FINDERS SUPERFIX, OUTPERFORMING GPX?

[Chuck T.]

FINDERS SUPERFIX for Minelab and GOLDSCAN 5B PI Detector

I've been anxiously watching the Forum members's take on Finders SUPER FIX unit. I'm still using my 'old' GP Etreme and the only gripes I have is mineralization and need to do the ground-ballance button upgrade.

It's been a few months since the first forum post on the Super Fix, what are the oppinions now ??

Also see that Mr. Foster's new GOLDSCAN 5B is out, this unit claims to compeat with the upper-end Minelabs, ignores mineralization and does'nt weigh hardly anything, compared to a Minelab.

Anyone tried this new mouse trap out yet ?

[arahi666]

Super fix is fantastic on the gp3500, I don't use it in superfix mode, I use it as a ground noise silencer in minelab mode you just flick the switch from one to the other, and it steadys the theshold in noisy ground ,just fantastic. If I had an earlier detector I would certainly add one to my shopping list. As for the 4000 it should do the same. Smooth is the key, and any gain in depth, sensitivity,power is got to be a bonus, and hopefully put you ahead of the field. Its always good finding something that someone just walked over . good luck with it if you have one...

Thanks arahi....

[Chuck T.]

Super fix is fantastic on the gp3500, I don't use it in superfix mode, I use it as a ground noise silencer in minelab mode you just flick the switch from one to the other, and it steadys the theshold in noisy ground ,just fantastic. If I had an earlier detector I would certainly add one to my shopping list. As for the 4000 it should do the same. Smooth is the key, and any gain in depth, sensitivity,power is got to be a bonus, and hopefully put you ahead of the field. Its always good finding something that someone just walked over . good luck with it if you have one...

Thanks arahi....

Hi Arahi,

I and others in my shoes appreciate your input. Looks like us nugget hunters have several new PI detector options on the horizon. independant field testing, comparrisons to the new Minelab GPX 4000 and pricing will determine my next investment.

Chuck T.

Boise, Idaho

[Goldman]

I have been gone for while in a health situation, but will finally be back in Phoenix next month. I have not kept up the this subject in awhile and just started reading forums again.

I would have to make an observation on this subject from a different propesctive, since I use Eric Foster's detectors. I t has been my observation in remarks thru years on Minelab, that their amplification section has always been a weak feature, take the model 2200 which almost had to have signal enhancer to work. Threshold has been an issue for years with Minelab all the way back to 1987.

It seems to me all of this has to do with correcting threshold to stability, as well as, improve amplification to hear a signal adequately. In a comparison, I have always had to turn down volume on my Foster detectors because it was to loud when hitting targets. The threshold has always been stable. Since Eric's main occupation is designing PI units for industry to measure thickness of objects for one application, he had very early learned to eliminate noise from signal or units would not perform properly. The question of threshold stability and adequate volume has never been an issue. Minelab has struggle for a great many years to accomplish this and I think finally with the GPX3000, finally approached that goal. It seems the Finders unit is still trying to improve, to me, what shouldn't be an issue anyhow. Since Reg post here, his comment would be intersting. This is not a "flame", but a technical discuss. I think few are familiar with this comparison, I have owned several Minelab's also, all modified for this reason. AND, the Minelab has found alot of gold! Don

[Chuck T.]

I have been gone for while in a health situation, but will finally be back in Phoenix next month. I have not kept up the this subject in awhile and just started reading forums again.

I would have to make an observation on this subject from a different propesctive, since I use Eric Foster's detectors. I t has been my observation in remarks thru years on Minelab, that their amplification section has always been a weak feature, take the model 2200 which almost had to have signal enhancer to work. Threshold has been an issue for years with Minelab all the way back to 1987.

