Some info on aptX-LL headphones, the EQX, and pairing issues cropping up recently...

[sgoss66]

Hello all!


There has been quite a bit of chatter lately, regarding Miccus/Trond BT-80 headphones -- which have ALWAYS worked well with the Equinox -- but have recently been giving Equinox users problems, specifically with pairing. There has been some confusion as to whether or not the issue is the headphones, or the new version 2.0 firmware update with the Equinox, or some combination, and so I've been doing quite a bit of research into this -- including speaking with the specific factories that actually produce the BT-80 headphones (but which are then re-labelled by Trond/Miccus/Minelab).


Here is what I am fairly certain of, at this point...


1. The Equinox is not compatible with Bluetooth 5.0.


2. Equinox ML-80 headphones (which are actually a re-labelled BT-80 headphone), utilize Bluetooth version 4.1.


3. The Miccus XR-71 Stealth headphones (which are actually a re-labelled BT-80 headphone) USED to be Bluetooth 4.1 (and worked very well with the Equinox), but have been upgraded to Bluetooth 5.0, and so the newer sets of these headphones are NO LONGER COMPATIBLE with the Equinox (I will verify this in the next few days, as I now have Ziggy-Grimm's set of 5.0 Miccus SR-71 headphones in hand, that I will be testing shortly). Ziggy-Grimm tried to use this set of Miccus phones on his Equinox and they would not pair (I am testing, to verify that it is indeed the headphones that are the issue).


4. The Trond TD-BH01 headphones (which are actually a re-labelled BT-80 headphone) USED to be Bluetooth 4.2 (and worked very well with the Equinox). However, I have Ziggy-Grimms' set of Trond headphones in hand, that he purchased recently, and would NOT pair with an Equinox (I am testing to verify that it is indeed the headphones that are the issue).


5. Ziggy-Grimm spoke with Trond, about the pairing issue, and was told by Trond that the new Trond TD-BH01 phones have upgraded to 5.0, but they haven't upgraded the enclosed spec sheet yet (which still shows 4.2 Bluetooth).

With all of this said, I am looking into the possibility of placing an order for a large number of BT-80 headphones, built to the same spec as Minelab's BT-80/ML-80 headphones, including the aptX low-latency codec, and Bluetooth version 4.1. As Miccus and Trond move to the Bluetooth 5.0 standard, thus making newer sets of the headphones incompatible with the Equinox, this would allow me to offer BT-80 aptX low-latency headphones, identical to the ML-80, through Steve's Detector Rods. This would assure that with these headphones, there would be no more "uncertainty" as to how to purchase an aftermarket BT-80 that is aptX low-latency, and that will ABSOLUTELY pair/function correctly with the Equinox.

I will make more information available as I work through this process; I have purchased a sample set to verify the specs, prior to placing a larger order for these headphones (the sample set will be en route to me next week). If you would possibly be interested in this "project" I am working on, please send me a message and let me know, and I'll then keep you posted as to whether or not I will be able to begin supplying these headphones as an option for EQX users.


Thanks!


Steve
Steve's Detector Rods

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Family Maps of Hinds County, Mississippi, Deluxe Edition - Grab it through Amazon!

[tabman]

I wonder if Minelab could do an update to correct this problem? It's a shame that the Equinox will only work on older technology. There are a lot of advantages to the newer Bluetooth 5.0.

tabman

 

[sgoss66]

tabman,

I am not sure if there is much impetus for Minelab to do so, or not; the current ML80 (BT-80) headphones are 4.1, so they would have to upgrade the headphones AND the Equinox, and I'm not sure if they would want to do so, or not...

Yes, there ARE advantages to Bluetooth 5.0, but most of the advantages, as far as I can tell, would not be realized in the specific application of connecting headphones to a metal detector...so not sure if it would be cost effective for Minelab to do harware upgrades on the the headphones, and the machine...

Steve​

​

 

[MidTN]

Steve,

Thank you for researching this issue. I have purchased each set of headphones listed in your post and neither set would pair with my 600. I contacted Minelab service center and it appears they are not aware of this problem.

 

[sgoss66]

MidTN -- I an working on this issue, as I noted. I'll keep you in the loop. One question -- how old is your EQX (i.e. when did you purchase it), and what version of firmware are you running on it?

Thanks!

Steve

 

[MidTN]

MidTN -- I an working on this issue, as I noted. I'll keep you in the loop. One question -- how old is your EQX (i.e. when did you purchase it), and what version of firmware are you running on it?

Thanks!

