Z-Link or Bluetooth?

Ace400 · Jan 26, 2017

I was waiting and waiting for the Z-Lynk... But then for some reason, the day it came out I finally decided to see what I could do on BangGood (since radio shack closed I had to find a new place for my electronic bits, turns out they sell EVERYTHING). Got a wireless transmitter for $8.99 and the 1/8" f to 1/4" m adapter for another .79¢. That will work with my bluetooth headsets. But I decided to compare apples to apples and spent another $7.89 on a receiver and switched the adapter to a $1.99 4 pack of 2 going each way, which will allow me to use the Garrett headphones that came with my detector.

So for under $20 (or under $10 to connect directly to a bluetooth headset) I have a wireless setup for my detector!

Yes, they say that the Z-Lynk is 6 times faster than bluetooth... Is that why it costs 6 times as much? :laughing:

And really, we're talking fractions of a second here. It's still going to make a sound. I'm still going to reverse my swing to try to hit it again. I'm still going to crisscross and pinpoint real targets enough to locate them properly. So honestly, I don't see where the increased, but still minuscule lag, is going to make any noticeable difference. I'll know for sure in a couple of weeks when it arrives and I will report back.

MrNovice · Jan 26, 2017

Bluetooth lags. There are better option (low latency) bluetooth devices that cost quite a bit more than just "standard" bluetooth. The Z-Lynk is supposed to be 6 times faster than any fastest option out now, not just high lag regular bluetooth. Search the forum for "bluetooth" and you will see some viable options from members that have worked and other brands members have been disapointed with.

The cost for the Z-Lynk is quite high (IMO), but it is the best out currently and you will have to pay that premium if you want it. Keep in mind you are also paying for top end internal rechargable batteries as well, which run 30 hours between charges so that is quite a selling point.

Ace400 · Jan 26, 2017

As I said, I don't think the few extra milliseconds of lag will make a noticeable difference. So if the difference is not something that is noticeable, is it really worth 6 times the cost to do the same exact thing?

I looked at other threads, was about to move this to a comment in one and ask that this thread be deleted but then I saw your comment here and switched it back to the original post (that I already moved here because it seemed to offend one of the sponsors when I posted it as a comment elsewhere). Others results seemed positive.

MrNovice · Jan 26, 2017

Ace400 said:
As I said, I don't think the few extra milliseconds of lag will make a noticeable difference. So if the difference is not something that is noticeable, is it really worth 6 times the cost to do the same exact thing? , it could be as mich as

I looked at other threads, was about to move this to a comment in one and ask that this thread be deleted but then I saw your comment here and switched it back to the original post (that I already moved here because it seemed to offend one of the sponsors when I posted it as a comment elsewhere). Others results seemed positive.

Depending on which bluetooth you choose, it's not milliseconds we are talking about. It could be as much as 3-4 seconds for cheaper bluetooth options. Depending on application of the bluetooth is highly dependant on what kind of lag is experienced. The reason they started making low latency specific, was to sync up video with audio when watching media wirelessly. That is quite a lag to cover, more than just a few milliseconds.

Honestly, I hope it works for you and let us know because I'm looking into a solution myself without having to pay the Z-Lynk premium. I wouldn't knock it though, it's reasonably priced for what it can do via adaptability to many detectors and battery charge. There is nothing out like it right now.

Bluetooth 5 was just released in December, promising even faster speeds/data transmission. So it is getting faster every day.

Ace400 · Jan 26, 2017

MrNovice said:
Depending on which bluetooth you choose, it's not milliseconds we are talking about. It could be as much as 3-4 seconds for cheaper bluetooth options.

3-4 second latency? Nothing that slow would be usable for anything! Even my oldest bluetooth devices back when the technology was first released didn't have that kind of lag.

From this thread, "...There is no delay or at least none that I can tell..."
https://metaldetectingforum.com/showthread.php?t=240486&highlight=bluetooth

Certainly worth a shot for under 20 bucks. Obviously not expecting it to be as great as the $127 Garrett, but I can buy 8 sets of transmitters and receivers for that much $. That would give me 7 back-up units if I happen to break or drown one, not to mention double the battery life of the Z-Lynk (8 units @ 5-7 hours each).