It seems to me all of this has to do with correcting threshold to stability, as well as, improve amplification to hear a signal adequately. In a comparison, I have always had to turn down volume on my Foster detectors because it was to loud when hitting targets. The threshold has always been stable. Since Eric's main occupation is designing PI units for industry to measure thickness of objects for one application, he had very early learned to eliminate noise from signal or units would not perform properly. The question of threshold stability and adequate volume has never been an issue. Minelab has struggle for a great many years to accomplish this and I think finally with the GPX3000, finally approached that goal. It seems the Finders unit is still trying to improve, to me, what shouldn't be an issue anyhow. Since Reg post here, his comment would be intersting. This is not a "flame", but a technical discuss. I think few are familiar with this comparison, I have owned several Minelab's also, all modified for this reason. AND, the Minelab has found alot of gold! Don

Hi Don,

I aggree with your Minelab statements 100%, for the price, consumers deserved a much more stable machine and should'nt have to spend $ 1,000 on an aftermarket fix to correct stability problems.

I had never heard about Foster or other PI Detectors prior to doing many internet searches, which led me to become a forum member. The forums have been a great experience and have met with some really nice folks.

I'm pleased with my detectors depth, under 'ideal' conditions, sure would be great if we could return our GP Etremes and pay for upgrades that would take care of stabillity issues.

Bottom line, most of us serious nugget hunters just want the most bang for our buck and less hipe.

Sounding like there's several good options coming up in the near future, when they release the facts, I'll fork over my bucks for the top dog.

Thanks,

Chuck T.

[arahi666]

If you don't have noisy ground you can do without a superfix, over here in Oz ground noise can make you quit, pardon my french but it is a pain in the arse. If you're doing fine without one don't buy one, but if you have noisy situations to deal with or can't afford a new detector then buy one, It can be used on all SD & GP detectors.and it can reverse your low high signal which is also handy....

.....arahi.....

[Reg]

Hi Don,

I am not going to say much more than agree with you that ML has had some problems with their audio and stability in the past. Many of those problems have puzzled me as to why they occurred. Hopefully, the new GPX has corrected those problems.

Now, I suspect ML in correcting those problems is now processing the signal digitally so additional filtering can be done. Yes, it can sound just like regular analog and doesn't have to be just on or off type signal. The inherent design of a PI will generate a certain amount of noise no matter what. Since the new GPX seems to be void of that indicates some processing is being to to eliminate such noise.

The technique of minimizing noise is something that can be traced back to motion VLF discriminators. If anyone has ever used an older Fisher they had to notice the snaps crackles and pops along with the actual signals from targets. Now, use one of the other designs such as the Tesoro which is relatively quiet until a target is present, and it is easy to notice a distinct difference. Most of the subtle snaps crackles and pops are gone. To eliminate them required a remarkably simple circuit that worked really well. A similar technique could be used on a PI to minimize much of the noise. Personally, I think this is what Finders is basically doing in the Superfix, but this is a guess on my part. However, instead of a simple analog fix like that found on the VLf's, I suspect the Superfix is using a digital technique.

As for the Superfix itself, I am impressed that it works as well as it does. This shows some unique engineering involved to be able to take the outgoing signal from a detector and basically minimize the instability. As for the type of output signal on the Superfix, I think it was selected so it would be easy for a novice to tell the difference, but that is a guess on my part.

One who uses the Superfix should expect some quirks with it also. This is going to happen considering the signals that have to be processed. The device could be "intelligent" but not that intelligent that it could anticipate what to do.

So, I would expect some strange results at times. Remember, it is taking strange and often noisy results and trying to make sense out of them. That in itself is quite a feat.

Now, the fact the unit has different settings does make it more versatile.

Since the Superfix was part of the original Titan detector project, it is really too bad that detector was never produced. It could have turned out to be a real winner.

The bottom line is the Superfix appears to overcome or at least, minimize some of the problems associated with previous ML models.

Reg

[arahi666]

Pardon my ignorance--I have a GP-3000. How do I get Finder's Superfix? Does it come in a kit or must the detector be sent somewhere?

P. Al

Hi If you have a gp3000 and you are finding gold, you know your machine, and not having problems with ground noise, Don't bother. But if you are struggling with mineralization, not finding much, digging false holes, or hot rocks, and can afford it $1200 here in Oz. Buy it try it and if you don't like it sell it. It is a one off, there will not be a superfix 2...

To answer your question the superfix is an attachment that velcro's on the right hand side of your detector, I posted a photo titled Talbot weekend I think it was in november...

..arahi.....