Menu
What's new
Find's Treasure Forums

Welcome to Find's Treasure Forums, Guests!

You are viewing this forums as a guest which limits you to read only status.

Only registered members may post stories, questions, classifieds, reply to other posts, contact other members using built in messaging and use many other features found on these forums.

Why not register and join us today? It's free! (We don't share your email addresses with anyone.) We keep email addresses of our users to protect them and others from bad people posting things they shouldn't.

Click here to register!

Need Support Help?

Cannot log in?, click here to have new password emailed to you

C.SCOPE CS6PI vs. GoldQuestSS

A

Anonymous

Guest
From this forum it would seem that the GostQuest SS is the PI detector of preference but how does it compare in performance to Eric Foster's PI design for C.SCOPE the CS6PI?
Has anyone here tried both?
 
I dont have a goldquest,but I do have a CS-6. ON a scale of 0 to 10.CS-6 rates about 1/8 compared to a goldquest.
There has ben a fue bad CS-6 dumped in the US.I have the misfortune of gett-ing one.
If you have a good CS-6. It can be modified to go as deep as a goldquest,with miner side effects.
Frank.
 
Hi Mark,
I have tried and compared the CS6 and Eric's Beachscan, which I have modified to the sensitivity of the GQ. In fact, I refer to my modded BS as a GQ clone.
Now, to answer your question, the CS is a decent machine but still didn't compare to the Beachscan, let alone the GQ, sensitivity wise.
Reg
 
Thanks for the input - 1/8 of the performance sounds like you've got a real lemon there - I doubt they're all as bad but it does give cause for thought
I've also been looking at the CS7UMD which appears to be a waterproof version - Does anyone know if its performance is any better than the CS6PI?
 
Mark,
Do a search on this forum for "CS6PI" and see the answer to your question by Eric Foster, the person who designed the CS6PI.
If my memory serves me, I think the CS6PI only goes down to a 17 or 18 uS delay while the CS7UMD goes down to 15 uS. This is due to the fact that the CS7UMD uses a microprocessor to control pulse timing while the CS6PI uses a 555 timer chip. Also, the search coil needs to be shielded when it goes below 15uS. So even if you could change the timing of the CS6PI or CS7UMD, the search coil needs to be changed to a shielded type to avoid the effect of the ground creating instability.
bbsailor
 
Both the CS6PI and CS7UMD have shielded coils. However, the winding and shielding methods are not designed to work at less than 15uS. Too much inductance and shielding not precisely spaced from the winding.
Eric.
 
Hi Mark,
I have owned and used both machines and I very much prefer the Cscope 6pi as it seems a lot more stable than the Goldquest, also the 6pi has on board charging a great asset. The 6pi is quite a lot cheaper to buy in the uk
Build quality is superb I have had mine for three years used it in all weathers and it never fails.
George
 
I judge a detector by depth and amount of finds and I find the 6pi superior in both of these.
George
 
Thanks George - I really like your unequivocal answer.
One important point though - Did you use the GoldQuest for long enough to get a fair comparison on its relative performance?
What you say about the CSPI is really encouraging - especially as I've got my eye set on the waterproof version the CS7UMD which I understand is even more sensitive. (the only criticism I've heard are that the headphones aren't up to much, also some doubts about C.Scope component quality but I guess any manufacture can have trouble with the odd component - as long as the company backs up their gear I'll take that risk.)
Many thanks <img src="/metal/html/smile.gif" border=0 width=15 height=15 alt=":)">
 
Tony, you commented earlier about a 'desensitised threshold' - I don't know what you meant by that. I guess you were implying that 'a machine that doesn't work is more stable than one that does'(?)
Have you owned and compared both first hand or is that a partisan opinion from a satisfied GQ owner?
 
Tony,
I agree with your sentiments - but a great difficulty for buyers of detectors is finding out and sorting out the actual facts and figures from the hype.
Your previous comment suggests that you actually KNOW the FACTS and FIGURES... Wow!!! If you have comparative facts and figures can you post them please?
 
Hi Mark,
Sorry I wasn't more thorough in my explanation of my opinion of the GS and the CS 6.
I have owned both the CS 6 and the Beachscan and have compared the two. I have also modified the BS into a GQ so I have a reasonably good idea of how the GQ and the CS would compare. Now, that was done quite some time ago so things are not as clear as they used to be but I will try to explain the differences a litte better, which might help.
First, I found the CS to be a quiet and stable PI. When compared, the Beachscan was more sensitive to smaller gold objects, which what what I was looking for. However, I saw little difference on overall depth between the two machines when using a US nickel as a target. The Beachscan seemed to be a little more sensitive, but not by much to coin size objects. The difference was more obvious on small gold items, which was what I was looking for. This is where the GQ excels over the Beachscan also.
The Beachscan, and the GQ will be more ground sensitive, or saltwater sensitive than the CS 6 due to the shorter delay. This will make them appear to be more unstable than the CS 6, simply because they will have thresholds that will change by a greater amount due to wave action.
So, it is quite possible for the CS to appear more stable, especially at a saltwater beach. However, what is really happening is displaying the difference in sensitivity due to a shorter delay and possibly differences in circuitry gain.
One other thing I did notice was I got some strange responses on the CS 6 due to certain weeds as they brushed against the CS coil. Obviously, this happened when I was away from any water or beach. My initial guess was the coil was not shielded properly. However, after taking a CS coil apart, I am not sure just what was happening. The coil windings appeared to be fully shielded, but the shielding was extremely close to the windings also. This may have been the cause, but I don't know for sure. Anyway, I did notice there were differences in this area also.
It is quite possible that the CS 6 will be more than enough PI for many applications. However, since I was looking for a PI that was more sensitive to very small gold objects, I felt the BS or the GQ were the better choice for me.
Reg
 
As luck would have it, I have tried both, as there was a fellow over here from the UK and he had brought along his CS6PI. We happened to meet on a busy local beach last summer.
Our testing showed the GQSS (10uS) to be significantly deeper on his gold wedding band that he provided.
I have tried many different PI detector's, some of which purr away nice and quiet, but are not all that sensitive to some gold targets. They are usually operating at delays between 15uS - 20uS, and some have their threshold artificially smoothed out, which takes care of those little humps in the threshold....something I don't want. <img src="/metal/html/smile.gif" border=0 width=15 height=15 alt=":)"> <img src="/metal/html/smile.gif" border=0 width=15 height=15 alt=":)"> <img src="/metal/html/smile.gif" border=0 width=15 height=15 alt=":)">
 
Mark...truthfully, have you already purchased the CS6PI <img src="/metal/html/wink.gif" border=0 width=15 height=15 alt=";)">
 
No - I'm more persuaded by the CS7UMD but either way I'd really like to know about these 'actual facts' you'd 'like potential buters to know,' <img src="/metal/html/confused.gif" border=0 width=15 height=22 alt=":?">
 
Reg, Thank you for your detailed reply <img src="/metal/html/smile.gif" border=0 width=15 height=15 alt=":)"> I imagine most users are keen on sensitivity to gold so that is a huge plus for the GQ ... The CS7UMD is waterproof to 75m (250 feet) and for an underwater machine really good value - I've been tempted by the thought of waterproofing a GQ but with the time and cost involved in doing it I think the C.scope starts to make very good sense. Of course when the new Eric Foster machine comes on the market my choice would probably be very different.
 
Hi Mark,
Yes I tried the Goldquest for 2 months detecting about 4 days per week alternating with the 6pi.
Each time the results spoke for themselves I found many more quality items with the 6pi.
I have tried the 7pi a good detector very sensitve but as I dont go into the water I will stick with my 6pi.
George
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top