Interesting Tid Test: Beach Sens Vs Dive

[Chase Goldman]

4 hours ago, midalake said:

Not trying to be argumentative here. However, this Vid you posted in fact shows the Deus 2 NOT being a good tonal machine. 

I refer back to the 8-minute mark of this Vid where the user is unsure of what is in the ground and is trying to get the machine to throw him a number. No person could dig that target with any confidence because of the ratty, bitey, broken tone it was giving!  

The user is unable to confirm the target on tone alone. I KNOW, as 1000's of deep targets I have looked at sound identical FERROUS and non-ferrous.

This absolutely the wrong video to use to draw conclusions as to whether the Deus 2 is a good tone ID machine because the machine is set up in PITCH tones (as evidenced by the the text overlays of machine settings and the actual audio).

Other than readily distinguishing between ferrous/non-ferrous targets based on the disc setting and use of iron volume, PITCH provides basically NO target tone ID information other than audible target signal strength (and overload) and some nuanced tonal information (based on perceived tonal harmonic distortion) regarding the symmetry of the target shape (useful for differentiating face-on round targets such as coins, undamaged tabs, freshness seals, and rings vs. canslaw, aluminum tent stakes, and (unfortunately) chains.  PITCH audio excels primarily as an effective way to “alert” the detectorist to the presence of a non-ferrous target (or conversely ferrous target if that is the objective) while swinging away because it is very reactive to tiny or deep non-ferrous targets vs. multi tones which are less dynamic in that regard.  However, it requires the detectorist to heavily rely on visual target ID or switching to a multi-tone or full tone mode for target interrogation for more precise target identification.  Bottom line is that pitch audio makes it slightly less likely you will walk over a target without hearing it but it is also slightly less effective at facilitating efficient/timely target recovery because of the reliance on visual TID/target interrogation to make a dig decision.  PITCH is tailor made for those digging all non-ferrous regardless of ID and especially if combined with utilizing the visual ferrous/non-ferrous target indication on the horseshoe display.

To really draw a conclusion regarding Deus 2 as a tone machine, one needs to see a demonstration of the Deus 2 in multi-tones or Full tones to determine whether you get a “good” high or mid tone at depth with either the absence of a target ID or down-averaged ID due to co-located ferrous.  That’s not featured in this video nor was it the objective of the video as the focus was on mode settings impacts to visual target ID.

In my experience, D2 is a great tone machine if you have the audio set up for other than pitch tone (though I consider full tones to be weak on the D2 vs. the D1).  The other thing I’ve noticed about visual TID on D2 is that it is pretty rock solid and you rarely are in a situation where you are hearing just a tone without a target ID or indication on the horseshoe display to facilitate the dig decision.  Although this video demonstrates how wet salt sand with perhaps the influence black sand can impact target ID accuracy based on mode.  Proper setup of disc with Iron volume and utilizing the horseshoe display and Mineralization meter can also help provide clues as to whether the target IDs for a non-ferrous target are being down-averaged as a result of co-located ferrous or soil effects.

FWIW

 

[Jeff McClendon]

I don't have a problem with people coming up with strategies for saving time and effort when hunting for gold jewelry. I do it too. I hunt one set of gold target IDs/audio one day and go back to the same site and hunt a different range of IDs/audio on another day.

Sometimes I just haphazardly walk over good sounding ring pull and pull tab audio responses with corresponding IDs both on land and at the beach. I have walked over some zinc penny responses too. I get tired, my back hurts and my knees hurt. However, I dig as many of those type targets as I can if I am on land or at a beach where target IDs and audio are not getting skewed too badly by salt and iron mineralization. It has paid off for me repeatedly.

I like finding gold, whatever form it is in. However, I REALLY like finding big gold, whatever form it is in. 

I took this photo right after finding that big honker sitting on target ID number 85 with Deus 2. It was about 7" deep on land in iron mineralized dirt and it sounded like two or three zinc pennies stuck together or a smashed small to medium sized aluminum screw cap which is what I thought it would turn out to be. NOT. Its 18K 10 gram melt value was over $650 when I sent it in for smelting. I found another slightly smaller 14K 6.5 gram ring two weeks later at a fresh water beach that sounded okay through 6" of black sand and mud that had a jumpy ID very similar to a corroded zinc but which topped out at 84. Both of those rings together were worth more than all of the other gold in the photo.

If I try to avoid good sounding zinc penny signals whenever I'm gold jewelry hunting or even typical scratchy sounding zinc pennies using multi tone PWM or Square Wave Deus 2 audio.........I may miss a big payday.

[Jeff McClendon]

5 hours ago, Chase Goldman said:

That’s not featured in this video nor was it the objective of the video as the focus was on mode settings impacts to visual target ID.

I believe the objective of the video also included audio responses coupled with target ID especially since History Teacher deliberately used PWM Pitch audio to reach those deep test targets. They had very sketchy target IDs but both had dig me audio in my opinion considering the low amounts of black sand at that beach. I have hunted several of the beaches near the border of North and South Carolina. Deep targets mostly become iron responses if they have much lower surface target IDs and small size/poor orientation. Having non-ferrous target IDs and audio on really deep targets at those beaches.....better dig.

