Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'detector tech'.



More search options

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


Forums

  • Metal Detecting & Gold Prospecting Forums
    • Detector Prospector Forum
    • Metal Detecting For Coins & Relics
    • Metal Detecting For Jewelry
    • Metal Detecting For Meteorites
    • Gold Panning, Sluicing, Dredging, Drywashing, Etc
    • Rocks, Minerals, Gems & Geology
    • Metal Detecting & Prospecting Classifieds
  • Archive - Closed To Active Posting
    • Forum News
    • Amazing Finds
    • Gold & Treasure News
    • Research
    • General Questions
    • Metal Detector Advice, Reviews, & Comparisons
    • Metal Detector Technology
    • Fisher Gold Bug Metal Detector
    • Fisher Gold Bug 2 Metal Detector
    • Garrett ATX Metal Detector
    • Makro Racer Metal Detector
    • Minelab GPZ 7000 Metal Detector
    • Minelab GPX Metal Detectors
    • Minelab SDC 2300 Metal Detector
    • Minelab SD & GP Metal Detectors
    • Nokta FORS Metal Detectors
    • White's MX Sport Metal Detector
    • White's TDI Metal Detectors
    • XP DEUS Metal Detector
    • Other Metal Detectors
    • Pinpointers, Headphones, Harnesses, Scoops, and Other Accessories
    • ATVs, Vehicles, Trailers, Campers
    • Alaska
    • Arizona
    • California
    • Nevada
    • Other States
    • Australia
    • Other Countries
    • Miscellaneous

Categories

  • Catalogs & Brochures
  • Owners Manuals
  • Minelab CTX 3030 Programs
  • Spreadsheets

Calendars

  • Calendar

Found 88 results

  1. A common misperception among those new to metal detecting is that metal detectors can identify one metal from another. How much we wish that were true. The reality is that for all practical purposes the common metal detector target id scale is based on a combination of the conductive or ferrous properties of the item multiplied by the size and shape of the item. There are two common terms in use for this scale. The Target ID or TID scale is the most generic. White's also popularized the use of Visual Discrimination Indicator or VDI numbers. You will see references to both TID and VDI numbers and both refer to the same thing. The problem when you use Google is that TID also refers to Terminal ID number, which is for credit card machines. VDI gets far better results as the preferred term and so is what I will use from now on. The VDI scale is almost always arranged the same way by common convention although in theory it can be rearranged any way you want. The common scale has ferrous items on the low end and non-ferrous items on the high end. Ferrous items are like mirror images of non-ferrous items and so the most common arrangement of the VDI scale is with small items in the middle with ferrous getting larger in one direction and non-ferrous getting larger in the other direction. The ferrous and non-ferrous ranges actually overlap in the middle. Large Non-Ferrous Medium Non-Ferrous Small Non-Ferrous Tiny Ferrous/Non-Ferrous Overlap Small Ferrous Medium Ferrous Large Ferrous We can assign a numeric range to this basic VDI scale any way we want. Many early machines went with a 0 - 100 scale, with the ferrous compressed into the low end of the scale: 100 Large Non-Ferrous 50 Medium Non-Ferrous 20 Small Non-Ferrous 5 Tiny Ferrous/Non-Ferrous Overlap 3 Small Ferrous 1 Medium Ferrous 0 Large Ferrous The idea of ferrous as negative numbers made sense due to the mirror imaging in size between ferrous and non-ferrous. A very common White's scale runs from -95 to 0 to +95 95 Large Non-Ferrous 50 Medium Non-Ferrous 15 Small Non-Ferrous 0 Tiny Ferrous/Non-Ferrous Overlap -15 Small Ferrous - 20 Medium Ferrous - 40 Large Ferrous The "positive only" 0 - 100 VDI scale seems most popular these days with other manufacturers, but the scheme varies. Two very common setups are 0-40 ferrous and 41-99 non-ferrous OR 0-10 ferrous and 11-99 non-ferrous. But as I noted you can set this up any way you want and so other scales do exist. When we look at just the non-ferrous part of the scale, what is important is how the detector "sees" the target. In very simple terms conductive targets are either very weak or very strong or somewhere in between. Small items are weak targets. Low conductive metals are weak targets. Large items are strong targets. High conductive metals are strong targets. The shape matters. Irregular shapes or thin items are weak targets. Rounded and thick items are strong targets. On a conductive scale of 0 to 100: 0 = very small targets 100 = very large targets 0 = very thin targets 100 = very thick targets 0 = very low conductive metals 100 = very high conductive metals 0 = very irregular shaped targets 100 = very rounded targets, especially is a hole in the middle Add this all up and small gold items are low on the VDI scale and large gold items high on the scale. Silver being a better conductor than gold, a silver item will read higher on the scale than the identical size and shape gold item. In general silver will read higher than gold. However, a very large gold item can read higher than a very small silver item. Chasing thin hammered silver coins in the U.K., especially the cut varieties, is not that different than hunting gold nuggets. What you rapidly figure out is the metal detector VDI scale can only get repeatable results on certain man made items that are the same every time, like a U.S. nickel or a U.S. dime. And even these signals degrade when deep in the ground or in proximity to other items under the search coil at the same time. Given all the limitations, it is a wonder we get any degree of accuracy at all with detector discrimination systems. With that, I give you a standardized White's VDI scale taken directly from the control box of my White's DFX. This -95 to 0 to +95 scale is common on many modern White's detectors. Nearly all other detectors have the same relative positioning of items just with different numeric scales, an exception of note being the Fisher CZ detectors, which use a rearranged scale. This DFX scale is helpful because it includes gold coins. The main thing I want you to focus on here is the relative positioning of items on the scale. As a detectorist operating in the United States, I always pay attention to just three things 1. where do the ferrous numbers start? 2. where does a U.S. nickel read? and 3. where does a U.S. dime read? If I know those three things, I can adjust almost instantly to any detector scale in existence, because I know how everything else reads in relation to those three points on the scale. Looking at the scale you can use gold coins as a rough guide to where large gold nuggets will read, although coins being pure gold and round will read much better than gold nuggets of the same size. It might take a one pound gold nugget to read the same as a one ounce $20 gold coin, which in turn reads very close to the U.S. silver quarter reading. On the other end, tiny gold, tiny ferrous, and salt water, being a low conductive target, all overlap. This is why if you tune out salt water on the beach, you also tune out single post gold ear rings and thin gold chains, which read like small gold nuggets. If a prospector tunes out salt alkali readings on a salt lake, there go the small gold readings. And the chart shows that if you get too aggressive in rejecting all ferrous items, good items can be lost also. When I say small it is important to note what we are really talking about is small/weak readings. A large gold item buried very deep in mineralized ground will have a very weak reading and appear as a small target to the detector. This means a very deep large items can appear just like a very small gold item and be lost for the very same reasons as those small items. Again, think weak targets and strong targets to get a better feel for how things react in the field. To sum up, gold and platinum are low conductive metals, and when also small in size read very low on the VDI scale, even dipping into the ferrous range. The foil range is the sweet spot for ear rings, thin gold chains, small womens rings, and platinum items. In general women's gold rings will read below a U.S. nickel and men's gold rings will fall above a U.S. nickel on the VDI scale. Nearly all gold nuggets found by most people are going to read nickel and lower just because nearly all gold nuggets are small. However, as this photo I made using my DFX and some gold nuggets shows, gold nuggets can read all over the place due to their shape and purity. Surprisingly, if you add silver to gold the conductivity drops as alloys are less conductive than pure metals. This makes many gold jewelry items and gold nuggets far harder to detect than would be the case were they pure gold. See this article for details on this nugget photo Some Gold Nugget VDI Numbers You can get some great spreadsheets for jewelry VDI numbers for White's and Minelab detectors here. There are no doubt many people who have read this who are just shaking their head and thinking "this is why I just dig everything". I absolutely agree, when at all possible, that is the best solution. Unfortunately it simply is not possible in some locations where trash targets outnumber the good by thousands to one. This is where knowing the VDI scale and how it works can pay off. The best book ever written on the subject of discrimination is "Taking A Closer Look At Metal Detector Discrimination" by Robert C. Brockett. It is out of print but if you find a copy grab it, assuming the topic interests you.
