Jump to content

Is The Weighting And Algorithm Of Park 1 And Field 1 The Same?


Recommended Posts

Hi, long time lurker, first time poster. 

So the manual only tells you that certain modes have “low frequency weighting” and “ higher frequency weighting”. Otherwise a chart shows the adjustable settings that have been optimized for scenarios they describe presumably.  Understandable, we get some presets.

My question in title in other words: Assuming I set all adjustable settings the same for Park 1 and Field 1 (or Park 2 and Field 2), would these two modes be essentially the same? Or would the non-adjustable portion of the “1” modes and the “2” modes still be different?
 

Thank you for your insight.  If this has been covered in another post, a link is appreciated as my search did not lead to an answer.

 

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites


Thanks. I did find a post where someone asked the same exact question and Steve said “he would ask the powers that be” but it did not seem like he posted a response. Was hoping somebody knew. I don’t  think that Minelab would have to give away any secrets by answering that question....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, nickeldNdimed said:

Thanks. I did find a post where someone asked the same exact question and Steve said “he would ask the powers that be” but it did not seem like he posted a response. Was hoping somebody knew. I don’t  think that Minelab would have to give away any secrets by answering that question....

Whatever the reason, they simply don't bother providing any clarity on questions like that.  I guess it would open them up to accusations of artificially inflating the number of unique search modes or something if they admitted to them being the same, but the fact is that they do seem to perform slightly differently on my test garden even when set up identically but I can't say one is "deeper" than the other or simply better because the target responses are a mixed bag.

So the difference may be more than just differences in the  frequency profile between the two modes but also how the target signal is processed.  Again the differences are slight.  

I point you to the target response differences between  the new 4 khz SF mode and 5 khz.  On paper, the target response differences between these two modes should not be signficant.  I neality, there is a marked difference and not just on target response but also on perceived EMI noise immunity.  4 khz just seeims to be able to be run at a higher sensitivity setting than 5 khz in the same EMI noise environment.  Some of that might be because 4 khz is less susceptible than 5 khz to powerline noise or a new noise cancelling signal processing algorithm being built into 4 khz, but of course Minelab is not talking as usual, so we'll probably never know the real reason.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, I would not be upset. I would be happier to know and understand what I cant change. My reasoning and thinking was to set one “low” for the 11” coil and one “low” for the 6” with some slight differences for bias and recovery. Then same with the “high” weighted.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They feel different, but as others say, hard to tell how exactly.
On my floors full of nails, Park modes seem to see coins, but Field modes do not, just a bare squeak. However, Field modes while outside, at least here, seem to be able to pick faint signals from depth better, at a cost of being a little chattier. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

All I can say is with two different Nox 600s set up exactly the same in Park 1 and Field 1 with all targets accepted, same noise cancel settings, same ground balance, 5 tones, threshold 0, recovery speed 3, F2 1, my buried 6" modern Jefferson nickel in high mineralization does not detect the same way at all. This is a difficult target for any detector to hit and identify. Most good detectors operating above 13 kHz will hit it. Both Nox 600s set up as above could hit the 6" nickel in Park 1 with a very clipped, unstable tone and slightly jumpy numbers 11to 15 with mostly 12 and 13s and an occasional 16, 17. In Field 1 both Nox 600s hit the same 6" nickel with clear, clean tones and tighter numbers 11to 13. Moving to 50 tones tightened the numbers BUT the tone itself was still much more clipped and unstabe in Park 1. Field 1 tone was clean and rounded.

So, I did this test the same way with both Nox 600s using the same coil and the same earbuds. I also did the same test on my buried 6" clad Washington quarter. The results were very close to identical with no noticeable audio differences. So the lower conductive target had different results whereas the higher conductive target sounded basically the same. Both 600s have been updated to version 3.13 firmware. Weird.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
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
×
×
  • Create New...