Iffy Tests Manticore Vs Deus 2 On Gold With Iron

[phrunt]

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.

 

[palzynski]

On 12/12/2022 at 3:00 AM, PSPR said:

Maybe I won't post any more "vs" videos here even from those vid posters who most consider unbiased.  It just creates too much controversy.  Everyone can find those comparison videos on Youtube and draw their own conclusions.

No pls continue to post , such videos are always interesting :

My opinion about the 2 vids :

1.  Separation,  mcore vs D2, Iffy signals video  :

     Quite simple , I have done such static separation tests in the past and they often lead to wrong conclusions . For example a Vanquish 340 is better than a Deus1 on my separation test . This is obviously not the case in the field where the D1 outperforms the Vanquish .  Then I dont use any more static separation tests because they are not reliable . I largely prefer field tests testing for detectors separation assessments ...

2. Depth test , mcore vs D2 at the beach , calabash video:

Here it is different , I found static depth tests to be very reliable . This is the reason why I trust Calabash video where it can be seen that the Mcore is a little deeper than the D2 .  

At the end I keep my D2 because it is much lighter than the Mcore btw . This because 1,2kg+ detectors are a no go for me , even if slightly deeper ...

[palzynski]

3 hours ago, 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 agree Simon , I hate to spend my time changing the settings on a detector to adjust it to my conditions , except for the main settings ( mode , gb , volume )  . Having to tweak the settings rather means for me that the manufacturer has not done his job correctly ...

[mn90403]

I've read through the thread.  Everyone seems to want to level the playing field and set up all the detectors 'the same' in order to make a comparison.  Truthfully, I don't set up my 800 the way you set up your 800.  That is just me.  If I'm doing the tests, I want to set up each detector to perform at its best, but this brings in subjective decision making.  How do you remain objective?

I know there is a fear that someone will dumb down one detector so that they can favor another.  If all the settings are disclosed in the comparisons, then we know how it is set up.  If we have to, we can just totally discount the comparison we see and not learn anything from it.

I'm frankly hoping for a detector that will have some different settings, some different capabilities that can't be compared evenly.  I want that edge over what I have now.  The target trace is one such feedback.  Do the other detectors have it?  What edge does the 900 have over the 800?  Why would I want to ignore that setup advantage to compare them to each other?

Let someone who can set up each of the detectors best then compare targets.  I don't want them set up the same.  Let someone tell us what the best settings are for a particular job and we can tweak it.  That is old style.

The 3030 has programs for certain tasks and you save them.  I think the Explorers had some of this feature also.  These were promoted more on English sites and blogs.  It's obvious to me the enjoyable differences between the 800 modes.  I know I'm stuck thinking I've got the best programs and then I listen for the subtle targets, but I can't hear what the detector doesn't see.

I know there is an effort to compare the horsepower under the hood.  Which detector is fastest in the quarter mile.  Which one is deepest.  Is that all there is to a comparison?

I'm always torn between engineer suggested default programs vs Steve's constant mantra of 'get to know your detector!'  Is it the detector or the detectorist?

There is not likely a clear answer unless you only test with scopes.  Those are artificial conditions.

[strick]

Interesting conversation...nice to see it staying civil..what I don't understand is why Iffy was surprised to  see that the deus picked up the ring better then the flat bar..Any experienced detectorists knows or better know by now that a round hollow object gives off a return magnetic field that detectors see more easily than other types of shaped objects. Im really liking the target trace on the manticore but that coming from a guy that loved the CTX. 

https://www.minelab.com/usa/knowledge-base/getting-started/how-metal-detectors-work

strick 

[Jeff McClendon]

3 hours ago, strick said:

Interesting conversation...nice to see it staying civil..what I don't understand is why Iffy was surprised to  see that the deus picked up the ring better then the flat bar..Any experienced detectorists knows or better know by now that a round hollow object gives off a return magnetic field that detectors see more easily than other types of shaped objects. Im really liking the target trace on the manticore but that coming from a guy that loved the CTX. 

https://www.minelab.com/usa/knowledge-base/getting-started/how-metal-detectors-work

strick 

Manticore and Equinox 900 did well on all of Iffy’s separation tests in those two videos. 

[PSPR]

1 hour ago, Jeff McClendon said:

Manticore and Equinox 900 did well on all of Iffy’s separation tests in those two videos. 

Jeff, to me being able to understand what is likely under the coil is more important than absolute depth.  The major detectors are so close on depth I find it unproductive to worry about which will go deeper in this circumstance or that circumstance.  Even though I don't have a Manticore yet, I really like the clarity of the screen, the TT feature and the ease of menu navigation.  But, as far as Minelab's marketing goes, I would like to fire the entire department. 

[Jeff McClendon]

56 minutes ago, PSPR said:

Jeff, to me being able to understand what is likely under the coil is more important than absolute depth.  The major detectors are so close on depth I find it unproductive to worry about which will go deeper in this circumstance or that circumstance.  Even though I don't have a Manticore yet, I really like the clarity of the screen, the TT feature and the ease of menu navigation.  But, as far as Minelab's marketing goes, I would like to fire the entire department. 

I agree. To be more specific, the latest tech, simultaneous multi frequency detectors from Minelab, XP and Nokta are so close on overall depth using similar coils that declaring one the winner or even discussing it is kind of pointless since ground/beach/EMI conditions can slightly change the order of finish from one day to the next even when these detectors are optimized for conditions. Target separation, recovery speed and definitely target ID accuracy are where the differences show up fairly quickly again, depending on the type of targets desired and the type and amount of trash in the area. 

Minelab marketing along with Nokta, Garrett and XP marketing are all engaged in a type of work that I want no part of. But that is just me and my own personal stuff.

You guys will have to tell me if the Manticore truly is deeper...........I will be satisfied with whatever the Nox 900 can do depth wise and will keep enjoying my Deus 2 Lite, Nox 800 and my Legend. I still like to hunt fairly fast, spend very little time over a target and recover it. Giving me a Target Trace screen at this point in my life would cramp my style of hunting plus, I did just fine for years without any type of display at all. Not ready for Target Trace yet.......😋

[midalake]

7 hours ago, palzynski said:

2. Depth test , mcore vs D2 at the beach , calabash video:

Here it is different , I found static depth tests to be very reliable . This is the reason why I trust Calabash video where it can be seen that the Mcore is deeper than the D2

I agree, but want to point out how chatty the Manticore was. Not quite sure one could hunt there. I was also surprised to hear the sensitivity was only 23!!!!! 
One trick experienced hunters do on deep targets is to raise the sensitivity a point or two just to look at that one target. In this case the Manticore has LOTS of power left as compared to the D2. This is a very interesting point. 

[PSPR]

7 minutes ago, midalake said:

I agree, but want to point out how chatty the Manticore was. Not quite sure one could hunt there. I was also surprised to hear the sensitivity was only 23!!!!! 
One trick experienced hunters do on deep targets is to raise the sensitivity a point or two just to look at that one target. In this case the Manticore has LOTS of power left as compared to the D2. This is a very interesting point. 

Calabash digger has a new video where he discusses the chattiness of the Manticore and he turns down the sensitivity from 23 to 21 which quiets it down.  Over on NASA-Tom's forum he says to run a long Noise Cancel after moving sensitivity up a couple points into the chatty area and that will quiet it down a bit.