As a sidebar, the thing that turned me off to the Z-Lynk is everything using the same microUSB connector. Where are you going to put the receiver that you aren't putting stress on that connection? Probably have to be careful about mounting the transmitter too, and hope you don't catch the wire on anything. We all know from experience at this point that that's the part that is going to fail.

Like I said, I'm hoping it works, I'll know in a couple of weeks. If it doesn't, I'll probably get the Z-Lynk... But I'm confident I will dig up enough change testing out the el-cheapo setup that it will pay for it's self either way.

MrNovice · Jan 26, 2017

Ace400 said:
3-4 second latency? Nothing that slow would be usable for anything! Even my oldest bluetooth devices back when the technology was first released didn't have that kind of lag.

From this thread, "...There is no delay or at least none that I can tell..."
https://metaldetectingforum.com/showthread.php?t=240486&highlight=bluetooth

Certainly worth a shot for under 20 bucks. Obviously not expecting it to be as great as the $127 Garrett, but I can buy 8 sets of transmitters and receivers for that much $. That would give me 7 back-up units if I happen to break or drown one, not to mention double the battery life of the Z-Lynk (8 units @ 5-7 hours each).

As a sidebar, the thing that turned me off to the Z-Lynk is everything using the same microUSB connector. Where are you going to put the receiver that you aren't putting stress on that connection? Probably have to be careful about mounting the transmitter too, and hope you don't catch the wire on anything. We all know from experience at this point that that's the part that is going to fail.

Like I said, I'm hoping it works, I'll know in a couple of weeks. If it doesn't, I'll probably get the Z-Lynk... But I'm confident I will dig up enough change testing out the el-cheapo setup that it will pay for it's self either way.

Bluetooth is used for ANY wireless data transmission. If I'm listening to a podcast or an audio book, I don't care if it's through Bluetooth 1.0 because the lag doesn't matter. But with that low data rate, you're sacrificing sound and speed because there is not large enough bandwith or fast data transmission.

About the time Bluetooth 3.0 came out, they started addressing the lag with more people wanting to wirelessly listen to video media. AptX was a low latency codex that reduced the lag. So it's not only about having a fast bluetooth technology, but also about the software and how it packages/unpacks that data. AptX Low Latency devices for example, are 6 times faster than just the plain higher end AptX codex devices. That's quite a difference in just those 2 very close examples.

Just do your research and make sure both the trasmitter and reciever can use both the same technology, so they pair up best they can. If they are not matched, then there is a bottleneck and they default to the slower. Many options, many technologies and many codex to work through.

detectingMO · Jan 26, 2017

bluetooth ~ 250ms lag - way too much delay for detecting
bluetooth 4.0 (aptx) ~ 100-150ms lag - not ideal for detecting but some can cope
bluetooth 4.1 (aptx low latency) ~ 35-50ms lag - great for detecting

Transmitter and receiver have to support the same low latency method.

Garrett is using proprietary PurePath Wireless. ~17ms lag

There is Kleer and many other 2.4Ghz band frequency hopping Piconet technologies. They all operate on the same basic principle but differ greatly in efficiency and encoding.

For more detailed FCC information on Garrett's Z-lynk go here and search:
Applicant name = Garrett (filings dated 1/13/17)
https://apps.fcc.gov/oetcf/eas/reports/GenericSearch.cfm

Ace400 · Jan 26, 2017

So it looks like at worst it's a 2 tenth of a second delay? And that's too much? Methinks not. It's not like I'm watching a video and will be annoyed if the sound doesn't sync up perfectly with the video. Plus, that's the worst case scenario with antique technology, pretty sure that's not what I just bought.

Not interested in who is using what proprietary technology in their devices, none of that affects me in any way nor has any bearing on my (already made and paid for) decision. They can have unicorn poop and fairy dust inside for all I care as long as it gets the job done.