  2. Note: thread was split from this previous thread Tone By TID Selection Option? Thanks for posting that reminder on the F44 Mike. I had forgot about it, and added the chart page to your post. To my mind for coin and jewelry detecting I simply have no interest in owning machines that do not allow me to customize tone ranges and tones. My current stable of coin/jewelry machines are the White's DFX, Minelab CTX, Nokta Impact, and XP DEUS, and all four offer this capability (the ability to cusomize tone ranges and tones) in one form or another. It really is a killer feature on the F44 at such a low price, only $349 these days. If all I could have is one detector and had to buy a new one under $400 I have no doubt the F44 is what I would end up with. Funny that it gets so little interest on the forums but I guess that reflects the fact most of us tend to be using higher end product. This is a case where Fisher may have sold more by pricing it higher! People may snicker at that but there are sound sales reasons for why that may be true. Look at what you get in a Gold Bug Pro and you would think it should be $349 and the F44 should be $649.
  3. A lot of detectors let you notch out (silence) a target identification (TID) band but are there any that let you choose which tone (audio frequency) to assign to a band?
  4. For background on electrical interference in VLF detectors here is a great essay on electrical interference by Dave Johnson of First Texas Products. You can also find a more detailed discussion that includes PI detectors in section 2.1 of this Minelab document by Bruce Candy. OK, so I am bench testing my new Teknetics G2 at home recently. The 19 kHz models are renowned for being immune to EMI (ElectroMagnetic Interference). No electrical interference ever (well, almost never) even at highest gain levels. As a rule, the lower the frequency, the more issues you have with EMI. It is especially bad under 10 kHz. DEUS owners may see significant EMI at 4 kHz, only a little at 8 kHz, and none at 12 and 18 kHz. Another reason why manufacturers favor mid frequency over low frequency detectors these days. I have been bench testing detectors in my house for years so think I know the EMI levels. No issues with previous 19 kHz units like the Gold Bug Pro and F19. Yet this new G2 chatters like crazy! I fire off an email to First Texas asking if some change I was unaware of. Nope. And could not be a bad coil because both coils I have did it. Then on another go I noticed the EMI was bad on one end of house but not the other. I walk around and the detector leads me to a new LED bulb I installed recently. This thing is pumping out 19 kHz EMI like crazy! Not long ago I installed a number of these cheap LED bulbs in my house. https://www.amazon.com/Feit-Electric-Replacement-CEOM60-927/dp/B01BJ0Y1MC Looks like my mission to upgade my house to all LED just ran into a snag! More on LED bulb interference - https://www.google.com/search?num=30&q=led+bulb+electrical+interference&oq=led+bulb+electrical+interference Just shows how more and more we are surrounded by new forms of electrical interference to make life harder for detector engineers.
  5. For over a decade I've ask for one small feature to a good detector. Say for instance on the Fisher F75 detector or another machine of comparable abilities. Add a two tone function in the motion all metal mode. Nothing fancy, just one tone for ferrous and another for non-ferrous. Being a computer programmer for several years I can't imagine this would be very difficult. Now on the F75, while in motion all metal mode the machine gives better depth and also gives an ID for detected metal objects. So since nothing is really needed except assigning a tone to the ID number scheme why is it so hard to acquire a unit with that feature. I know the V3i has a feature similar, but it lacks the depth capability of the F75 in my ground. Now I've ask again. I'll check back in another decade.
  6. The "holy grail" of metal detecting has been a detector that can offer VLF type discrimination to PI detector depth. Many years ago I put it as "a White's MXT that can detect as deep as a Minelab GP". I once offered $10,000 for such a detector, back when it seemed ludicrous to think detectors would ever reach such a high price. We have had a lot of progress in the last 30 years on sheer depth of detection, but really not much at all when it comes to how deep a target can be detected and identified with decent accuracy. When it comes to accurate target id at depth multi frequency units set the standard for performance in all soil types. The Fisher CZ and Minelab Sovereign both came out in 1991, and in my opinion other than refinements nothing has really changed since then when it comes down to the classic question of "how deep can you detect and correctly identify a U.S. dime?" For single frequency detectors my old Compass Gold Scanner Pro back in 1989 punched as deep on a dime as anything made today. We need some sort of real breakthrough. What this would really mean is a machine that handles and eliminates ground better to deliver depth as close to air tests as is possible while retaining good discrimination. The long rumored (since 2015) Fisher CZX promises "groundbreaking technology" in the form of a two frequency detector that is "deeper than current VLF, this detector will also see through red dirt, and highly mineralized soil." For even longer we have known about the White's Half Sine Patent that states "A new hybrid metal detector combines induction balance and pulse induction technologies. Target signals are generated from a transmitted wave that has both induction balance and pulse current inducing characteristics and uses pertinent sampling of the receive data. Combining the two data sources provides eddy current target identification while excluding ground permeability and remanence obscuration." Now, the Fisher price target was said to be in the $1000 - $2000 range. Frankly, that seems way too low for something that would knock the industry on its ear if it came to pass, but it may be we are all assuming the CZX to be more than it really is. The talk is mainly about being simple and handling bad ground well, but how well it can identify targets at depth is really not discussed. All the CZX may turn out to be is my long hoped for ergonomic detector that outperforms the White's TDI in the $1000 - $2000 price range. The Mosca machine mentioned on the same thread has different engineers involved and so these are probably two separate