Steve

I purchased my 600 about a month ago. I'm currently running the upgraded 2.0, version. I've tried to pair my machine using the factory 1.75, as well as the 2.0, version. No luck with either.

 

[McKinney_5900]

I purchased my 600 about a month ago. I'm currently running the upgraded 2.0, version. I've tried to pair my machine using the factory 1.75, as well as the 2.0, version. No luck with either.

Has anybody tried the original SW Ver 1.50 to pair?

 

[sgoss66]

Thanks, MidTN. Good to know.

McKinney_5900 -- I don't know if this answers your question, but I have a set of BT80 headphones (not Trond or Miccus, but a different company that ran out of stock of them about a year ago and isn't selling them anymore). I first paired these, with no issues, to my 800, about 22 months ago. Later, I upgraded my Minelab from v1.5 firmware, to 1.75, and the headphones continued to pair just fine. Then, this summer, I upgraded to 2.0 firmware, and the headphones CONTINUED to pair with my Equinox, no problem.

Steve

 

[sgoss66]

OK, everyone, here's an update.

I spoke with a guy on another forum who was having issues pairing a Trond TD-BH01 set, to his Equinox 600. We talked through the pairing process, and lo and behold, they paired properly, no issues. I also tested both sets of "BT80" headphones today, that were sent to me by Ziggy-Grimm (the Miccus and Trond sets, that would not pair with his Equinox 600). Interestingly, BOTH SETS paired with my Equinox 800 running version 2.0 firmware -- with zero issues, and both sounded great.

I am going to purchase one of Ziggy's sets (the Miccus ones) to keep as a spare, and then I am going to send the Trond set back to him. I believe he is going to attempt pairing them again, and see what happens. I'm going to include the exact process I used for pairing, below, so that it may help a few others.

Clearly, the SIMPLEST answer here, for all of these headphone pairing issues, is that the issues may possibly boil down to some slight mistake in the pairing process being used by various folks. I am not sure this explains the issue entirely, but -- I'd encourage anyone who is having issues to try ONE MORE TIME, using the following process specifically...


1. Turn on the Equinox. Once it has booted up...

2. Press the "wireless" button on the right-hand side of the control box, and HOLD IT IN, until you hear two beeps, then release...

3. Turn on the headphones to be paired BY HOLDING DOWN ON THE POWER BUTTON UNTIL they enter pairing mode (lights flashing alternately blue/red)…

4. Then, WAIT. The Equinox initially, when in "pairing mode," searches for the WM-08 module FIRST. It's not until at least 15 seconds later, when the Equinox does not FIND a WM-08, that it then begins looking for a Bluetooth device to pair to.

5. After 15 to 30 seconds (but perhaps a bit longer), the machine should "see" the headphones, and pairing should occur.

ONCE they have paired, the process will not take as long in subsequent pairing attempts, as the machine "stores" the information about what device it was last "paired to," and it preferentially looks for that device as soon as you turn the machine one. After that initial pairing, all you need to do is turn on the machine, wait for it to boot, and then turn on the headphones. Do NOT press the wireless button on the Equinox, and do NOT hold down the power button on the headphones. Just turn on the Equinox, wait for it to power up, and then turn on the headphones. Pairing should occur in a very short time (a few seconds).

The ONLY time you should have to go through the pairing process again (press and hold the wireless button on the machine, and then press and hold the power button on the headphones) is when a). pairing a NEW device to the machine (different from the prior device you paired), or b). after doing a factory reset.

OTHERWISE, the "pairing" process (after the initial pairing procedure) should happen automatically...

Anyone who has had pairing issues, please try these steps. If anyone STILL has issues with pairing, after using this process, PLEASE report back here, so I can continue to follow up on this issue.

Thanks!

Steve​

 

[Murphy]

So does this mean that the Equinox is perhaps compatible with Bluetooth 5.0?

 

[sgoss66]

Murphy -- yes, it would appear that way. I cannot verify for CERTAIN that a 5.0 Bluetooth set would pair on ALL Equinoxes (though it should be the case), but I CAN verify for sure that a set of 5.0 Miccus phones paired flawlessly on my 800, running 2.0 firmware. I think that at least SOME of the pairing issues that have been occurring lately, are simply minor mistakes some folks make in the pairing process. I posted the pairing process, SO THAT if anyone follows that process, and STILL can't pair their headphones, I really hope they will post here. This is the only way, for all of us, that this issue can be entirely sorted out. If anyone still can't get their headphones to pair, I am more than happy to get on the phone with them, and step them through it, to see if we can get it to work (and IF NOT, that might point to an actual ISSUE, as opposed to just a pairing process mistake). I did speak to someone from another forum on the phone yesterday, on this very issue. They could not get their Trond phones to pair, but we stepped through the process, and lo and behold, they paired.

