White's Official Audio Volume Fix

[Brett]

You understand, of course, that free updates don't pay our wages. If, at some point in the future, we build a detector that is user-updateable, we will need to follow some kind of software model where you pay for updates, and least of the non-bug-fix variety. And the update firmware you get would be keyed to your detector. That said, would folks still be interested?

- Carl

Just look at what Apple does with the iPhone and iPod Touch. Major updates are free on the iPhone because you are paying through the nose monthly for phone service, which I'm sure Apple is getting a cut of. But the iPod Touch users have to pay a nominal fee for the upgrade. Obviously most of your updates would be minor bug fixes and tweaks like the Audio Issue, and those should be free. I suppose with a detector like the V3, a lot could be done in software to create new user experiences with new features... but these would all still be limited by the hardware in certain aspects. Updates like that could be charged a fee, but for a $1500 detector they shouldn't be any more than $50 to $100. Any more than that and it better be really adding something useful. Actually I'm not really sure on the price, but if done right you could generate more revenue than you might when just updating a detector and trying to get users to buy a whole new detector. Video game models come to mind too, like The Sims and Guitar Hero, where they are constantly releasing new cheaper add-ons for them while they are developing the next Major release. One such update for the V3 could be an audio update, where the entire tone set is changed so that it sounds more like an E-Trac or more like a Fisher... or whatever. I know this is all just hypothetical, but I would definitely be interested in paying for a useful update rather than having to shell out another $1000+ dollars. If this became a reality, you'd probably devote a team of engineers to these updates, while the main team pushed the technology further in the background.

 

[steve herschbach]

Hi,

I agree with Brett. Bug fixes should be free. But if a new feature is activated just offer it at a price, and it is up to me to buy it or not. What you can charge for it would be determined by how compelling the feature is.

In theory you guys could offer a dumbed down base unit. Say a 7.5 kHz only version with a simple pre-programmed coin mode. Then instead of me buying new hardware, I simply go online and purchase the option to upgrade to 3 frequency or whatever.

This might seem unusual to people but I've seen it elsewhere. Like 10HP and 15HP outboards. They are the same motor, with a slightly different carb and exhaust. Same cost to produce at the factory. But the dealer pays more for the 15HP and sells it for more. You are not buying the hardware - you are buying the horsepower.

Or I buy a computer with Linux or the same computer with Windows. Same hardware but different operating systems, and different cost to me.

Steve Herschbach

 

[lytle78]

Detector makers have a product to sell. What you will pay for it depends - to some extent - on what value your think you will receive. A well know Australian company charges 5k for their gold detecting PI and about 1.5k for a very similar mine detector.

Whites is an American small business - trying to stay in business by making a profit, They are being very up front about this new machine in spite of the various factors which would push a company in that position to hide as much as possible about how their magic machines work. Others grind off id numbers on IC's and paint their boards - not to mention give all the controls weird names so that you can't figure out how they really work. On the v3 you can "design your own detector" because so many operating parameters are user variable and labeled by what they really are and really do.

Where else is it possible to exchange ideas with the engineering manager of a major player in the detector market?

Three cheers for Whites. I am struggling with my V3 because I've never had a knob-less machine before and the noises are all a bit strange to me, but I'll hang in there because I am so cranked about this emerging business model and this latest evolution of the Whites platform.

25 years of purchasing experience have taught me that you always pay for what you get - but you don't always get what you pay for, My dealer got a nice margin because he has no email competition, so maybe he'll survive this depression as well. That's a good thing because we'd all be poorer with out him and the other dedicated enthusiasts who try and make a living out if this odd hobby.

I like it.

 

[Carl-NC]

As an end-user myself, I also like the idea of easy updates. However, White's, like probably every other detector manufacturer, is not especially warm to the idea of easy software updates. Our market is so small compared to other software-related markets that what obviously works well for say, Microsoft or Apple, would completely destroy us. But I would like to see if we can come up with a solution that works both for us and the customers. We'll discuss this some more.