projects. OK, long lead in to the AKA Intronik STF as described at http://md-hunter.com/aka-intronik-stf-price-starts-from-12000-the-most-expensive-detector/ and said to be selling for $12,000.00. Another thread here states "AKA succeed working out VLF detector working 2 frequency at once. This detector sees no differance if ground is heavely mineralized or it's a non salty sand or even air, it's not being influanced by mineralisation at all. It's deep as Signum MFT but with right identification at any depth." Looks to be translated poorly from original Russian, or at least I hope that's the excuse for the butchered English! However, what the AKA Intronik is promising is a two frequency machine that ignores ground mineralization, and that sounds a lot like what the Fisher CZX is promising. The White's is a different beast but same basic result being discussed - a breakthrough in the ability to discriminate targets at depth. And in my book all that means is something clearly better than what we have, not results so close that endless videos and arguments on the internet produce no clear winners. We want something that when put up against a Fisher CZ and F75 and Minelab CTX everyone clearly agrees "this thing accurately sees a dime deeper" Many nugget hunters may be ignoring all this, but the applications for a detector that really can get the depth and identify trash better are huge. In fact, I am willing to bet many of the best finds remaining in the United States at least are in those areas that are full of so much trash that PI operators have barely put a dent in them. Clear open trash free patches have been pounded to death, but there are many places where the volume of deep nails alone continues to defeat even the most patient hunters. People are/were will to pay $8000 - $10,000 for a GPZ 7000. How much is a GPZ with discrimination worth? Quite a bit perhaps to many gold hunters. What I wonder however is what the limits are for the coin and relic hunters. My gut feeling was that the coin hunters were not as willing to spend big bucks as the gold hunters. It is easy to rationalize high price gold machines if you are the sort of person who is confident you can find enough gold to pay for your detector. The thing is I never thought the GPZ would sell very well because it as priced so high. Then I opened my eyes. There are people here in the U.S. buying GPZ detectors that have found little if any gold in the past with detectors. There are people that show up at outings with a 24 foot motor home pulling a side by side ATV behind. There are people for whom buying a $10,000 metal detector is no different than buying a high price set of golf clubs or a snowmobile or a boat. Yes, I understand many people have tight budgets, but it is also obvious many people have lots of money to throw at their pastimes and playthings. The GPZ 7000 shocked me with how many people bought them. I was honestly hoping the price would limit the numbers seen in the field for at least a year or two. The relic people seem to be the same way. There was little resistance to moving up to the GPX 5000 back east in the big relic hunts when it became obvious those machines would deliver the goods VLF detectors missed. The GPZ has not has made as much impact there simply because it is too sensitive to tiny trash so a relic hunter is normally better off with a GPX, which has more ability to deal with at least some trash. Lots of beach hunters are using GPX detectors now. And even some park hunters in the never ending quest for more depth. So I am wondering just how much more I would be willing to shell out to be the first kid on my block to have a real leg up on the competition with a machine that could make silver coins easy to find again in U.S. parks by offering better discrimination at depth. I then of course I figured I would ask you all the same question. What is the most you would shell out for such a machine if it really delivered the goods? Me, I looked at the $12,000 for the AKA Intronik and initially thought that was crazy. The more I think about it however I am not so sure - if it really worked. Sure, that would price many people right out of the thing, but oddly enough that would make others crave it even more. There is always something attractive in basic marketing 101 for people having possession of something other people can't afford. What say you forum members? Would you buy an AKA Intronik if it really performed as advertised and for such a high price? If not, what would it be worth to you? Please note - I am not saying the AKA Intronik does do what it says in any way. I truly have no idea. But if it does, what is the "right price"?
  7. I am going to bring this up for you to maybe shed light on. Since you have been it seems testing and using detectors for a while. First up,,,has any manufacturer who you are testing a detector for,,,have they ask you if you are currently testing any other manufacturer's model detectors (prerelease)?? Next since you likely signed non disclosure agreements,,,and they are pretty straightforward,,,like you can't discuss or talk until you are given ok to do. I consider you a very ethical person btw,,,this next question is not to insinuate anything,,,I just want to hear your thoughts here. What about if you are testing a unit,,,and let's say the testing phase is more or less concluded,,,but this specific detector model isn't quite released yet,,,and you happen to be testing another unit from a different manufacturer. Is it proper to use this detector you have already tested (not released yet) and do head to heads with another test unit,,,and this other unit let's just say is still further from official release than this other unit. So in keeping all this head to head under wraps,,,but when the first unit you tested is released,,,obviously the non disclosure agreement is null and void on this unit,,,,so with maybe some previous head to head testing done before this first detector release,,,so then a tester could actually maybe provide comparison data (done before first detector release) to the second detector's manufacturer when the first one releases. I hope this makes sense. Remember I'm not insinuating anything,,,you are far more expert in this dept than I. And obviously comparing a detector under formal testing to an already publically released detector is a different animal,,I see no problems doing this. Steve do you think a person should be testing 2 or more detectors (pre release) simultaneously from different manufacturers??
