Jump to content

Recommended Posts

I am somewhat new to metal detecting and was recently told, by a veteran detector, that all machines are multi frequency. I was also told to not buy into the multi frequency hype and that machines advertised as ones, is a marketing ploy. Please help! Is he right?

garrett-multiflex-multifrequency-selectable-frequency-technology.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Welcome to the forum! No, that is inaccurate. One simple example is saltwater - multifrequency machines have a clear and indisputable advantage there. Target id accuracy is another area of clear superiority. These are not opinions; there are clear technical reasons why this is so. This article will tell you more about the subject.

Selectable & Multiple Frequency Metal Detectors

That is not to say you can’t do well with single frequency or that single frequency does not excel at some tasks. There is generally a situation in metal detecting where any one methodology can have some advantage.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Either you misunderstood the veteran detector user you talked to or they have a bone to pick with a certain type of detector. Most hobby VLF detectors are single frequency. Depending on their quality they may be able to very slightly change frequencies in order to prevent crosstalk with other detectors. Only a few VLF detectors have the ability to selectively change from one detecting frequency to another like the XP Deus, XP ORX and some of the Nokta Makro detectors. A very few detectors also have the ability to operate with simultaneous multiple frequencies. Depending on if your soil has high mineralization conditions or if you detect saltwater beaches, a simultaneous multiple frequency detector may be the only VLF detector that will work well. In very mild to moderately mild dirt you won't see much difference between a good quality single frequency detector and a good quality simultaneous multi frequency detector for shallow to medium depth targets. On the deeper targets (past 6 to 8") the simultaneous multi frequency detector may out perform the single frequency detector as far as identification of the target is concerned.

So, simultaneous multi frequency detectors work very well where many other detectors fail miserably. That is not hype or some kind of marketing ploy, it is a well known fact.

Jeff

  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the location your hunt is the single most important part to finding something good followed by knowing your machine and having the right coil for the job.

I hunt more by audio than vdi so if the numbers are a bit dodgy it means very little to me but that is just the way I hunt. Others keep their eyes glued to their screens.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, kac said:

I hunt more by audio than vdi so if the numbers are a bit dodgy it means very little to me but that is just the way I hunt. Others keep their eyes glued to their screens.

I have read this response in your posts before and on many detectors with or without displays that strategy works very well. On some simultaneous multi frequency VLF detectors being hype or not, which is the topic of this thread, visual target IDs are very accurately accompanied by very accurate multiple tone ID capabilities. On the Equinox specifically, I hunt first by tone ID and use the numerical target IDs to support what I hear. I don't know anyone who uses an Equinox (that knows what they are doing) that has their eyes glued to the screen. They don't need to especially in 5 or 50 tones. 

Jeff

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yup, what Jeff said. It has nothing to do with the target id information being presented in an audio or visual fashion. It’s is all derived from the same base information, and if one is inaccurate, the other will be also. An aluminum beaver tail that reads like a dime will also sound like a dime, a common occurrence with single frequency in bad ground, but does not happen to me with multi.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Steve Herschbach said:

Yup, what Jeff said. It has nothing to do with the target id information being presented in an audio or visual fashion. It’s is all derived from the same base information, and if one is inaccurate, the other will be also. An aluminum beaver tail that reads like a dime will also sound like a dime, a common occurrence with single frequency in bad ground, but does not happen to me with multi.

  With my xterra 70 many pulltabs  would up  average to coins. In places where  I  didn't mind digging more targets or when the  depth of  up average was where their would be old  nickles or gold rings  I did   not care to much.If the pulltabs and coins were both very deep because of soft ground,that up average thing the  machine did made it tough when you were focused on silver coins or you were cherry picking  .I like the nox Id. It is good enough for me to know it's a coin.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was about to say the same thing, the audio just seems to represent the exact ID on the screen so having inaccurate ID's on the screen would also mean your audio is out of whack.    If hunting by audio you're still listening for that sweet tone of the target you're chasing and the tone will represent the number of the target.  I used to hunt exclusively by screen, as I've aged on my detector I've started to use tones a bit but for me nothing beats ID's on a screen.   The tones may pull me up on my lazy wander through a field but in the end for me the screen is what gives me confidence to dig.    In fact I'm still blown away my detector can throw up a number and I dig that number and 10 inches down is a little silver coin, the exact coin the number was telling me it is.... what a neat technology.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My AT Pro with latest firmware and 9x12 concentric audio and vdi match right to the fall off (older firmware numbers would drop off but audio was still there). The MK has very reliable numbers when gain is not maxed out. 80-85 is where the machine should be and gain above that your simply pushing the machine. In Gen Mode that the vdi #'s are just raw unfiltered response.