A couple of quick True Stories...

Many (many) moons ago I bought a brand new 2400bps modem that was touted as being "the last modem you will ever buy." It was firmware-upgradeable and the company would have free(!) firmware downloads. There was never a single upgrade. The company said that moving beyond 2400bps required a whole new modulation scheme, which required new hardware. So it was not the last modem I ever bought.

Many (but fewer) moons ago I bought a new 1.2 megapixel digital camera, a bargain (at the time) at $250. It came with a 16MB card that held a whopping 34 pics. I immediately tried to buy a 32MB card for extra capacity but the camera was unable to use any card larger than 16MB. A mere 2 weeks later it was announced that the exact same camera (at the same price) had upgraded firmware to use larger cards. So I contacted the company, explained that I JUST BOUGHT my camera, and asked if I could get it upgraded. Sure, for an additional $100. Eh, no thanks.

Any particular reason I posted these stories? Of course there is. 1) Even the best intentions can be derailed by unforeseen realities. 2) Pay attention to the companies that bend over backwards to keep you satisfied.

- Carl

 

[Brett]

Well stated Carl and Rick.

 

[goodmore]

One time I bought a Prizm Metal Detector and waited what seemed a very long time for a smaller coil. Through communication on the forums with Whites a great coil was indeed manufactured. Sometimes the customers do know what they want. Sometimes.

 

[Carl-NC]

"Sometimes the customers do know what they want. Sometimes."

We try our best to work off customer feedback. Problem with V's volume is that all of our field testers consisted of old geezers who were half-deaf to begin with, including me. In the future, I'll avoid choosing people who commonly say "what's that sonny?" and "you young whippersnappers" and other tomfoolery. Also folks who eat vittles.

- Carl

 

[Ray-Mo.]

n/t

 

[Brett]

I can understand that Carl, and was thinking along those lines when it was stated only a small percentage of the V3 customers had a problem with the volume. What I don't understand is why couldn't the software just allow you to change the lower volume limit to 0? Why only a 20dB reduction in the lower limit? There's gotta be some complicated reason why, because right on the surface it seems very doable with a detector that lets you change just about everything else.

 

[Carl-NC]

In software, the volume control is held in a 5-bit word. Ergo the reason it (now) goes from 38 to 69. We could have added another bit or two and increased the range that way, but then it creates the problem of transferring programs between V's with different software (one with a 5-bit volume and the other with e.g. 6 bits). We intend to address this in the future with a smart data transfer that converts between old & new software versions, but in the interest of a quick fix I didn't want our programmers to tackle that now.

- Carl

 

[alric]

Rick and Carl,

Well stated again. Rick is correct... where else can you openly exchange ideas with the people who create best-of-breed products like White's detectors???

Carl, Bob, AK, and everyone else from White's who routinely participates in this forum.... Thank you for being involved. Just my humble opinion, but your participation is going above and beyond... even for a small market like the American metal detector market.

 

[goodmore]

I really like being able to talk to Carl & the folks at Whites. I hope that Whites realizes what there team does for them. I really don't see myself going on line for my company. I'm just happy when the boss leaves me alone.

 

[Brett]

In software, the volume control is held in a 5-bit word. Ergo the reason it (now) goes from 38 to 69. We could have added another bit or two and increased the range that way, but then it creates the problem of transferring programs between V's with different software (one with a 5-bit volume and the other with e.g. 6 bits). We intend to address this in the future with a smart data transfer that converts between old & new software versions, but in the interest of a quick fix I didn't want our programmers to tackle that now.

- Carl

Carl,

I appreciate the info, and can now understand why the fix has been implemented the way it was. I know they say hindsight is 20/20... and while I might think 8 bits in the beginning would have been a better choice, I'm thinking there also has to be a logical reason why it was limited to 5 bits in the first place. For example, if a digital potentiometer in the headphones or something like that only had 5 bits of resolution to play with. I can't imagine the volume was reduced to 5 bits just to keep the data transfer shorter, or to optimize your non-volatile and volatile memory spaces.