I believe the headliner for this video was: Comparing diving and beach sensitive, could using these programs together help identify a big gold ring deep and a big zinc penny?

There was a difference in the audio and the IDs using those two modes on those two targets. Was it conclusive and more important, repeatable enough for me to know that those targets were a big gold ring versus a zinc penny......... that is questionable. 

I also totally agree that PWM Pitch is not the best audio form for highlighting Deus 2's audio capabilities as far as the qualities associated with target tones. I only use PWM Pitch when I am in really thick trash with a ton of notching, when I want absolute maximum depth, when ambient noise is really bad or when I am gold prospecting for the really tiny stuff.

[Chase Goldman]

1 hour ago, Jeff McClendon said:

They had very sketchy target IDs but both had dig me audio

I think we are basically in agreement but it takes a super-trained ear (explained below) to be able to discern anything more from the pitch audio alone coupled with the sketchy TID was that you had a probable symmetric, non-ferrous target as there is no obvious tone ID component in PITCH to let you know if it was a low mid or high conductive target like you have in Mukti tones or full tones.  That was my point in response to Dave’s assertion that the video demonstrated D2 had poor tonal ID charisticstics.  Agree that if you were digging all non-ferrous it was a dig me audio signal but without reliable visual TID, you would have difficulty differentiating a zincoln from a tab from a heavy gold ring in PITCH, though with experience, you can discern more dense/massive targets such as solid gold, silver or copper/clad or an aluminum can bottom as they will tend to give a slightly fuller, more rich sounding audio in pitch.

[ColonelDan]

Just a few concluding/clarifying comments:

1.  I agree that Pitch is not the best option as a tonal discriminator.  Multiple tones is much preferred.

2.  My sole objective in referencing this video was not the tonal aspect but rather how it interestingly demonstrates the difference in beach sens vs dive’s TID ability.  Frequency weighting being the difference as I see it.

3. As always, Chase and Jeff make excellent points throughout.  👍🏻

[midalake]

On 4/29/2023 at 12:19 PM, Chase Goldman said:

The other thing I’ve noticed about visual TID on D2 is that it is pretty rock solid and you rarely are in a situation where you are hearing just a tone without a target ID

Just to reinsert the causes and effects we are talking about DEEP fringe targets.  
At the beach I hunt fringe targets of all metals will not give numbers on a routinely daily basis. My method is to investigate in another mode [like others do] I usually raise the sensitivity to look at that one target and also take a scoop off if needed. It is amazing how many of these are iron. Even in the two-tone program I hunt in, Iron wrap-around is a fact with the D2. 

On 4/29/2023 at 12:19 PM, Chase Goldman said:

In my experience, D2 is a great tone machine if you have the audio set up for other than pitch tone (though I consider full tones to be weak on the D2 vs. the D1).

The D2 is a good tonal machine until you have fringe targets that do not lock. I have had iron grunts with deep nonferrous and no iron grunts with deep ferrous. What really is disappointing deep nonferrous gives zero hints it might be nonferrous. ALWAYS choppy, ratty,bitey broken signals [just like deep ferrous] My only hope is that I can get the D2 to throw a number. 
I chase WAY more ferrous targets at the beach than with the GT Sovereign, Equinox, and although not enough time on the machine I suspect the Manticore would be added as well. [it is not even close]

And of course,>>>someone hunting land my not see what I am experiencing on a black sand salt beach. 
Of course [2] No machine is perfect. But the D2 does make the Equinox look like an Ace 400 in the moving wave wash zone. 

[Chase Goldman]

7 hours ago, midalake said:

The D2 is a good tonal machine until you have fringe targets that do not lock. I have had iron grunts with deep nonferrous and no iron grunts with deep ferrous. What really is disappointing deep nonferrous gives zero hints it might be nonferrous. ALWAYS choppy, ratty,bitey broken signals [just like deep ferrous] My only hope is that I can get the D2 to throw a number. 

I'm with you Dave.  We hunt in vastly different environments so we are going to have different perspectives on D2 machine behavior.  So I don't dispute yor observations on fringe targets in saturated salt sand with black sand mineralization.  I have similar concerns in heavy soil mineralization but overall ID depth suffers to the point that nuances in mode IDs are a moot point - I usually go with a PI at that point.  In mild soil, and full tones, in my experience, a high conductor tone can ring through even if visual TID is getting depressed from co-located iron.   I really just wanted to point out regarding your comment that the video showed poor D2 tonal performance because the on-camera operator was struggling because of dependence on iffy visual TID to attempt to discern the nature (conductivity) of two different non-ferrous targets at depth - which is purely a drawback to using PITCH which has no tone ID capability other than ferrous vs. non-ferrous.  Again, not disputing whether D2 reliably indicates ferrous vs. non-ferrous tones at fringe depths in deep wet salt sand.  You have vastly more experiencece than me in that situation.