Jump to content

Recommended Posts

I've been comparing numerous detectors as of late.

I wonder about iron audio.

I've been thinking about this,,based on what I see with some of my detectors,,,and am wondering if there would be some benefits.

Iron volume as far as it being ON,,,does give distinct audio when the coil passes over detected ferrous material,,,but the being able to hear the iron volume tone(s) seems is tied to disc setting(s).  Meaning run too high a disc setting,,,no iron tone whatsoever (with it selected).

Could this be changed,,,where iron audio would be provided no matter the disc setting if a user wanted??

I could see at least some application,,where it might come in handy.

For example hunting in a site with gobs of maybe lower conductive materials,,,just turn up the disc and hunt,,,,but operator might want to know if any areas seemed to be maybe moreso afflicted with iron and nails,,,,to maybe want to hunt this particualr area,,,using different strategy, detector settings,,,or even another coil or detector.

I may be off base here,,,but would like to hear some folks thoughts on this.

BTW,I do realize maybe notch could be used along with lower disc and do maybe the same thing.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess I don't understand the question. Iron audio to me just means the ability to set the volume of the iron response.

First we had accept items or reject items, like with a good old single knob discrimination control. Items accepted go beep, items rejected are ignored and silent.

Then tones became the thing, so instead of outright rejecting ferrous, a low tone became common in identifying ferrous targets.

But in dense trash, like a nail bed, the sheer number of ferrous responses were tiring. Along came the ability to vary the volume of the ferrous response to make it easier to listen to for hours on end.

If you are talking about wanting to reject/silence higher level items, like a pull tab for instance, while still retaining iron tones, then yes, notching would be the answer.

Something Like a White's V3i you can independently pick accept or reject for every VDI number or alternatively pick a custom tone for each VDI, even reversing the tone scheme if you wish. For my ears just picking an exceptionally low tone is about the same as a choosing a lower volume with a higher tone.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess what I am saying(asking),,,can a detector be made that already has capability to turn iron audio off and on,,and vary volume of this audio,,,,,does the iron audio have to be tied to disc setting???

Like give the user an option,,to run any disc they desire,,,and if they choose can have iron audio on or off,,,and be user adjustable for volume.

A good example here,,,let's say we have a detector,,,that is capable of distinguishing bottle caps using iron audio,,,I've heard At Pro can do this.

But bottle caps can come in at various VDIs,,,,so trying to notch them would not be very useful.  And let's assume a user is in a site,,with varying junk targets of lower conductivy.

And the user would like to run disc,,,and vary this depending on a site.  But setting up notch depending on detector does take more time generally than moving disc setting.

Now all this in conjunction with what I said about bottle caps above,,,,,if iron audio wasn't tied to disc setting,,,,a user could quickly move their disc setting around,,,and at the same time,,have a better shot at IDing a bottlecap,,,using provided iron audio.

Some of this comes from the fact how running higher disc,,,doesn't seem to affect depth as much as some of the older detectors.

True,,though running higher disc can pose some separation problems.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Today I was using my AT PRO, Zero Disc. with Iron audio on, a Musket ball would give a good tone like a nickel but I would still get a iron grunt. After I dug it the grunt would disappear. This is a 1830s Indian village and i have been hunting it for 3 years, 5 musket balls 2 1832 Dragoon cuff buttons and some parts to flintlock guns and a lot of small targets. I usually use my Tejon  But today used my Garrett AT PRO it will find some awful small targets

I hopes this will help answer your question and I have  followed your posts on the other Forum you just left. Thanks for your insight  and info.

Stick.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes KS Stick,,,very familiar with what you were hearing on your targets iron tone wise.

Deus on lead will do this a lot.  Almost like the ground minerals is trying to drive the signal into the iron range,,,but Deus withstands.

Nokta Relic detector will pound smaller lead and medium lead,,,with a great signal,,,same target Deus will tone in but overall more dodgy sounding.

A beginner with Deus,,might pass on many of these,,,until they get the hang of.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Tnsharpshooter said:

Deus on lead will do this a lot.  Almost like the ground minerals is trying to drive the signal into the iron range,,,but Deus withstands.