As for doing my research, that ended yesterday when I made the purchase, seems counter-productive to do it after.

Nope, all that's left to do now is try it out when it gets here. Maybe check to see if the receiver works any faster than my motorola headset, maybe not.

woodbutcher · Jan 27, 2017

Ace400 said:
So it looks like at worst it's a 2 tenth of a second delay? And that's too much? Methinks not. It's not like I'm watching a video and will be annoyed if the sound doesn't sync up perfectly with the video. Plus, that's the worst case scenario with antique technology, pretty sure that's not what I just bought.

Not interested in who is using what proprietary technology in their devices, none of that affects me in any way nor has any bearing on my (already made and paid for) decision. They can have unicorn poop and fairy dust inside for all I care as long as it gets the job done.

You sound like your ranting about something,and I just can't figure it out,but you asked for help on these new wireless systems from Garrett.
And a well known sponsor who has great info gives you the answers to your question,and you brush it aside like it's worthless information?Anyhow,good luck on your purchase,but try to be a little more courteous to the ones who try to help,wether it helps you or not.

cellrdwellr · Jan 27, 2017

I've tried a few different Bluetooth set ups (just to experiment) and one had a lag so bad I couldn't even pinpoint a target correctly. The delay was too major. It seems in life , you get what you pay for usually. GL & HH!

Reef Runner · Jan 27, 2017

woodbutcher said:
You sound like your ranting about something,and I just can't figure it out,but you asked for help on these new wireless systems from Garrett.
And a well known sponsor who has great info gives you the answers to your question,and you brush it aside like it's worthless information?Anyhow,good luck on your purchase,but try to be a little more courteous to the ones who try to help,wether it helps you or not.

Indeed ! +1

Ace400 · Jan 27, 2017

woodbutcher said:
You sound like your ranting about something,and I just can't figure it out,but you asked for help on these new wireless systems from Garrett.
And a well known sponsor who has great info gives you the answers to your question,and you brush it aside like it's worthless information?Anyhow,good luck on your purchase,but try to be a little more courteous to the ones who try to help,wether it helps you or not.

I was writing about a purchase I made, I never asked for help so I'm unclear as to what you're talking about?
I didn't brush aside anything DetectingMO was saying, in fact I specifically agreed with what they said. If he (or she) is right, I should be pretty thrilled with my purchase. I also found their low latency receiver/transmitter comment reassuring, having splurged the extra 8 bucks for the receiver that will operate on the same whatsis as the transmitter I got.

Reef Runner · Jan 27, 2017

I'm still confused. What is it that you purchased, and what is it that you are bashing ?
:?:

matmit · Jan 27, 2017

I guess we need to wait and see how many excellent finds you make with your $20 setup :yes:

Reef Runner · Jan 27, 2017

matmit said:
I guess we need to wait and see how many excellent finds you make with your $20 setup

He he he ! :laughing:

MrNovice · Jan 27, 2017

He was dogging on the Z-Lynk for it costing $130, comparing that he "figured out" (in this case = copied) another different option from another thread some members were already using. :roll:

The Z-Lynk still does everything it claims against all other options, is it a neccesity...no. Is it worth the cost, if you're willing to buy it, then...yes, it is. Are there many many other options available, sure. Are they as fast or as "good" as the Z-Lynk, no. Are they even good at all...depends on what you think "good" is? Some are very good. Depends on what you want technology wise and what you are willing to spend.

You should have just piggybacked off the thread you got the idea from and said something like "thanks, I'm going to try this!" instead of trying to bash technology you're not familiar with. Fairy dust and unicorn poop doesn't cut it when comparing technology.

Z-Link or Bluetooth?

Ace400

Full Member

MrNovice

Ace400

Full Member

MrNovice

Ace400

Full Member

MrNovice

detectingMO

Ace400

Full Member

woodbutcher

cellrdwellr

Elite Member

Reef Runner

Ace400

Full Member

Reef Runner

matmit

Elite Member

Reef Runner

MrNovice

Similar threads