I am more than happy to help anyone out with this, because I REALLY want to get to the bottom of it all, and see if there IS any systemic issues with headphones not pairing with some Equinoxes, OR if it is ENTIRELY just minor mistakes being made by EQX users during that initial pairing PROCESS.

Steve

 

[MidTN]

Murphy -- yes, it would appear that way. I cannot verify for CERTAIN that a 5.0 Bluetooth set would pair on ALL Equinoxes (though it should be the case), but I CAN verify for sure that a set of 5.0 Miccus phones paired flawlessly on my 800, running 2.0 firmware. I think that at least SOME of the pairing issues that have been occurring lately, are simply minor mistakes some folks make in the pairing process. I posted the pairing process, SO THAT if anyone follows that process, and STILL can't pair their headphones, I really hope they will post here. This is the only way, for all of us, that this issue can be entirely sorted out. If anyone still can't get their headphones to pair, I am more than happy to get on the phone with them, and step them through it, to see if we can get it to work (and IF NOT, that might point to an actual ISSUE, as opposed to just a pairing process mistake). I did speak to someone from another forum on the phone yesterday, on this very issue. They could not get their Trond phones to pair, but we stepped through the process, and lo and behold, they paired.

I am more than happy to help anyone out with this, because I REALLY want to get to the bottom of it all, and see if there IS any systemic issues with headphones not pairing with some Equinoxes, OR if it is ENTIRELY just minor mistakes being made by EQX users during that initial pairing PROCESS.

Steve

Thanks for the information. I found a WM-08 on Ebay at a very good price and it works perfect.

 

[sgoss66]

MidTN -- good to hear. Glad you found a solution, that works for you!

Steve

 

[pulltabfelix]

2. Equinox ML-80 headphones (which are actually a re-labelled BT-80 headphone), utilize Bluetooth version 4.1.
3. The Miccus XR-71 Stealth headphones (which are actually a re-labelled BT-80 headphone)

I assume he meant SR-71 not XR-71.

if this is true, and I trust Steve why do my SR-71 sound better than the ML-80's when both are wired to my 800?

or is it just me wanting them to sound better. Seems like the SR-71's have less bass sounding than the ML-80.

for now I just use the SR-71 with the WM-08 module and am ok with that setup.

the Miccus customer support guy two months ago did not have an answer why the SR-71's were incompatible with the 800.

 

[vferrari]

2. Equinox ML-80 headphones (which are actually a re-labelled BT-80 headphone), utilize Bluetooth version 4.1.
3. The Miccus XR-71 Stealth headphones (which are actually a re-labelled BT-80 headphone)

I assume he meant SR-71 not XR-71.

if this is true, and I trust Steve why do my SR-71 sound better than the ML-80's when both are wired to my 800?

or is it just me wanting them to sound better. Seems like the SR-71's have less bass sounding than the ML-80.

for now I just use the SR-71 with the WM-08 module and am ok with that setup.

the Miccus customer support guy two months ago did not have an answer why the SR-71's were incompatible with the 800.

I have both the Miccus clones and the ML MD-80 phones, and the ML phones do sound more muddy than than the Miccus clones for some reason. Perhaps the driver components themselves are of different (cheaper?) than used in the Miccus phones. Who knows.

So does this mean that the Equinox is perhaps compatible with Bluetooth 5.0?

I can also confirm that I have successfully paired two different types of of BT 5.0 APTX-LL phones with the Equinox.

 

[sgoss66]

2. Equinox ML-80 headphones (which are actually a re-labelled BT-80 headphone), utilize Bluetooth version 4.1.

3. The Miccus XR-71 Stealth headphones (which are actually a re-labelled BT-80 headphone)

I assume he meant SR-71 not XR-71.

if this is true, and I trust Steve why do my SR-71 sound better than the ML-80's when both are wired to my 800?

or is it just me wanting them to sound better. Seems like the SR-71's have less bass sounding than the ML-80.

for now I just use the SR-71 with the WM-08 module and am ok with that setup.

the Miccus customer support guy two months ago did not have an answer why the SR-71's were incompatible with the 800.

I have both the Miccus clones and the ML MD-80 phones, and the ML phones do sound more muddy than than the Miccus clones for some reason. Perhaps the driver components themselves are of different (cheaper?) than used in the Miccus phones. Who knows.