Again, you don't even have to have this conversation with us, but you are and I totally appreciate that. It's really very awexome. Thank you!

 

[ak_1234]

Ah heck. Nevermind. Gotta wait till I can double check what I really did.

 

[ak_1234]

Carl......Will this fix lower the volume through the headphone jack, for those not using wireless? THANKS Dave

OK, checked. The wired headphones are a little different than the wireless headphones. There was a reason for this that I'm not willing to go into here. But here is what is done:
1) The target volume range for all audio devices has been lowered to run from 38-69 rather than 48-69.
2) The wired headphones and speaker are still in 1dB steps (so 38 really is 38 in the volume control and 54 really is 54 in the volume control) No change in how they are adjusted.
3) The wireless headphones are adjusted in 2dB steps. So, a setting of 38 really is 7 (which is very quiet), 39 is 9, ...

All other audio settings are what they say - so a threshold of 23 really is 23.

The target volume is not only limited by the user setting, but it is also required to be 8 above the threshold setting (for reasons other than volume). So, if you have the target volume set to 38 (which is really 7 in the volume control for wireless headphones) and the threshold is set to 23, the target volume will not be 7, but 31. The threshold limit will override the target volume setting if it is higher than the target volume.

Just for fun, here is the conversion chart.
target volume setting (wireless) real volume setting (wireless)
38 7
39 9
40 11
41 13
42 15
43 17
44 19
45 21
46 23
47 25
48 27
49 29
50 31
51 33
52 35
53 37
54 39
55 41
56 43
57 45
58 47
59 49
60 51
61 53
62 55
63 57
64 59
65 61
66 63
67 65
68 67
69 69

 

[ak_1234]

(It removed my spaces in the columns. So the second column of numbers should be under the title "real volume setting (wireless). )

 

[Brett]

Thanks AK, that seems plenty acceptable for a fix to the wireless volume issue.

The whole 8 above threshold is kind of boggling my mind right now though. Does that mean the minimum audio response will always be about 5dB above the threshold volume? I think I'd have to play with it to know what really going on.... I'm trying to apply Gain and different targets strengths into the equation to get the "whole picture" and I'm not "seeing it".

Is there a hardware limitation for the 5 bits of resolution though? (not for the fix, but for the first gen units)

 

[ak_1234]

No hardware limitation. Just how things were implemented. It's not even a software limitation - the limitation is on keeping the program transfer compatible with a fix that had to be done quickly. The range could have been opened up more, but then the transfer would have been incompatible.

There is a need to have the target volume louder than the threshold (rejected targets make the audio go quieter, and if the target volume was quieter than the threshold, this would get awfully confusing for accepted targets. I suppose it could have been turned around so that good targets made the audio go quieter, and the rejected targets get louder, but I think history is too powerful in this case). So since the threshold could get set clear to 42, the separation was set to 6 between minimum target volume and maximum threshold which made the target volume 48. Nobody indicated this as a problem during testing which is unfortunate. And hindsight is 20/20 vision. Wish we had implemented it the way I now have it, but what is, is.

And because the target volume needs to be louder than the threshold, the target volume will always be set louder than the threshold - either the user setting is loud enough, or the software will override the user setting and force it to be 8dB higher.

For example if you have a target volume set to 59 and a threshold set to 23, the target volume will be 59, and the threshold will be 23 - everything was compatible. If, however, you set the target volume to 38 and the threshold to 42, the software will override the target volume setting so that the target volume is 50 = 8 more than the threshold volume of 42.

 

[JimDE]

Man, not only do our V3's give us a load of information to work with the guys at White's do too! You guy's and products are the best! Thanks

 

[davidtn]

What date is the manufacturing cutoff date that the new V3's have this change already made?

Thanks Carl!