When I say I hunt by audio first I do that to judge the target size and depth. My last large cent the numbers were all over the place and buddy passed over it with his Nox 800 for the same reason. Turned out there was a tiny bit of iron in the same spot. Coin was only 6" down. Out here hunting for size of an object has helped me more so than the numbers.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Jeff McClendon said:

On the Equinox specifically, I hunt first by tone ID and use the numerical target IDs to support what I hear.

That^

14 hours ago, Steve Herschbach said:

It’s is all derived from the same base information, and if one is inaccurate, the other will be also. An aluminum beaver tail that reads like a dime will also sound like a dime, a common occurrence with single frequency in bad ground, but does not happen to me with multi.

The only thing I can add to this is that there are tonal nuances that can provide clues.  Yes if you have junk that gives the same ID as a desired target (Steve's dime/beaver tail example) you will get the base tone ID that corresponds to the visual target ID, but on some detectors, especially those that have audio modulation with depth, whether they are multi F or single F, then if the target is irregularly shaped and not perfectly round, can sometimes hear a distortion or tonal sideband nuances in addition to the fundamental ID tone that tell you maybe that is a corroded zinc, bent tab, or slaw even if you get a rock solid ID.  I have found that the Deus/Orx, especially in pitch mode gives you this nuanced information better than the Nox (but no target ID), similarly on the Nox, sometimes Gold mode can do this too.  I like 50 tones on the Nox because if the target ID is unstable (usually a dead giveaway for junk unless there  are multiple targets in the "hole" or more correctly under the coil - like KAC described with his large cent or a coin spill) you can just hear that right off and decide whether you need to circle the target to lock in the ID, move on, or just dig it out to be sure.  Bottom line, it is both the audio and visual ID information and how the target responds to coil movement and perhaps a shift in modes/frequency (that is why having that single frequency option on a multiF detector is important to me)  that all combine to give you the clues so you can make your best dig decision - I call this interrogating the target.  Regarding the Nox, since it has less tone modulation than other detectors, I find the pinpoint to be a useful tool for "sizing up" the target otherwise, Nox's gold mode pseudo VCO audio is also a useful tool, so I usually keep a gold mode program in my Nox's user profile slot to interrogate an iffy target.  Bottom line, though, these target interrogation techniques and audio clues work regardless of whether the detector is single or multi frequency, but the language varies from detector to detector due to the detector target ID feature implementation differences. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


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 goldenoldie
      Those impressive video results of the Fisher Impulse AQ with its 12.5” mono coil  on the 10K Gold ring at 17”-18” and 14K Gold ring at 19”-20” as did a 22K Gold ring drove my curiousity to air test two Gold rings using a QED in its Beach Mode-11 operating at its pulse delay of 7.5uS with a NF 12” Advantage mono coil.
      For my test, the QED’s settings were Threshold-B at 5 below Null and Factory Default for Threshold-A at 30 and Gain at 1.
      (Threshold-A settings range from a 1 up to 90 and the Gain settings range from 1 up to 10}
      The results for a clear response on a 3.04-gram 9K 21mm diameter Gold ring was 17” and on a 2.05-gram 18K 19mm diameter Gold ring was 16”.
      I have no idea how a QED using its Beach Mode would operate within a Beach environment and my intention is not to compare in anyway the QED to the Fisher Impulse AQ only results using a pulse delay of 7.5uS.
    • 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 6 lbs from here on out. I don’t care how well they work, I simply refuse to buy such heavy beasts from here on out. 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
       
