Jump to content

Deus 2 Vs Simplex High Mineralization Video


Recommended Posts

Alright, no snickering. This is a serious comparison. For those that have never used a Simplex, it is pretty impressive. Deus 2.....I have never used one.

Paystreak Superfreak sometimes makes some weird videos. I do weird stuff too like metal detecting at 30 degrees F in 4 inches of snow.... This video is no nonsense and very accurate from my experience.

This is a test on three US coins at 6" in disturbed freshly dug high magnetite and volcanic particulate dirt. 

For those of you who are fortunate to hunt in mild soil....now you are getting a good idea of how bad it can get just in someones back yard. My backyard dirt looks almost exactly like Paystreak's. Detects about as bad too. By the way, the Equinox does not like highly iron mineralized freshly disturbed ground either.

 

  • Like 8
Link to comment
Share on other sites


I have no issues with either detector in this comparison. I still look forward to owning a Deus 2. However, potential buyers should know what to expect especially if they will be detecting in really bad dirt.

For me personally, if Deus 2 with a 9" coil can give me 6 or 7" of good target IDs and tones in this dirt, I will be ecstatic. Equinox does about the same but like Palzynski reminds us on this forum, the Deus and Deus 2 are a lot more comfortable to pack and to swing. At my age that definitely matters. So does Deus  trashy iron handling.

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The fact that both detectors actually hit the 6” dime is pretty amazing. I have some 6” well established dime and penny targets in my backyard test garden that most detectors cannot hit much less indentify.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for posting that video Jeff.

My dirt is not quite that bad at my house but close. It's worse the closer I get to the mountains which are 5 minutes away. Once the snow melts again I may do a video of the Deus 2 in action on my test garden. Results will be very similar.

BTW how dare anyone put a Simplex up against the Deus 2.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Jeff McClendon changed the title to Deus 2 Vs Simplex High Mineralization Video

Out of interest, how do old classics like the T2/F75 do in a situation like that?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, phrunt said:

Out of interest, how do old classics like the T2/F75 do in a situation like that?

Simon, I can't speak for anyone but myself.  First, the T2 and F75 were so handcuffed with EMI in my urban area that it is hard to know exactly. However, as much as I really like both detectors, their target ID accuracy was 3". Deeper targets sounded awful and IDs were absolutely all over the place. The Simplex outperformed them here and had no EMI issues.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

One thing that isn't clear to me is how much the noise is from the soil and how much is from junk iron targets (like nails).  He tosses around words like 'iron' and 'ferrous' but that isn't unusual as that happens all the time in metal detecting lingo (and even in chemistry).

Can you tell from the tones & dTID's in the video which kind of iron (conductive or purely ferromagnetic) he is experiencing?  Admittedly in the real world there are times where both variable ground mineralization and conductive iron are present.  It would be good to know if an experienced user can tell the difference between the three situations (just non-conductive ferromagnetic, conductive iron, or both).

When he dug the holes the ground appeared to be moist.  Does that contribute, and if so in a positive way ('positive' meaning easier to determine target type), negative effect, or "it depends..."?

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, GB_Amateur said:

One thing that isn't clear to me is how much the noise is from the soil and how much is from junk iron targets (like nails).  He tosses around words like 'iron' and 'ferrous' but that isn't unusual as that happens all the time in metal detecting lingo (and even in chemistry).

Can you tell from the tones & dTID's in the video which kind of iron (conductive or purely ferromagnetic) he is experiencing?  Admittedly in the real world there are times where both variable ground mineralization and conductive iron are present.  It would be good to know if an experienced user can tell the difference between the three situations (just non-conductive ferromagnetic, conductive iron, or both).

When he dug the holes the ground appeared to be moist.  Does that contribute, and if so in a positive way ('positive' meaning easier to determine target type), negative effect, or "it depends..."?

He lives in Portland Oregon I think. His backyard dirt and the dirt in his area has plenty of magnetite and volcanic ash. Since he is in his backyard, there probably is some man-made iron too. He did a good job of keeping the plugs together. Most of what you are seeing as far as good and bad numbers corresponding to direction of swing over the target is from high iron mineralization not just from man-made iron. He is not getting multiple target indications in each hole. My backyard sounds exactly the same. Some of the iron targets are man-made and some are patches of magnetite. 

The ground was moist, certainly not muddy and not frozen. So, almost ideal digging conditions and ground conditions.

  • Like 3
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...