  8. From http://www.detectorprospector.com/forum/topic/3331-how-low-will-they-go/?do=findComment&comment=37171 Tom, Unfortunately I am out detecting a lot, or when home I'll be on two or three other Forums and don't monitor Steve H.'s site as much as I guess I should. Therefore, I haven't kept up with many of your posts, but this one left me wondering a bit. You list yourself as being "White's Media Guy" but let me ask this. How long have you been with White's, and anything other than just doing 'media' work? How long have you been metal detecting? What types of detecting do you prefer to do the most (Coin & Jewelry Hunt, Beach Hunt, Relic Hunt, Electronic Prospecting, etc.)? Have you been involved in the metal detecting industry for long, or at all, before going to work at White's? tboykin: I think it's a matter of finances for most companies. As volume in sales drops, they have to lower the price to keep the bottom line looking good. ... Sometimes a manufacturer drops a price in order to be competitive in the market. One example would be the Nokta FORS CoRe that had a price reduction about two years ago. It wasn't to "keep the bottom line looking good" but a readjustment of the MSRP of a newer and very competitive model on the market. FTP has offered the basic Teknetics T2 'Classic' at a much lower price now for about two years, and recently offered a reduced-price Fisher F75. I don't think that "it's a matter of finances" with them, either, as these were models that started in the market in 2006, I believe, with the T2 and later the F75. Sales have been just fine, so I think the 'price drops' were because [1] they need to be competitive on the market and [2] they just might be planning on newer models soon to replace the position these models held. tboykin: This happens when companies don't bring new products to market or constantly release "rehashes" of old tech...."Rehashes" you say, because nothing new was brought to market? Would that be anything like the essentially same 6000 Pro XL being unchanged but renamed the XL Pro? How about the Classic IDX being renamed the IDX Pro? The 'Spectrum XLT' relabeled the XLT e-series? Introducing the Prizm series, which were poor sellers, so the color was changed to burgundy and the name of these same detectors was changed to Coinmaster? The MXT Pro was a nice improvement of the original MXT, but less than four years ago it was 'renamed.' or 'rehashed,' the MXT 'ALL' Pro. There were no circuitry or packaging changes, other than an 'All' sticker added to the side decals, and a move from the 950 Concentric coil to the 10" D2 DD coil that had a history of coil failures and/or poor performance. Seems like there has been a lot of 'rehashes' over the past seventeen years or so do in Sweet Home. tboykin: The great thing about this is that as newer companies advance technology, the dinosaur brands will have to keep up. Or they will die. Just dropping the price isn't going to be enough to keep things afloat - you gotta play ball and offer something the world hasn't seen before.... "New Companies" would include Makro Detector, Nokta Detectors, XP Detectors who all have newer models the past several years that are very proven and well tested performers. there is a pretty fair amount of "newer advanced technology" for consumers to select from. I think you are right about "dinosaur brands that have to keep up" and sometimes that does mean dropping the MSRP, if necessary, to stay competitive. It has to be pretty tough to try and sell 'older' models with 'older' technology that have been outclassed at a suggested retail that is significantly higher than comparable detectors on the market. Again, let's revisit the MXT Pro, or re-hashed / re-named All Pro. It is still listed at $899.95 USD. The MXT Pro used to be one of my main-use detectors until a little over two years ago when it was wiped out of my personal detector arsenal because it was simply out-classed and out-performed ... by a model with a renewed lower MSRP of $699. if you are familiar with the competition out there, look how many competitive models to the MXT series offer manual, VCO Audio, backlighted displays, adjustable Tone Break, Ferrous Audio Volume control, Audio Tone Adjustment, and the ability to Save personal settings or restore a Factory Default ... and several of them sell for $100 or more less than the MXT All Pro. You did say "you gotta play ball and offer something the world hasn't seen before" and I think that's a good thought. But TO ME, if a good company is capable of engineering a newer detector, an advanced detector, a state-of-the-art detector that can set a high standard in the industry, I think that company ought to be able to make that engineering move by designing their own search coils that they also engineer to provide the best source for performance from their own detector. We read a couple of years back where to get the better performance from your top-dollar V3i you needed to buy the after-market Detech Ultimate coil. Last year you folks speedily rushed the MX Sport to market plagued with circuitry and hardware flaws, and didn't even make a smaller-size search coils for it. Then, low-and-behold, a new 7" appears .... also from Detech, the Bulgarian manufacturer. tboykin: It's a good thing for everyone - the aging workhorse machines become cheaper for entry-level users, and the power users get new technology to play with.... I think that 17 years after the original MXT was introduced, with a few remedies to bring us the MXT Pro / All Pro, it is a bit aging, and is priced much higher than competitive models with more features, better weight and balance, and also better in-the-field performance. To stay competitive the MSRP should have been reduced a while back. The only other newer models in the past couple of years have been the Treasure Master and Treasure Pro, not especially hot items, and the Made in China White's XVenture which is a very low-priced model that was marketed by White's factory directly, Amazon and a couple of other sources. Most dealers I have spoken with don't have it listed, didn't know anything about it, or were not pleased with the fact that White's is selling a bargain priced model against their own dealers. If Chuck and some others have an MX Sport that is working properly and they like it, fine. I was hoping the new model was going to be an improved progression of the MXT series, but the several I have handled didn't convey that feeling to me, were nose heavy, and performance was lacking. Admitted, those were some of the early releases that were in dealer's shops, but they soured me enough to not have tried one now they are supposed to be fixed. Again, you were right it saying "newer companies advance technology" and they are out there. I am in the growing group of avid detectorists who are waiting to see what White's might do with some dinosaurs or lemons, adjust prices for reasonable competition, and bring something with newer technology to the market. Something that is newer, field tested, and evaluated by consumers to be sure it will likely be problem-free and not a rush-to-market new model with failures. My first factory-produced detector was a Whites in the summer of '68 and I would honestly like to see White's rise back to the upper ranks of detector manufactures like they used to be. I think it is going to take a bit of effort, however, since the detector market used to be especially strong in the USA way back when, but it is more of a global market today and dwindling in popularity here in the US.
  9. I just got my May issue of Lost Treasure and here is another detector put out by Tesoro called Mojave. It says the MSRP is 279.00 with what I think on all their detectors a life time warranty. Now for me that may not be a long time but for others it could be. Every time I turn around you got a company lowering their price of a detector that's been on the market for a long time. Then it's others coming out with a new product we've never seen before. You take any of the lower price detectors ( we won't say cheap ) and if it's a coin detector it finds coins. Here Minelab has another detector and it's a nugget hunter I'm sure it will find gold. I know if I wanted to get in coin hunting I'd be more willing to spend 2 or 3 hundred than 7 hundred on up until I find if this is for me. I know for most this stands true for anyone wanting to get into nugget hunting. Everyone on this forum has a opinion and I'd like to hear it. You ever been fishing and the fish biting so fast you had to stand behind a tree to bait your hook ? You ask what does this have to do with detectors and I'll tell you NOTHING.haha Chuck
  10. I don't believe it's necessary to say the name of any detector. I do find if I swing with the right hand on some detectors all is well. Then others would be best if in the other hand.A lot has to do with what side the controls are on. Like some you find them on the side of the control box. Then others it has to do with the headphones and where they plug in. I dislike a detector that don't come with a stand. It don't go out the door until I make something to keep it off the ground. I think the best for all is when you find the controls above your hand and can be seen in either. Tell me if you find yourself standing on the wrong side of your detector. Just maybe yours is user friendly. Chuck
  11. Yes, you heard it right. Time may be used in the future to find gold and/or oil. Here is a very technical observation of this technique from 2012: http://spectrum.ieee.org/tech-talk/at-work/test-and-measurement/prospecting-for-oil-or-gold-check-the-time
  12. I am writing this in hopes that some metal detector manufacturers will read this and see what is wanted by the people in the field. What manufacturer to you think is on the leading edge? (why) What manufacture do you think needs a wake up call? What is your favorite all purpose detector? (coin, jewelry, and relic) What is your favorite prospecting detector? What do you wish the manufacturers would incorporate in new machines? I am not going to answer the question as I do not feel my knowledge base is at the level of the people on this forum. I still use a 30 year old detector. Everything I have read shows that this forum has the highest knowledge base of ones I have seen. Add any additional question that you think may be of interest.
  13. Really short video that illustrates a very basic difference between VLF and PI nugget detecting. It is not so much that a PI finds gold better but but that a PI ignores ground and hot rocks that make a VLF go nuts.
  14. I think thats is really cool http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/272596388483?_trksid=p2055119.m1438.l2649&ssPageName=STRK%3AMEBIDX%3AIT Imagines a xterra on prospecting mode int hose rich gravel rivers.................................. A Explorer 2 waterproof is really good too.. RR
  15. I wont mention the brand for fears of any bias against the manufacturer. This is one for the tech heads on here, what does the following quote mean to you, is there any substance in it? Now here is one for the nugget hunters on here, how does this compare to existing top of the line gold detectors?
