Jump to content

Recommended Posts


First rule Blind tests are mandatory to be serious.

Second rule if you do not agree refer to rule number 1¬†ūüėä

The purpose of this playground, and not to take into account the feeling of the prospector. It is too easy for a participant to indicate that he is correctly detecting the target. But in general he does not detect it or he thinks to detect it. It often detects a ground effect.

During our long experience and our meetings with prospectors at the beach, we realized that the prospector was often influenced by the pride placed in his detector. This is why we have implemented this drastic and non-falsifiable comparative tests procedure.

Of course for this test you have to be 2 people.
A person who hides targets and a person who tries to find them. The depth tests can be done simultaneously.

It is obvious that here are static tests. The reality is even more difficult! See for yourself the catastrophic results ....

Document here :







  • Like 7
Link to post
Share on other sites

Count of correct answers: ferrous targets + 1pt / gold targets + 3pts.
Counting the wrong answers -1pt.

Note : Those who did not answer scored more points than those who were convinced

6 squares of 1 meter x 1 meter
Each square containing 10 boxes.

Possibility on each square to have 0 or 1 or 2 or 3 targets

Indicate whether there is a gold or iron target or a ground effect or iron mixed with gold, or nothing at all and do this for each of the boxes of all the squares.

Advantages :

- Impossible to lie
- Impossible to guess by chance (millions of possibilities)
- allows to compare the detectors on all the difficulties encountered.
- allows to perform depth tests simultaneously.





There were 66 prospectors, and 48 prospectors abandoned.



  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

Thats pretty cool 1¬†thing retain my attention ūüėÖūüėÖ:



All other competitors abandoned (66 prospectors / 48 abandoned)




Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for sharing and all of the time and effort that went into the field test. Hats off to you and those who helped.

The test from my point of view shows One's knowledge of his machine is what makes the difference. A very close Second and Third would be having the correct machine and familiar with those hunting conditions.


  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

That is a great idea for a true test.

Link to post
Share on other sites


Yes I agree with you Alexandre , a serious MD test must be a blind test. If the tester knows where the target is buried and the kind of target buried , in most cases he will tell that he detects the target, even its detector cannot do it. As you said he THINKS that he detects it but it is a kind of psychological "auto suggestion" process ( sorry it is in French ) . The MD tests must be done very scientifically with a very strict procedure as you have done above . Doing this with many detectors of different brands on my own bed tests , I arrived to the conclusion that the max detection depth for a VLF detector in moderated mineralized ground is always around 28/30cms for a 10Centimes napoleon3 ( 10grams french copper coin ), no more ,whatever the detector brand is  . Tthis is just logical because the electronic/electromagnetic physical laws are the same for all the machines.... The last test that I did was with the Nokta Simplex+ , and the result was again 28cm on this 10C Napoleon coin.

By the way I am looking forward to see a Fisher PI coin/relic  machine coming after the impulse AQ and the Terra , if this is technically possible .And I am looking forward to see a machine beating the 30cm depth on the 10Cent Napoleon 3  ( with a very good iron disc of course ) , I have never found one up to now ….

thanks , Alain



  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

The sensitivity and range of the VLF will depend on the frequency and also the real ..- Correct / not maximum / detector settings for the given degree of terrain mineralization ..
  So feel:
  low-mineralized terrain approximately 85-90% reach, / compared to airtest at the same settings /
moderately mineralized terrain 75-80% reach,
and about 55-60% reach in extreme mineralization
Of course -from real-optimal Vlf detector setup for given terrain type.
So the actual performance of Vlf in heavily mineralized terrain can eventually be only 35% compared to the maximum detector setup ...- which you cannot use here ..
The detector frequency alone gives you a certain degree of sensitivity for the conductivity of the object.
Higher frequencies are still several times more sensitive to low-conductive objects - for example, gold

..Multifrequency maintains a more balanced sensitivity to all types of object conductivity


Therefore, I consider a PI detector with good iron discrimination as a much more powerful detection tool in difficult terrain conditions than a VLF detector.

So the new PI detector ..... Fisher Impulse AQ, can say a lot in deep detection ..

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

El Nino your post is very interesting thanks. On my bed tests I have 70% reach , for example on a french 10cent Napoleon 3 10grams copper I can detect it at 40cm in the air , and it reduces to 28cm in the ground, this , it is true for all brands of machines that can run a low frequency under 10khz. For example 5khz or Multi with the equinox. 

So this is my challenge , it is very simple , go deeper than 28/30cm with a 10C Nap3 coin  …. 

