Iffy Tests Manticore Vs Deus 2 On Gold With Iron

[Daniel Tn]

No matter how well done a video is, somebody won't like it or want it done differently. I'm personally not a fan of the test garden or above ground nail/separation tests.  Simply because there's a lot of "slide of the hand" tricks a person can do to make one machine stand out and look better.  Especially the buried test garden ones...in some instances you can tweak a machine to hit a specific target you have buried in there BUT in real world hunt conditions, you'd never be able to use the settings in which you achieved it. The ole manual ground balance knob machines could do this with balancing into the negative zone.  You could impress people in videos via showing an obtained signal over specific test garden targets but in actual hunt conditions with those settings, you more the less made the machine very chatty and unstable. A lot of people are doing the same things with certain settings just to show the ability to pick up a specific target but in real world hunting, they wouldn't be able use those settings.  Be very cautious as to who you watch and what you believe. I take em all with a grain of salt.

[Skate]

Regardless of tests, out in the actual field, park, beach, the person who investigates and digs the most targets will find the most stuff. The things they learn while doing it will increase their finds/rewards more than any specific detector would regardless of brand. Testing is great if it's done while actually hunting. Just saying 

[mn90403]

Steve had this to say about the limits of all VLF detectors on an AI thread.  We can't read it all!  He is much more qualified than I am to make detailed observations rather than my generalizations.  This is a bit 'out of context' but the new chips and programs in the detectors being compared do warrant speculation.

Is Manticore using AI to do its 'thing?'  Can AI separate the iron from the good?

 

The problem with a lot of this theorizing about machine learning, is that metal detectors know less than most people think. For instance, they have no idea what metal is under the coil. Any metal can read almost anywhere, depending on the size of the target. Target id only works for items that never vary, like a silver dime, yet many trash items can mimic a silver dime. Still, you can build a detector that can cherry pick coins rather effectively for use in the U.S.

But go almost anywhere else, or detect for anything else, and it rapidly turns into “dig all non-ferrous targets”. Nugget detecting, jewelry detecting, relic hunting, and detecting anywhere with history, like the U.K., you better be digging all non-ferrous. That’s because the range for metals is based on target size, not composition, and good targets exist at all target id numbers. Eliminate anything, you potentially eliminate good targets. In a nutshell, for any given metal, the target id range goes from small targets to large targets. The idea target id identifies type of metal is an illusion.

And then you discover that all detectors misidentify some non-ferrous as ferrous, so you end up just digging everything. Target masking also motivates people to remove trash targets. All nugget hunters eventually dig all targets, until an area is devoid of targets, period. This is extending to both beach and relic hunting as time goes by.

Depth? Max VLF depth has not changed in decades. My old Compass Gold Scanner Pro went as deep as any VLF made today. We have got an improvement in target id accuracy at depth, but sheer depth hit a wall ages ago in VLF. PI is where the depth advances came, and we are at the wall there also. I can imagine some improvements in target id in PI by rapid mode switch analysis, but due to the nature of PI you will always have severe overlap of ferrous and non-ferrous, because, again, target id is based more on size, than composition.

Target ID More About Size, Than Type Of Metal

The target id range for one special type of metal, gold, goes from deep in the ferrous range, for gold in mineralized ground, all the way to silver dollar and higher, if you are detecting gold bars. Pick your metal, and the result is the same. It’s all about the size of the target, with infinite overlap between metal types. For every gold target, an equivalent aluminum target can exist.

Finally, a detector really does not even know the size of a target. It only knows strong signals, and weak signals. So a large target at the edge of detection depth can deliver the same result as a small surface target. Usually only small gold nuggets give a ferrous reading in mineralized ground. However, every nugget, no matter the size, if buried deep enough in mineralized ground, can read like a small ferrous target. At the edge of detection depth the ground signal overwhelms the target signal, flipping non-ferrous items to ferrous. If you pass on ferrous targets, you can pass on a two ounce gold nugget at depth (for example). This applies just as much to silver coins as to gold nuggets. Any non-ferrous target can read ferrous under the right conditions in mineralized soil, and the more mineralized the soil, the more severe the problem. I hunt ground where coins read ferrous after just a few inches, and recently saw a detector identify a large brass shell casing as ferrous at two inches.

Tune Out Nails, You Will Miss Gold!

Long story short detectors are as dumb as stumps, and good luck making them smarter. The only thing that can get smarter is the operator, and the smart ones know that as long as targets remain in the ground, good finds can still be made. Reliance on discrimination is the main reason why good targets continue to exist, waiting to be found by those who will dig what everyone else thought was trash.

 

 

 

[palzynski]

On 12/12/2022 at 5:31 PM, Daniel Tn said:

No matter how well done a video is, somebody won't like it or want it done differently. I'm personally not a fan of the test garden or above ground nail/separation tests.  Simply because there's a lot of "slide of the hand" tricks a person can do to make one machine stand out and look better.  Especially the buried test garden ones...in some instances you can tweak a machine to hit a specific target you have buried in there BUT in real world hunt conditions, you'd never be able to use the settings in which you achieved it. ...

This is why I never tweak a new detector when I test it on my bed depth tests . I always use the factory detecting modes . For example for the ML Equinox Park1 Park2 Field1 Field2 etc ... Or for the XP Deus2 GENERAL SENSITITIVE SENSIFT etc ... 

And I have learnt a lot of thing using these bed tests . You can for example quickly find the deepest mode using such tests . Or simply check that your detector is working properly before going detecting .. 

Bed tests are used by manufacturers themselves btw.  

Long story short bed tests are essential if you want to seriously test a detector . Of course field testing is the most important part of the job ..

 

[Jeff McClendon]

I am posting these two videos again for those that are interested in these detectors, especially the Manticore target trace screen,  and how they do on these static tests. These are just videos....no need to get bent out of shape over them or draw any earth shattering conclusions. 

Iffy states that the detectors used are in their stock default programs in the Deus 2 Manticore video.

I believe the only adjustment he made in the Deus 2 Nox 900 video was to turn off the Notch feature in Deus 2 FMF Fast and to put Silencer on 0 and to turn on the iron audio on the Nox 900 by simply pressing the horseshoe button. He does adjust the Nox 900 recovery speed AFTER showing that the stock settings are doing just fine. Other than that, no tweaking or five minute, hope it works customization, try my so and so program by supporting my channel, etc., like some testers do.

Deus 2 and Manticore

Deus 2 and Equinox 900

 

[Steve Herschbach]

On 12/12/2022 at 10:54 PM, mn90403 said:

Is Manticore using AI to do its 'thing?' 

No.

[Cal_Cobra]

On 12/11/2022 at 10:50 PM, phrunt said:

To me the best is the one that needs the least tweaking, the one I can turn on, select the mode to suit the area and type of detecting and use it and get the best results with a broad range of targets in a broad range of scenarios.  Not one I've tried to tune to give the best result on the target that I know is there. 

So all this fiddle with this setting, adjust this setting and tweak this setting and stick your tongue out and hold it to the left with your right eye closed and you'll pick up the target better to me is a fail, I don't want to have to do that.

 

I'm with you there.  After using the EQX800 since it was released, I'm almost thinking I might be happier with the EQX900 vs the MC 🤔