  16. Fisher made it clear (accidently) a long time back what their new gold machine would be - it would utilize more than one frequency at a time. It will process signals in ways not done before. It will require fewer controls. It will provide new modes of operator feedback. Unfortunately the 2016 release date which was shown on the "leaked" information was not met. Why does it take so long - what are they waiting for? Here's something their Chief Designer, Dave Johnson posted a while back about the pace of detector development. It's a compromise between what marketing department wants to sell, and what engineering department is capable of delivering. Some products require years of development of new technology before they're ready to sell-- for example, the CZ was ten years between initial concept and product introduction, and the development process went through 18 different prototype designs.
  17. The latest issue of the ICMJ is out, and I have an article in it titled Selectable Frequency vs Multi Frequency Detectors. Those of you with a digital subscription can read it online. The ICMJ has a policy against mentioning brand names in articles so I wanted to post this as a supplement to the article. Most metal detectors run at a single frequency. Low frequencies, that is single digit frequencies under 10 kHz, react well to high conductive targets, like coins, or large items, even if those items are of low conductivity. If you look at this typical metal detector target scale below you will note that non-ferrous items read higher not just based on conductivity but size also. Low frequencies also do not "light up" the ground or hot rocks as much as higher frequencies. Many do not even offer ground balance controls. Low frequency machines under 10 khz therefore tend to be aimed at the coin detecting market. There are too many models to list but most people have heard of the 6.5 khz Garrett Ace 250 as a perfect example. High frequencies 30 khz and over have extreme sensitivity to low conductive and small items, but also struggle more with ground penetration and hot rocks. Their extreme sensitivity to tiny trash items like aluminum bits do not make them very practical for any detecting except gold prospecting. Machines 30 khz and higher tend to be dedicated prospecting machines. Examples would be the 48 khz White's GMT, 71 kHz Fisher Gold Bug 2, and soon to be 45 khz Minelab Gold Monster 1000. In 2002 White's introduced the White's MXT at 14 kHz, and it is a perfect example of how detectors running in the "teens" make excellent "do-it-all" detectors. Since then everyone and their brother has jumped on that bandwagon, and there are too many machines running from 10 kHz - 20 khz to mention. Prospectors in particular would recognize the 19 khz Fisher Gold Bug Pro, but few know it is also sold in slightly different versions as the Teknetics G2, Fisher F19, and Teknetics G2+, all 19 kHz detectors sold to the general coin and relic market. Garrett has the 15 kHz AT Pro and 18 khz AT Gold to name a couple more hot selling detectors. Well if low frequencies are good for coins and high frequencies good for gold, why not make machines that can do both? Or both at once? Selectable frequency refers to machines that can select from one of several possible frequencies, but analyze the signal from only one frequency at a time. These may also be referred to as switchable frequency detectors. Multiple or multi frequency detectors analyze the signal from two or more frequencies at once. Multiple frequency detectors usually have a fundamental frequency they run best at, and then other "harmonic" or secondary frequencies they also use, but the power (amplitude) fades with distance from the primary frequency. From page 9 of Minelab's Metal Detecting Terminology: You can find more information on harmonic frequencies at http://www.ni.com/white-paper/3359/en/ and here also. Coils normally must be wound specifically to make use of any given frequency or set of harmonic frequencies. A coil will usually work best at the given fundamental frequency making it difficult to get the best possible performance at all frequencies using one coil. The Minelab X-Terra series specifically requires a coil change to achieve a frequency change for this very reason. People who own them know 3 kHz coils weigh more than 18.75 kHz coils. Why? Because heavier windings are used at 3 khz for optimum performance at that frequency. Here is what is probably an incomplete list of selectable frequency detectors and year of release: 1989 Minelab Eureka Ace Dual 8 kHz 19.5 kHz 1993 Minelab XT 17000 6.4 kHz 32 kHz 1994 Compass X-200 6 kHz 14 khz 1997 Minelab XT 18000 6.4 kHz 20 kHz 60 kHz 1999 Minelab Golden Hawk 6.4 kHz 20 kHz 60 kHz 2002 Minelab Eureka Gold 6.4 kHz 20 kHz 60 kHz 2005 Minelab X-TERRA 50 7.5 kHz 18.75 kHz 2006 Minelab X-TERRA 70 3 kHz 7.5 kHz 18.75 kHz 2009 Minelab X-TERRA 305 7.5 kHz 18.75 kHz 2009 Minelab X-TERRA 505 3 kHz 7.5 kHz 18.75 kHz 2009 Minelab X-TERRA 705 3 kHz 7.5 kHz 18.75 kHz 2009 XP DEUS 4 kHz 8 kHz 12 kHz 18 kHz 2016 Rutus Alter 71 Variable 4 - 18 kHz 2017 Nokta Impact 5 kHz 14 kHz 20 kHz Multiple frequency or multi frequency machines have become very confusing, as a lot of marketing material has focused on the number of frequencies transmitted. What really matters is what frequencies a detector receives, and how the information is compared and processed for results. Some commentary here. Many people look at the marketing material and assume that a machine processing multiple frequencies is somehow working across the board to deliver the best possible results at all frequencies. However, the two issues outlined above do apply. The machines are employing harmonic frequencies, and so cannot compete with a machine optimized at a single frequency as opposed to one of the distant harmonics running at less amplitude. Second, making one coil run perfectly at all frequencies is extremely difficult, again giving the dedicated machine an edge. I highly recommend people not go down the technical rabbit hole but instead focus on what the machines do, on how they act. Two things are very apparent. First, the big market for a long time was coin detectors, and the goal always was to identify coins as deep as possible while ignoring trash as well as possible. Processing two or more frequencies simultaneously gives the detector engineer more information to work with. All the focus was on developing great coin detectors and guess what, the multi frequency machines for all intents and purposes act just like very good lower frequency coin detecting machines. Good ground rejection, and great discrimination on coins for as deep as it can be achieved. The multi frequency machines don't really go deeper than single frequency coin detectors, they just do a better job delivering clean discrimination results to depth. Here is a list of introductory models of multi frequency detectors and year of introduction. I am not listing all the derivative models to reduce clutter. I will post that later. 