Which Metal Detector Is The Best? | Minelab Equinox 800/900, Manticore, XP Deus Ii, Nokta Legend?

[EL NINO77]

I think ... that the difference between high-end multi-frequency and 1F detectors is not great ... even on reasonably deep targets ... or the separation of a target in iron ... it's more about ... how experienced and knowledgeable the detectorist is with your detector...
 
And it's not only about detecting the target...and comparing detectors on good targets,,, but it's more about how much unwanted waste it digs up for one good target found...that means how many iron bottle caps, and aluminum foil, or even small ones you have to dig up pieces of non-ferrous metals to dig up a coin, for example...

I call it the efficiency of the detector.... and it can already differ significantly between individual detectors,,, and for me it is one of the essential things in a certain type of detection..

....These properties will depend on the terrain,,,, on a clean terrain with almost no waste, the differences between the detectors can be very small... but in other situations I will prefer a detector that can deliver good findings to my table...

And as Steve says..... you will have significantly more finds with your old detector in new terrain... than in really heavily traveled terrain with the newest detector... that's a clear fact...

Heavily traversed terrain requires... the use of several different detector settings and the use of at least 3-4 different sized coils... because even the best detector cannot detect everything well on only one standard 11" coil...

Finally, I want to say something... Every technically excellent current high-class multifrequency detector can have an edge and detect better in a certain type of Terrain, or in a certain type of detection..... and here for some one detector can work better than the other.

 PS.....I think Loren gives good information...but clearly the comparison of detectors on 500-1000 targets...I take that with a certain reserve...I think he didn't mean it literally...👍

...In my comparisons, I look more at what the second detector finds in the field after the previous detector,,, and also how much ferrous and non-ferrous waste will be picked up by one and the other detector....

[GB_Amateur]

1 hour ago, EL NINO77 said:

And it's not only about detecting the target...and comparing detectors on good targets,,, but it's more about how much unwanted waste it digs up for one good target found...that means how many iron beer steins, and aluminum foil, or even small ones you have to dig up pieces of non-ferrous metals to dig up a coin, for example...

I call it the efficiency of the detector.... and it can already differ significantly between individual detectors,,, and for me it is one of the essential things in a certain type of detection..

Discrimination in general -- choosing which targets to dig and which to pass over -- is probably more important today than ever for most detecting, and its even been 'spilling' into native gold detecting, something that seemed in the past to be a no-no.  Although IB/VLF raw depth hasn't changed much (if at all) over the past 40+ years, the features that aid in discriminating have made steady(?) progress in that time period and fortunately the trend continues.  We can argue how much the recent changes matter all we want, but can anyone (even the protagonist whose video led to this thread) deny we're getting better tools for that task?

I was out detecting yesterday and had an experience regarding (mental) discrimination which I think illustrates the challenges and potentials but I'm saving it for its own post&thread.  😉

[Digalicious]

17 minutes ago, GB_Amateur said:

 can anyone deny we're getting better tools for that task?

  😉

I think the best tool that ever happened to metal detecting could be the internet.

Back in the days before the internet, communication between detectorists was extremely limited. Our main source of detector information was via magazines like Western / Eastern Treasure, and according to them, ALL detectors they reviewed were "great" lol. That's because they didn't bite the advertising hands that fed them. It's also probably why I never saw any head to tests between detectors in detecting magazines.

With the internet, we have banded detector and now have a voice. We are sharing detector pros and cons with thousands of users all over the world. Manufacturers have to listen now, and will be publicly called out for any shenanigans. I suspect that all that has a lot to do with how metal detectors have been developed, and where the consumer is putting their money.

[GB_Amateur]

2 minutes ago, Digalicious said:

With the internet, we have banded detector and now have a voice. We are sharing detector pros and cons with thousands of users all over the world. Manufacturers have to listen now, and will be publicly called out for any shenanigans. I suspect that all that has a lot to do with how metal detectors have been developed, and where the consumer is putting their money.

As with anything that leads to progress, there are cons to go along with the pros.  One plus, IMO, of the hardcopy magazine days was that the editors did their best to find knowledgeable, unbiased reviewers.  Books may be another area where the landscape has changed.  In my experience, though, for every book worth reading on the subject of metal detecting there are 3 or 4 that are almost a waste.  If one tip is worth the price (here I'm assuming the local libraries don't carry much...), OK, but finding a book that's got more than a few tidbits (often repeated from author to author, BTW) is tough going, IMO.

The internet is a free-for-all so it takes more 'discrimination' 😁 by the reader/viewer.  But, yes, the best of the internet likely supercedes the best of the hardcopy mag days, for those of us with an at least somewhat skeptical eye.

In the end there never was nor is there today an acceptable substitute for hands-on experience.

[kac]

On 2/23/2023 at 10:40 AM, Steve Herschbach said:

I’m not sure about “finally answered.” I’ve been saying that for ages. It’s just not what people want to hear. It’s like buying vanilla ice cream. There are many varieties of vanilla, and we all have our preferences, but in the end it’s all still vanilla ice cream. In my world the choice is more about whether I want to use a PI for genuine power, or settle for a VLF to deal with some discrimination issue. All VLFs are second tier detectors when it comes to raw power.

If you genuinely care about making more finds put all your efforts into research and getting to new and hopefully better locations. That will make far more diffence than hunting that same old park the hundredth time with the latest new whiz bang toy.

Your Exactly Right.

As usual what we see year after year is the hype behind the latest machines and we will continue to see it as that is how marketing works.

Unfortunately there are quite a few people who test the latest machines for free then pimp them out as the best thing ever!