Actually I am wondering it the impulse aq can be used on moderated mineralized soils. If this is possible , then an AQ will probably go further that 30cm in the ground . But from what I read in this forum it looks like that the AQ has been designed only for salted beaches  . But wait and see , the real tests will answer to the question ...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Similar Content

    • By Tony
      I’m sure I read somewhere that all of these common connectors (typically for headphones) such as the 8 pin style have a limited amount of mating cycles. Connector integrity cannot be assured after this. I guess there is a small amount of wear and tear on the male/female metal contact points as well as the plastic/rubber moulding that keeps water out.
      Any views on this? 
    • By GB_Amateur
      Out with the Minelab Equinox yesterday and getting frustrated with the difficulty of switching to the user 'profile' (plenty of complaints on that since its release) but then wondering why we have only one memory slot.  Sure, many detectors have zero....
      Are there detectors on the market (or even from the past -- no longer manufacturered) that have more than one user memory slot?  It's hard to believe in 2020 with gigabytes of memory in so many small packages/products that we can't have 2 or (am I asking for too much?) 4 places to put user custom set search modes.
    • By 67GTA
      Might be a silly question, but I can't find the answer. Seems like all the lower end detectors are always around 5-8 khz. I was always under the impression that the sweet spot for the biggest target range was around 12-18 khz. Are the lower frequencies cheaper to implement, or is there another reason? 
    • By oregonbob
      Has anyone here ever seen a convincing demonstration of long range detectors, the Electroscope Regulator for example?  Seems to me to be a scam but I know very little about them and could easily be wrong.  I would really like to hear about you're experiences with them.
      Thanks in advance!!!
    • By phrunt
      I stumbled across this Paper by Minelab discussing metal detecting basics and theory, I found it a very worthwhile and informative read, no doubt a lot of people have seen it before but like myself there are possibly many who have missed it.  It holds a wealth of information about detectors and how they work.
      Here is Minelab's speal about it
      The following paper is both informative and helpful for metal detector users with an interest in technology. This article offers an insight into the basic theory and electronics of metal detectors.
      Whilst a technical paper, this is not a formal ‚Äúscientific paper‚ÄĚ and the language used is deliberately more ‚Äúreader friendly.‚ÄĚ
      Additionally, some terms are used loosely. For example; the terms ‚Äúmagnetic soils‚ÄĚ or ‚Äúmineralised soils‚ÄĚ indicates soil that contains materials with significant magnetic permeability (or susceptibility).
      Minelab spends a higher percentage of annual revenue in research and development than any of our competitors. We, as the engineering team, appreciate that our company supports this approach allowing the freedom to dream of what might be and act upon that vision. The result of this effort is demonstrated in the break-through technologies that Minelab has incorporated its world class detectors.
      A basic approach to creating a superior metal detector includes:
      1. Products that offer the most useful features and best possible performance
      2. Products that are highly reliable
      3. Products that exceed expectations every time they are used.
      To achieve these goals we must know advanced detector theory intimately. A sound working knowledge of electronics, mathematics, and mechanical engineering are essential as is familiarity with government regulations. We also pride ourselves on our practical knowledge of hands-on detecting in the field.
      This paper will give you a basic overview of the subject and some insight into the way we at Minelab approach the challenges of creating the world’s finest metal detectors.
    • By Steve Herschbach
      I do what I can to foster competition that develops alternatives to the all too common VLF detector. There are plenty of options out there, but in my opinion they all weigh too much or cost too much. Usually both.   I envision people out there with a popular VLF metal detector for beach, relic, or gold detecting. These machines all sell for around $700 and weigh 2.5 - 3.9 lbs. Perhaps they would like to add a ground balancing PI (GBPI) to what they have. I think that for "normal people" with normal budgets a machine under $2K and under four pounds just makes sense. It would be more than twice what they spent for their VLF, and in this day and age there is no reason why a decent PI should weigh over 4 lbs. I am drawing the hard line at 5 lbs and refuse to ever buy a metal detector again that weighs 5 lbs or over. I am setting under 4 lbs more as an aspirational goal that I think can be achieved, but recognize that battery power and coils are key inhibiting factors in high power PI systems that may make sacrifices in depth necessary to get total weight under 4 lbs.   To clarify what I am talking about here, I should say that for many people a $700 VLF detector is a great place to start and in many cases is all a person ever needs. However, there are places where extreme ground mineralization and mineralized rocks (hot rocks) severely impede the performance and use of VLF detectors. Alternative technology to deal with these conditions has been developed, by far the most familiar being the Minelab ground balancing PI (GBPI) detectors. These differ from common PI detectors by having the ability to ground balance. Other brands have offered the Garrett Infinium (discontinued) plus Garrett ATX and the White's TDI models.   These detectors are used not just for gold prospecting but also by relic hunters, beach detectorists, and others who face challenges regarding ground mineralization and VLF detectors.   Frankly, in my opinion GBPI technology is largely maxed out. The main room for improvement comes now in better ergonomics at lower prices. This challenge therefore limits detectors to those that weigh under 4 pounds with battery included, and which sell brand new with warranty after discounts for under US$2000. Detectors need not be ground balancing PI models, but must offer similar ability to ignore mineralized ground and hot rocks that trouble VLF detectors. I am going to rate detectors as to their relative performance using what I call the "Minelab Rating Scale. Details here.