1991 Fisher CZ-6 5 & 15 kHz 1991 Minelab Sovereign BBS 1999 Minelab Explorer S/XS FBS 2001 White's DFX 3 kHz & 15 kHz (Simulates single frequency by ignoring half the dual frequency signal) 2012 Minelab CTX 3030 FBS2 Second, single frequency detectors have a ground balance problem. They can ground balance to mineralized soil, OR they can ground balance to salt water. Multi frequency machines can reduce signals from both mineralized beaches and salt water simultaneously, making them ideal for saltwater use. 1993 Minelab Excalibur BBS (Sovereign in waterproof housing) 1995 Fisher CZ-20 5 & 15 kHz (CZ-6 in waterproof housing) 2001 White's Beach Hunter ID 3 & 15 kHz (DFX in waterproof housing) There is a third class of machine that can run either as selectable frequency OR multi frequency detectors. Quite rare at this time. 2009 White's Spectra Vision 2.5 Khz or 7.5 kHz or 22.5 kHz or all three at once In my opinion multi frequency has delivered well on its promise. The Minelab BBS and FBS machines are renowned for their ability to discriminate trash and detect coins due to their sophisticated processing. Again, focus on what they do. Not even Minelab in their marketing tells anyone these are prospecting detectors. Second, the Fisher CZ-20/21 and various Minelab Excalibur models are without a doubt the most popular and successful non-PI saltwater beach detectors made. I have a DFX and I think it is a fantastic jewelry machine in particular. A good coin machine but lacks a bit of punch. The Vision/V3i upped the ante but while amazing on paper suffers from interface overload. The Minelab units are simple by comparison and a lesson on how people in general just want the detector to get the job done. Feature overload is not a plus. However, I think White's has the right idea. The ability to run either separate frequencies or multiple frequencies at once is very compelling. I just think nobody has really done it right yet in a properly configured package. The V3i has the ingredients, but needs to be stuffed in something like an MX Sport with a simplified interface and improved ground balance system. It really never did beat the MXT in some ways and many people when "upgrading" to the V3i end up going back to the MXT. Selectable frequency has yet to really deliver on its promise in my opinion. So far it has been difficult to produce a selectable frequency machine that truly performs at all frequencies on par with a dedicated single frequency machine. The Minelab Eureka Gold at 60 kHz just never gets mentioned in the same breath as the White's Goldmasters/GMT or Fisher Gold Bug 2. Also, most selectable frequency machines in the past have been very feature limited prospecting machines, restricting their overall market appeal. I personally think we have seen enough variations of single frequency detectors. I do not believe much can be done to exceed the performance of the dedicated single frequency VLF type machines we currently have. What can obviously be done is a better job of packaging machines that deliver true punch at different frequencies, or multi frequency machines that bring across the board performance closer to what is expected of PI detectors. I do think we are seeing this happen now. The new Nokta Impact and the new DEUS V4 update are expanding the available options in selectable frequency in more usable packages. The Minelab GPZ and other hybrid platforms blur the line between what is traditionally considered PI and VLF and simply need the addition of discrimination to go to the next level. There is still a lot of potential to deliver machines that might reduce the number of machines many of us feel compelled to own by delivering more across the board performance in a single machine that would now take several detectors. Exciting days ahead. For those who want to try and get their head around selectable frequency and multi frequency technology, Minelab and White's have a gold mine of information in a few of their references. Dig into the following for some great explanations and diagrams. Minelab - Metal Detector Basics and Theory Minelab - Understanding Your X-Terra White's - Spectra V3i Owners Guide White's - V3i Advanced Users Guide Better yet are the last three parts of the DFX instructional video by White's featuring engineer Mark Rowan explaining frequency and multi frequency methods:
  18. The Gold Monster is sparking my interest in VLF to supplement my detecting arsenal. But I have a question - what exactly does a discriminating machine discriminate out? I am assuming ferrous and non-ferrous, which in my simple terms means magnetic and non magnetic. Please correct if wrong. So on the iron/ferrous side do we have - nails, tin, bottle caps, metal buttons, please add things in here. Where do meteorites fit in? On the non ferrous side we obviously have gold. But do we also include lead, aluminum, I think most coins aren't magnetic (never tested them), please add things in here. With VLF am I still going to be digging every bit of lead, aluminium can and coin? Or does is narrow down to just gold? I have done a brief search on here that got a lot of hits for the word discriminate but nothing specific. I also know I could google a lot of these answers but I know the very experienced on here will be able to give a very succinct list of what is discriminated out and I can only assume that this is a question many other newbies would be interested to know the answer for. I hope you can help. Adam.
  19. Perhaps the use of microwaves for metal detection needs to be re-visited. https://www.wired.com/2013/01/new-metamaterial-camera/ (2013 so not new-new) A camera that detects metals and more through solid objects with only 100millisecond latency. No moving parts, light weight, cheap, high resolution....is this a way forward? Currently imaging in 2d, but they are close to 3d! Perhaps the metal detection technological breakthrough everyone has wanted? Looks very promising, IMO.
  20. The reality here is there are a lot of great do it all detectors that are fabulous for jewelry detecting. A lot waterproof beach detectors are for all intents and purposes jewelry detectors. Yet as many people as there are for whom jewelry is the number one thing, I do not recall any company ever selling a detector that specifically targeted that market. White's has a leg up in a way in my opinion. The DFX with BigFoot is my favorite park and field jewelry detector. The Big Foot coil is a large part of that, but the DFX 15 kHz raw "un-normalized" mode is hot on jewelry and the SignaGraph is one of the best jewelry hunting digital displays ever designed in my opinion. I think there is a market for a premium price machine sporting a BigFoot type coil, running in a native 15 kHz type range. This does cause coin responses to lump up on the high end but spreads out responses on various aluminum items, allowing certain pull tabs etc to be better identified, and if need be, ignored. There has to be an ability to notch items, especially on the high end. One thing I do not like is machines with discrimination schemes that assume you are looking for coins and do not allow the high end to be blocked out. If I am cherry picking for gold jewelry, it is the high end coin range I am likely to block out, not anything in the low end. A stripped down DFX would be the ticket, or, if White's does not want any new metal box designs, something similar in the MX Sport package. Tesoro could easily come out with a machine that used a Cleansweep coil mated to a properly designed Golden uMax if they went for a tone based unit. Or, a machine with dual disc controls. One knob starts at the bottom and eliminates items as you turn it up, just like a normal disc knob. But I want a second knob that starts at the top end, and eliminates items into the coin range as you turn it down. These two knobs could either be straight forward reject item controls, or better yet, set the break point for three tones. Turning the one knob up sets the low to med tone break, and the other knob the med to high tone break. I tried to get Makro to make a BigFoot coil, but nothing has come of it so far. Mated to a Racer 2 you would have a great unit. An X-Terra 705 in native 18.75 kHz mode with a BigFoot/Cleansweep would do the trick. A Fisher F44 with a Cleansweep coil - water resistant! The key to all this is name the machine so that people know it is a jewelry detector, and sell it as a jewelry detector. The Jewelry Finder Extreme (JFX)! Given that nobody makes a BigFoot right now Tesoro could do this with more or less off the shelf parts if they desired, and it would help freshen up their lineup.