I can also confirm that I have successfully paired two different types of of BT 5.0 APTX-LL phones with the Equinox.

Thanks for the confirmation of BT 5.0 pairing with the Equinox, vferrari.

pulltabfelix -- first of all, YES -- that was a typo! SR-71, not XR.

Second, yes, you (and vferrari) are noting something that I noticed very clearly, as well. The ML80 phones definitely sound "muddier" (vferrari used that word, and it's exactly the same word I have used before to describe the ML80 vs. other BT80 versions); another way to describe, perhaps, is that the Minelab phones tend toward more "bass" sound, as you put it, Felix. I totally agree.

Kind of a unique story, to support this. About a month after I got my Equinox (I got it mid Feb. 2018, first batch), I was detecting, and I accidentally set my headphones on my truck bed cover after the hunt, while packing away my gear. I forgot, and drove off -- and thus lost the headphones somewhere. I did NOT want to pay $150 for another set of ML80 (and if I recally correctly, Minelab didn't even HAVE any spare sets at that point, since all were going to meeting EQX demand). So, I started my research into the whole aptX, low latency, etc. -- trying to find an aftermarket set that would work. This is when I learned about the "BT80" thing, and actually was able to track them down to a few factories in China that produce a "BT80" headphone. Anyway, I purchased a set of "BT80" (from a company called Octane Wireless, the headphone model was called "Omega One," but they are no longer selling them). So, I have used these ever since. They are what I am used to.

Then, later, I bought a 600. It stays at my Mom's house, in PA, to use when I fly in for a weekend or whatever, and can't bring all my gear (like I can when I drive in). Meanwhile, I had purchased a slightly used set of ML80 Minelab phones to go with it. So, last April, I used that 600 in PA for the first time (along with the ML80s). Since I had been using the Omega One BT80 for over a year, I IMMEDIATELY noticed that they ML80 "sounded wrong." Muddy, bassy...so much so that I thought there was something wrong with them. I later tried another set of ML80, just to compare, and they sounded exactly like the other -- muddy, bassy...I don't like the sound at all. So, I bought a couple more pairs of BT80 (Miccus, etc.) and keep the ML80s just as a "spare" set. I don't like them at all. Getting used to the "aftermarket" BT80 for a year, and THEN using an ML80, it was a very stark contrast, in sound. So, I can agree with both of you (felix and vferrari) entirely, on the sound being much worse, on the ML80.

To answer your question, Felix, on WHY the ML80 (a BT80) sounds different (worse) than, say, a Miccus BT80 -- I suspect it is what vferrari said. Here's the deal -- if you wanted to sell a "BT80" headphone, what you'd do is give yourself a company name, say "FelixPhones." Then, you'd contact one of the few factories in China that produce a BT80. You'd give them any "tweaks" to the basic "BT80" specs that you might want -- what chipset you wanted to use, what codecs you wanted to be supported (aptX...aptX low-latency...) etc. You might tell them a different way you'd like the buttons arranged on the phones, or the LED lights, and maybe a few other options (a more "bass-sounding" version, for instance), and then -- you'd ask them to do a production run for you. You'd pick the color you wanted the outer case to be, you'd ask them to put YOUR company logo on them (FelixPhones), your "model number" (a "Felix1," for instance), and finally, what you would like your box/package to look like. From there, you are in business!

But the point is, while you would now be selling a "BT80" headphone, but called "The Felix1 headphone, by FelixPhones company," YOUR BT80 (while VERY similar to all the others) would be slightly different -- since you chose a few specific options/specs. Your phones would have some minor differences from the Miccus ones, or the Trond ones, or the Omega One version. The BASIC headphone -- most of the components, the basic outer "shell," etc., would be the same, but you will have picked a few options that the factory allowed you to specify, that make yours just a bit different than some others.

That's pretty much the story, and that's why a Minelab "BT80" might sound more "bassy," the Trond version has "track skip" buttons, another "brand" (I forget the name) offers them in aptX but NOT low-latency, etc.

Make sense?

Steve​

 

[Dan(NM)]

I bought my first Equinox in Feb 2018, I had been using a set of Killer B's on my CTX and after the first time using the ML-80, I sold them. The sound quality absolutely sucked(sounded muffled) compared to what I was used to. I ended up buying a set of the Miccus SR-71, better, but, no where near what I was used to. I bought a set of Soundbeats Q-12's(earbuds)used them until I started carrying the WM08. I use a set of $9 Panasonic wired earbuds with the wire under my shirt to keep it out of the way. I tried a set of Tronds, I cannot remember which model, but, I could not for the life of me get them to pair.

