need to be more and more sensitive, and the audio needs to be less filtered in order to generate any kind of response on these pieces. What this means is that we are no longer presented with a nice stable threshold. (GPZ7000 in High Smoothing is an exception).

The threshold talks to you, and often a signal response is a little blip in amongst the chatter which is a very slight tone change, and only just repeatable. Sometimes it isn't even really a signal, it just peaks its head up enough to temporarily smooth the threshold out. Your ears are much more sensitive to these kind of subtle changes than your eyes. If you were only looking at the waveform coming out of your detector, I think you would walk over half the targets.

 

[Greg_wilson]

Price - years of R&D, tooling, field testing, training, marketing, shipping and on and on and on to what is relatively a limited market, sometimes I wonder why they don’t cost more. After all they can pay for themselves reasonably quickly with the price of gold at the moment.

Sound Vs Audio - 1. If it ain’t broke don’t fix it!
2. Its hard enough interpreting audio responses in mineralised ground. Throw in emi, hot rocks, junk and every other minute thing that can elicit a response. Imagine trying to interpret visual! look at an Oscilloscope screen.