    • By Dan(NM)
      I had a guy approach me at the lake today who lost a 14K college class ring size 11. I told him I would spend time looking for it and get it back to him if I happen to recover it. I have a 10K college class ring I found this year(unable to locate owner) but, it's a 10K. On the Simplex, it reads 64-65, the Nox hits at 20-21 I'm wondering how much of a difference the 14K will read. Any help would be appreciated. Thanks.
    • By Mike Hillis
      Hand held backscatter xray.    I want one.   
      https://www.dael.com/assets/files/Documenten/hbi-viken-sec2.pdf
      HH
      Mike
    • By ☠ Cipher
      What do you make of this description on KellyCo? It seems to suggest the IPTU sensor would work with machines other than the Invenio. Does anyone know if that is true and how that would work? 
      "One of the biggest issues that people run into when metal detecting is difficulty with accuracy. The IPTU Sensor (Invenio) is going to help increase your accuracy and help you find more items and be sure what they are and where they are better. This is an easy to install sensor and is going to make a world of difference when it comes to your overall success when metal detecting. This sensor works with Invenio detectors and is a great addition to any metal detector."
      https://www.kellycodetectors.com/catalog/iptu-sensor-for-invenio
    • By Steve Herschbach
      The original 1985 Fisher Impulse metal detector
      A note on saltwater. On dry land and in freshwater pulse induction (PI) detectors can be run to max limits. Not so in saltwater. There is an inherent limiting factor in saltwater that tends to flatten top end performance on all PI detectors, or even VLF detectors for that matter. The problem is simple - saltwater is conductive and so is visible to electromagnetic devices like metal detectors.
      Pulse induction detectors saw their earliest use as beach detectors because of the pulse delay control. Lower pulse delays expose items with a shorter time constant, and this usually means low conductive and/or small items. As the pulse delay increases a PI loses overall sensitivity. Early beach PI detectors all came with a preset, relatively high pulse delay that made saltwater invisible to the detector. 
      In general somewhere around a pulse delay of 10 uS saltwater becomes visible to a PI detector. The number varies for several reasons, First, salinity varies greatly around the world, everything from salt free fresh water, all the way to the Great Salt Lake, which is water supersaturated with salt. Oceans and bays vary, and especially bays that have large river inflows, and therefore lower salinity levels. Large, shallow, enclosed bays with no rivers may act as evaporation dishes, and have abnormally high salinity levels. Further, this effect is accentuated the deeper you take a detector, and so detectors used for true SCUBA diving must be run at higher delay levels at depth. You can't just pick a number like 10 uS and say that is the magic number for dealing with saltwater. 9 uS may work well, or it may take 12 uS to eliminate feedback from the saltwater in your location.
      The coil detects like a globe in all directions, and so it is not just the water under the coil, but all around the coil that is affecting it. This large ball of saltwater is like a giant target. Many hunters riding the edge of sensitivity can tell you a detector can pick up waves as they pass over, making the water deeper.
      This long winded explanation is to make people realize that you can't just magically make the detector itself more powerful and get "more depth" or "more sensitivity." The salt range overlaps the tiny gold range, and so if you make a detector able to detect fine gold chains and tiny gold ear rings, it will detect the saltwater. If your set the pulse delay to eliminate the salt signal, you lose the tiny gold items. This is an inherent wall on both PI and VLF small gold performance in saltwater. We have had detectors for decades that can detect tiny gold that people say they want to detect in saltwater, the Fisher Gold Bug 2 for instance. The problem is the Gold Bug 2 will not work in a saltwater environment. The water is just a huge signal to a Gold Bug 2. I have gone round and round with people for the last twenty years trying to explain why you can't detect certain fine gold chains, small ear rings, small platinum, etc. in saltwater. The problem is not the detectors - it is the saltwater.
      The same problem exists to some degree on trying to detect larger items. You can make a very powerful detector, but you have to inhibit the detection of saltwater, and this tends to put a ceiling on the maximum attainable performance in saltwater. No matter the machine you use, once you hit the saltwater you can only advance the pulse delay and sensitivity controls to a certain point before the detector starts to protest. The exact settings where this occurs will vary by location. This all assumes "no mineral" sand. Add magnetic soil content to the beach or bottom being hunted, and you have yet another limiting factor to contend with.
      Add this all up and do not expect to run the Impulse AQ Limited at a pulse delay of 7 Us and maximum sensitivity in a typical saltwater environment. You will likely have to lower one or the other or both settings to get stable performance, and this requirement tends to be a limiting factor on all PI performance in saltwater. It is this knowledge that keeps me from ever expecting miracles to occur when I try new detectors in saltwater environment. The problem is not the detectors - it is the saltwater.
      The original 1985 Fisher Impulse metal detector


×
×
  • Create New...