 

[tabman]

For those of you who have used both the Miccus SR-71 and Trond TD-BH01, which do you prefer and why? Are there better options for over the ear wireless headphones? I've been using the Ausdom AH3 and they work well for me, but I need some backups.

tabman

 

[MidTN]

Thanks for the confirmation of BT 5.0 pairing with the Equinox, vferrari.

pulltabfelix -- first of all, YES -- that was a typo! SR-71, not XR.

Second, yes, you (and vferrari) are noting something that I noticed very clearly, as well. The ML80 phones definitely sound "muddier" (vferrari used that word, and it's exactly the same word I have used before to describe the ML80 vs. other BT80 versions); another way to describe, perhaps, is that the Minelab phones tend toward more "bass" sound, as you put it, Felix. I totally agree.

Kind of a unique story, to support this. About a month after I got my Equinox (I got it mid Feb. 2018, first batch), I was detecting, and I accidentally set my headphones on my truck bed cover after the hunt, while packing away my gear. I forgot, and drove off -- and thus lost the headphones somewhere. I did NOT want to pay $150 for another set of ML80 (and if I recally correctly, Minelab didn't even HAVE any spare sets at that point, since all were going to meeting EQX demand). So, I started my research into the whole aptX, low latency, etc. -- trying to find an aftermarket set that would work. This is when I learned about the "BT80" thing, and actually was able to track them down to a few factories in China that produce a "BT80" headphone. Anyway, I purchased a set of "BT80" (from a company called Octane Wireless, the headphone model was called "Omega One," but they are no longer selling them). So, I have used these ever since. They are what I am used to.

Then, later, I bought a 600. It stays at my Mom's house, in PA, to use when I fly in for a weekend or whatever, and can't bring all my gear (like I can when I drive in). Meanwhile, I had purchased a slightly used set of ML80 Minelab phones to go with it. So, last April, I used that 600 in PA for the first time (along with the ML80s). Since I had been using the Omega One BT80 for over a year, I IMMEDIATELY noticed that they ML80 "sounded wrong." Muddy, bassy...so much so that I thought there was something wrong with them. I later tried another set of ML80, just to compare, and they sounded exactly like the other -- muddy, bassy...I don't like the sound at all. So, I bought a couple more pairs of BT80 (Miccus, etc.) and keep the ML80s just as a "spare" set. I don't like them at all. Getting used to the "aftermarket" BT80 for a year, and THEN using an ML80, it was a very stark contrast, in sound. So, I can agree with both of you (felix and vferrari) entirely, on the sound being much worse, on the ML80.

To answer your question, Felix, on WHY the ML80 (a BT80) sounds different (worse) than, say, a Miccus BT80 -- I suspect it is what vferrari said. Here's the deal -- if you wanted to sell a "BT80" headphone, what you'd do is give yourself a company name, say "FelixPhones." Then, you'd contact one of the few factories in China that produce a BT80. You'd give them any "tweaks" to the basic "BT80" specs that you might want -- what chipset you wanted to use, what codecs you wanted to be supported (aptX...aptX low-latency...) etc. You might tell them a different way you'd like the buttons arranged on the phones, or the LED lights, and maybe a few other options (a more "bass-sounding" version, for instance), and then -- you'd ask them to do a production run for you. You'd pick the color you wanted the outer case to be, you'd ask them to put YOUR company logo on them (FelixPhones), your "model number" (a "Felix1," for instance), and finally, what you would like your box/package to look like. From there, you are in business!

But the point is, while you would now be selling a "BT80" headphone, but called "The Felix1 headphone, by FelixPhones company," YOUR BT80 (while VERY similar to all the others) would be slightly different -- since you chose a few specific options/specs. Your phones would have some minor differences from the Miccus ones, or the Trond ones, or the Omega One version. The BASIC headphone -- most of the components, the basic outer "shell," etc., would be the same, but you will have picked a few options that the factory allowed you to specify, that make yours just a bit different than some others.

That's pretty much the story, and that's why a Minelab "BT80" might sound more "bassy," the Trond version has "track skip" buttons, another "brand" (I forget the name) offers them in aptX but NOT low-latency, etc.

Make sense?

Steve​

Clear as mud. LOL!!

 

[sgoss66]

Clear as mud. LOL!!

Sorry, MidTN, if I was confusing! Anything in particular I can clear up a bit, maybe? I can perhaps be a bit long-winded, and excessively detailed, at times, possibly...

Steve