  21. One thing I have never heard talked about I don't think. Is does what we see as far as reaction to differing targets' conductivity (and size) wise using discrimination with Vlf metal detector,,when using different frequencies,,,does this carry over to the All Metal side of the house??? In terms of separation and depth,,,with all other things being equal. Solo sitting nonferrous targets,,deeper,,,does frequency make a difference? Is it as critical as when using discrimination side of detector?? Just maybe the reason,,this has not been addressed is because there aren't that many detectors that can toggle to different frequencies while wearing the the same coil. I plan to be running AM next week weather permitting,,,and could use any and all worthy info maybe to help me. I have used all metal,,not a whole lot,,,certainly not with Xp Deus,,,I can't keep it tuned. Would like to hear some folks weigh in here,,,and besides this new Impact detector is right around the corner for some. They may could use some worthy info too like me.
  22. Hi steve Herschbach Sir Hope you are good Sir i want to buy metal detector that can detect upto 15 feet I belong to pakistan Here the soil is mineralized Some people suggested me GPZ 7000 Some suggested the jeo hunter 3d dual pack (made in turkey) I have also searched the BR Royal Analyzer Basic which is launched recently in 2017 Sir i want the best detector thats why i need your help Pls suggest me the best detector . Waiting for your reply Sir
  23. Like a lot of people I like keeping up on the latest and greatest. I am always on the lookout for something new in detecting. However, now that we have several forums I have been thinking about what constitutes a prospecting detector these days as opposed to machines made for coin or relic detecting. It is obvious that any detector specifically marketed as a prospecting detector is of interest on this forum. Ones where the advertising clearly is all about gold prospecting. The problem is mostly with VLF detectors and the fact that nearly any decent VLF detector made these days can double as a prospecting metal detector. Machines designed to run in the "teens" from 13 kHz to 19 kHz are overrunning the market. Most are marketed as general purpose machines. Sure, you can also use them for prospecting, but there is nothing in particular about them that makes them of special interest to prospectors. Two recent example on the forum; the Nokta Impact and the Rutus Alter 71. These are two new entries that run up to 20 kHz and 18.4 kHz respectively, and which can be used for prospecting along with the other uses the machines were designed for. However, neither of these detectors is being marketed specifically to prospectors but are aimed mostly at coin and relic hunters. I don't care too much where threads start out. This forum software is really great and just keeps getting better. I can move threads around easily, and I can leave a thirty day temporary link pointing to the new location. An example right now is my moving the Nokta Impact thread from the Detector Prospector Forum to the Metal Detecting For Coins & Relic Forum. In general from now on most new threads on VLF detectors will get started in the Coin & Relic Forum, or, after they start here, get moved when interest wanes on the DP Forum. Exceptions will be VLF type detectors that really are marketed specifically for prospecting, or which have exceptional capability in that regard. I do not consider machines running at 20 khz or lower to be rare any more. However, any VLF detector that offers 30 kHz or higher is exceptional still and so will get my interest as a possible nugget detector. No big deal and nothing anyone need worry about. I will keep stuff sorted out but just wanted people to know what the rationale is behind some of the moves.
  24. So far there has been no real “direct” reviews of the QED, in effect just innuendo clouded by politics, which is not helpful. With the help of a friend I've just finished some testing of the QED and want to share our impressions here in the hopes of getting the ball rolling for some quality discussions (but maybe this is being too optimistic?) We hope and believe our tests were rigorously objective, the QED was used for general gold hunting and also comprehensively tested on buried real gold pieces of various sizes in a variety of soils, considerable care was taken to ensure no placebo/bias.* We deliberately tested on only frequently detected but historically very productive public fields, not private property in which it can be relatively easy to find gold using any technology due to only ever seeing a few detectorists. First and foremost, important details of the QED's method of operation that are different to other detectors which needs to be clearly understood: Unlike Minelab detectors, the QED has a “dead zone” that can be varied using the Volume control. The threshold is set using the Bias control and has 2 different audio threshold settings, an upper and a lower value. When the Bias is turned down in number below the threshold lower value, OR, turned up in number above the upper threshold value, the “Threshold” audio increases as per usual. Suppose for example, the lower audio threshold bias value of the Bias control happens to be 50 and the upper threshold bias number happens to be 60. Then if the Bias is turned down below 50 OR turned up above 60, the audio “threshold” level increases as per usual. For these threshold examples, 50 and 60, small gold (fast time constant targets) “in effect” produce signals less than 55 (half way between 50 and 60), and larger gold “in effect” produce signals more than 55. If the Bias is set at the lower threshold limit, 50 for example, then the detection of small gold will give the usual INCREASE in audio level response, and larger gold will give a BELOW threshold level response, OR If Bias is set at the higher threshold limit, 60 for example, then the detection of larger gold will give the usual INCREASE in audio level response, and smaller gold will give a BELOW audio threshold level response. Similarly with ground noise; some ground noise will in effect produce signals below 55, so that if the Bias is set at 50, this ground noise will give an increase in audio sound, but if the Bias is set at 60, this ground noise will give a below threshold audio response. Conversely, if the ground noise is in effect above 55, then if the Bias is set at 50, this ground noise will give a below threshold audio, but if Bias is set at 60, this ground noise will give an increase in audio level. Signals in effect BETWEEN 50 and 60 are in the “dead-zone,” for which the audio is below threshold. Signals in effect below 50 OR above 60 give an increase in audio. So if threshold is set at the lower threshold of 50, then faint signals from small gold will give an above threshold audio, and large targets a below threshold audio. Whereas its the opposite for the upper threshold of 60, faint signals from large gold will give an above threshold audio, and small targets below threshold audio. So for shallow small gold select the lower threshold limit, for big deeper gold select the upper threshold limit. Bigger target signals will produce above threshold signals regardless of whether they are small or larger targets. However the Volume control controls the dead-zone width; the gap between the upper and lower threshold Bias settings, that is, the dead zone gap is increased by turning the Volume down, or decreased by turning the Volume up. In fact the QED can be set to operate with NO dead-zone (like the usual Minelab PI audio). To do this: a. Vary the Bias between the upper and lower threshold. Note the gap. b. Increase volume a bit. c. Re-do a. and note the decrease in the gap. d. Continue to repeat a, b, c until there is no gap. (This will allow some feel for true ground noise etc.) However the QED audio has a very low level signal EVEN if below threshold, This below threshold faint audio signal is just the pitch signal only, and detects all signals, ground noise, target signals, whether long time constant or short, and EMI. But this below threshold pitch sensitivity is not as acute as the audio set at threshold per point 2 below, and it is very soft. Yet even further, if a target or ground noise (or EMI) does drive the audio below threshold, the nature of the audio is that it has the usual “re-bound” response once the coil has moved over and past the target or ground noise. I refer to the lower pitch audio following the initial target higher pitch audio (“high-low”) or the opposite; the higher pitch audio following the initial target lower pitch audio (“low-high”) effect