      1. Minelab SD 2000 - crude first version, very poor on small gold, excellent on large deep gold
      2. Minelab SD 2100 - vastly refined version of SD 2000
      3. Minelab SD 2200 (all versions) - adds crude iron disc, ground tracking
      4. Minelab GP Extreme - adds greatly improved sensitivity to small gold, overall performance boost.
      5. Minelab GP 3000 - Refined GP Extreme
      6.  Minelab GP 3500 - Greatly refined GP 3000, last and best of analog models
      7. Minelab GPX 4000 - First digital interface, rock solid threshold
      8. Minelab GPX 4500 - Refined GPX 4000, solid performer
      9. Minelab GPX 4800 - Released at same time as GPX 5000 as watered down version
      10. Minelab GPX 5000 - Culmination of the series, current pinnacle of GBPI prospecting machine technology.
      All Minelab models leverage an existing base of over 100 coil options from tiny to huge.
      I am a very practical person when it comes to detecting. I know all the existing models and options by all brands very well, perhaps better than almost anyone. This is the way I look at it is this. If I personally were to spend a lot of money to go gold prospecting for one month, and needed a GBPI detector, considering machines past and present, what would I get and in what order of choice? Put aside concerns of age, warranty, etc. just assume functioning detectors.
      Here is the issue in a nutshell. On the Minelab scale of one to ten as listed above, I would be generous in rating the White's TDI SL as a 2. Same with the Garrett Infinium which I will mention in passing as it is no longer being made. If I was going to spend a month of my time and a lot of money going on a prospecting trip, I would choose a TDI in any version over the SD 2000. I might go with a TDI Pro over a SD 2100 but I would have to think real hard about that, and when push comes to shove I would go SD 2100 were it not for the realities of age I said to ignore. A newer TDI Pro might be a better bet than a very old SD 2100 from a reliability standpoint, but again, this would be a tough choice. The TDI SL not really. In my opinion I would be shooting myself in the foot to go on this hypothetical trip with a TDI SL instead of a SD 2100.
      You see the problem now?
      The Garrett ATX fares better. I would rate it a 3, roughly analogous to the SD 2200 variants. Still an agonizing choice really and the ATX being new versus SD 2200 being old might again be the tipping point, but from a pure prospecting options perspective the case can be made that the SD 2200 might be the better way to go. The problem for this challenge is the ATX weighs way over 4 lbs and sells for slightly over $2000. The price is close enough really but the 7 lb weight is way off.
      That's it folks. That is reality. The best of the best that the competition can offer can only go solidly up against models Minelab has not made in years. I am not saying that to be mean or as some kind of Minelab toadie, that is my pure unvarnished opinion as a guy who is pretty well versed on the subject.
      Let's bring it all home. This person with the $700 machine really, really wants that under 4 lb, under $2K GBPI machine, but if they do their homework they discover that truthfully, they would be better off shopping for a used Minelab than what the competition offers new. With the TDI SL rated as a 2 the ATX in a much lighter box at under $2K is a solid win as a 3. A well designed ATX with standard dry land coils would look very enticing as compared to the GP series Minelabs. But Garrett refuses to budge!
      White's can certainly do something, anything to improve the TDI SL. A battery that lasts all day would be a good start. In the end they are limited by the basic single channel design of the machine. The SD 2000 dual channel design was literally the answer to and the improvement on the single channel technology used in the TDI, the basics of which predate the SD 2000. Still, White's currently owns the under 4 lb under $2K GBPI category so they have the first out of the starting gate advantage. Anything they do would at the very least just show they have not given up.
      The Minelab MPS patent that formed the basis of the SD series has expired. Not sure about DVT, which formed the basis of the GP series. Where is the competition? What the heck is going on here? Much gnashing of teeth and pulling of hair is going on here, that's what!!!
      That is my challenge to the manufacturers. Under 4 lbs, under $2K, on the 1-10 scale I am offering, what is the best you can do?
      The TDI SL as a 2? Really? Yes, really, that is currently the best of the best in the brand new ground balancing PI, full warranty, under 4 lb, under $2k category. You can pick up a 3.5 lb TDI SL right now brand new for $1049. The White's TDI SL takes the crown.
      Note that a challenger has a half pound of weight they can add to the TDI SL and still make the 4 lb mark, and retail can be almost double the $1049 of the TDI SL and still come in at the 2K mark. I therefore do not think my challenge is outright crazy.
      Hopefully we will see more competition in this wide open category soon. I have been beating this drum for years to no avail, but I do have reason to believe we are finally going to see more alternatives soon. I hope. Maybe? All I know is I have had it. I sold both my 6.9 lb Garrett ATX and 7.2 lb Minelab GPZ 7000 and am boycotting metal detectors that weigh over 5 lbs from here on out. I don’t care how well they work, I simply refuse to buy such heavy beasts anymore. In the future I will support and give my dollars to companies that pay attention to and prioritize lightweight, more ergonomic designs.

      White's Electronics TSI SL metal detector
  • Create New...