known from Minelab PI's. So for moderately weak target signals that cause the audio to dip below threshold once the coil moves beyond the target and the audio then rebounds above threshold. To recap; for these targets, as the coil passes over the target the audio goes first below threshold THEN above the threshold. However for the fainter of these target signals (the important signals one listens for in thrashed ground), this rebound signal is hard to discern compared to the same signal that would occur if the Bias had been set at the alternative threshold setting for which the audio signal then would have given an initial increase in threshold as the coil passes over it and then a below threshold rebound. Therefore, it is important to understand that you EITHER need to set the Bias to chase the faint small targets in shallow ground (Bias at the lower number setting), but lose out a bit on the faint large target signals OR set the Bias to chase the faint larger targets in deeper ground (Bias at the higher number threshold setting) but lose out a bit on the smaller targets. The QED has a “motion” audio response; meaning the coil has to be moved to hear a signal. It can be operated both quickly, and also, remarkably slowly. If the coil is moved “remarkably” slowly it is possible to hear the average audio detect a very faint target above the audio “background random chatter”, considerably more readily than if the coil was moved at a typical realistic operational speed. When depth testing and when you know where the target is, beware that you do not slow down the coil swing to an artificial unnatural swing speed to enable the detection of a deep target at its known location.* Important recommendations: 1. It's very important to get the threshold (Bias) spot on for optimal results, If the threshold level is too high, then faint signals get drowned out, but if the audio threshold level is too low then only the residual very faint pitch signal remains, but this faint pitch only signal is less sensitive to target signals than the audio set optimally as per point 2 immediately following. 2. The threshold must be set so that it is just audible; in effect just immediately below the “real” audio threshold signal, so that what you are hearing is just between only the pitch signal and actual above threshold audio. 3. Note that the effective principal threshold control (Bias) is temperature dependent and requires reasonably frequent adjustment over time as the ambient temperature changes to get best results. Therefore there is NO actual specific optimal Bias number setting, rather it entirely depends on temperature. It can be as high as 70 in very hot conditions 4. Once 2. and 3. are optimally achieved, you will find that the GB setting has to be spot on for best results. If you find that it is not critical, you really need to re-address points 2. and 3. 5. The QED does produce ground noise that sounds on occasion like a target. If you aren't digging some ground noise you do not have it set up properly, especially in variable soils. With ANY detector (automatic GB or Manual) altering the GB setting slightly to eliminate a faint “deep target-like signal” will result in eliminating the faint signal whether it is ground noise OR in fact a deep real metal target. 6. You need to listen to the soft “subliminal” threshold of the QED very carefully, quality headphones are a must. 7. “Gain” acts as a sensitivity control as you would expect. I suggest that the QED is best used as a specialist very fine (Small) gold detector. It produced a reasonably clear but quiet response to the extreme small gold (of the order of 0.1 g), we managed to find 5 tiny pieces in well-worked ground in all totaling 1 gram, although the SDC would have picked 5 of the 5, but not so well in one location due to power line noise (This could be remedied somewhat by lowering the Gain of the SDC and using minimal threshold). However, we purposely went over exactly the same ground with the SDC with the SDC set at a lower threshold and 3 on the gain, and then found 3 more pieces of gold; we are 100% sure we had already passed the QED exactly over the target locations so we put this down to QED ground noise masking targets. The QED struggles compared to the SDC in the more mineralised soils, however the QED does seem superior to the ATX. To get the most out of the QED, use a small coil such as an 8” Commander mono, and set the Mode as low as possible so long as the ground signals do not become too intrusive. Usually 1 or 2 is OK for Minelab coils, but some other coils may produce too much ground noise at this setting so you may need to increase the Mode to 3 or above dependent on the ground. Further, we got some very thin aluminium foil and very gradually trimmed it down until the SDC could no longer detect it. This represents particularly fast time constant targets (“extremely” small gold), and found that the QED did still detect it, but only within several mm of the coil surface, not further. But this does mean that the QED will detect extremely small shallow pieces that the SDC will not. Alternatively we suggest the QED is also a suitable lightweight low-cost patch hunter when used with a large coil with the Mode turned up so that there is less ground noise. For the sake of completion, to answer questions posed of the QED depth for an Australian 5 cent piece compared to the Zed both using the same sized coils. We measured this carefully and we are not prepared to give exact figures to avoid any trivial arguments, other than to say that the QED detected between 60% to 2/3rd of the depth of the Z. The QED susceptibility to EMI in areas remote from mains compared to the 5k on EMI noisy days? In one word: “Good. The QED susceptibility to mains in urban areas compared to the SDC or Zed? In two words: “Typically Bad.” The QED’s main strength is its cost, light weight, ergonomics, and simplicity of use, and yes it IS definitely simple to use, but a bit “fiddly.” It has no “magic settings” once you understand exactly how it operates as described above. Going back to the SDC really highlighted the difference a light weight detector can have on general comfort and enjoyment of detecting, and our experiences with the QED underscored Minelab's poor ergonomics. In our opinion the QED fits a market where people are looking for a cheap detector capable of finding small gold in thrashed areas, and are wanting more coil choices without the specialised "one size fits all" approach of the SDC. Good value for money. Its main weakness is its underlying ground noise, which although having the advantage of being “hidden” in the dead zone, nevertheless limits depth compared to lower ground noise capable detectors, for targets other than the very fast time constant targets. In summary it works relatively best in the less mineralised soils for small gold. Beyond the scope of the above suggested prospecting (very small gold & patch hunting mainly in relatively unmineralised soils), I choose not to comment further, other than we will not be using the QED for purposes other than secondary activities, and still intend to use other well-known detectors for primary prospecting activities because of their other advantages. No doubt others with QED's will disagree with us. We welcome this, and would be happy to be proved wrong. Ultimately, time tells the truth by substantial gold finds or lack thereof in well-worked ground. *Note: because of the subtle audio, it is easy to imagine you are “hearing” a target above the general background ground noise when you know where it is. We endeavoured to avoid this tendency.
  25. Well, it is that time of year that I always get the itch to by a new detector. I am primarily a beach hunter here in So. Cal., so I have owned most of the latest and greatest detectors that are suitable for wet sand. The CTX 3030, E-trac, CZ 21, Dual Field, ATX, TDI SL just to name a few. Here are my thoughts....regardless of brand, there is little discernible difference between high end multi frequency machines. The same goes for pulse machines, no real performance difference say between a TDI SL and a Dual field. With that said, I am going to hold off buying any new detectors for a awhile. It is my opinion only that current pulse and VLF technology has reach its limits. Again, I am referencing technology for beach hunting and maybe even coin shooting. I will be in the new detector market only when new technology offers one of two things: 1. When a multi-frequency (discriminating) machine can cut through black sand like a pulse (or) 2. When and if a true discriminating pulse detector becomes available. What are your thoughts?