That is exactly what is going on. That type of behavior is very common when nugget detecting since prospectors frequent some real bad ground. Nuggets will almost always flip to a ferrous signal once a certain depth is reached. The places I coin detect here around Reno a dime will flip to ferrous at 5-6 inches. Fe3O4 meters typically run one bar short of max. Very heavy magnetite content.

I saw in a spot in Alaska that gold nuggets sitting directly on the ground would read iron on an F75 and Gold Bug Pro! That is a freak out moment, believe me, and a real lesson in why any discrimination at all in bad ground is going to leave some good finds behind.

You are certainly welcome here David. I had to create this forum just to get myself away from the behavior on other forums!

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/12/2017 at 8:56 PM, Steve Herschbach said:

I saw in a spot in Alaska that gold nuggets sitting directly on the ground would read iron on an F75 and Gold Bug Pro! That is a freak out moment, believe me, and a real lesson in why any discrimination at all in bad ground is going to leave some good finds behind.

Steve,

Ok, so please take this only as a challenge for you to elaborate more, not disbelief in the least.  If I was standing next to you with my F75, seeing those conditions...I can assume at that point you are saying AM is the only mode to use, but what about the signal would tell you to dig anything?  Just that you assume the objects are not iron, and you are digging everything?  Or some other clues that the object is nonferrous even though the reading is otherwise?  Or are you saying put the F75 away in those areas?

 My ground is very mild compared to anything out your way, so I am just trying to understand how these things behave.  

Thanks.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Rod,

All metal detectors using a discrimination circuit have a possibility of mis-identifying weak signals as ferrous in bad ground. Bad ground basically means the ground itself has a high ferrous content. The coil sees everything under the coil, both target and ground. The key is weak target, either small items, or large items at the edge of detection depth. If the target is weak and the ground ferrous content high, the detector blends the signal and the predominating ferrous content can cause the detector to identify the target as ferrous.

So yes, nearly all prospectors will tell you to dig all targets. Many, like myself, use detectors that have no discrimination at all. It is simply common knowledge among prospectors that discrimination results in lost depth and some good targets being called bad. Target masking can also be an issue.

That is not the end of the world or anything, just a base line fact. From there you do what you have to do. Any detectorist runs into situations where digging all targets is not acceptable for many reasons. Park detecting is one reason obviously. For a prospector it may be an old camp littered with ferrous trash.

So you use a good discriminating detector. On most decent targets they will sort the good items from the bad with a high degree of accuracy. Nothing wrong with that. Just don't kid yourself that you are not missing targets.

Specifically when nugget detecting the idea is not to just accept what the detector is telling you. If you get a weak ferrous reading, simply scraping the surface with your boot and removing an inch of material can make a ferrous reading flip to non-ferrous. Dig everything if you can, and if not, be skeptical of weak signals in bad ground. Remove enough soil to get a better signal if possible.

If you look at many detectors you will see that the ferrous and non-ferrous range overlaps - this is exactly why.

You also have to know your detector well. I have observed that European machines focus on simply digging non-ferrous targets, and proper identification is considered to be a bit of a waste of time. Too many possible targets over thousands of years. They excel at pulling non-ferrous out of ferrous but are generally poor at identifying this coin from that coin or that pull tab from a coin.

U.S. detectors cater to the fact people hate to dig junk, and they like to tell a nickel from a pull tab from a dime. They are more conservative, and biased to calling borderline targets as ferrous.

It boils down to knowing your detector. The F75 for instance. I will never forget a guy in the U.K. I met who was freaking out that a buried gold coin was reading ferrous on his F75 - totally blew his confidence in the machine.

The F75 has a two tone ferrous / non-ferrous mode, the 2F mode. Ferrous goes low tone, non-ferrous high tone. Check your F75 manual and you will see it considers VDI 1 - 15 as ferrous. 2F mode gives a low tone on VDI 15 and lower, and higher tone on 16 and higher. Use 2F and you will dig very little ferrous stuff.

The problem is that 2F is set at the high end of the overlap. It has been found that the F75 will actually read borderline non-ferrous targets all the way down to about VDI 6, and so the VDI 6 - 15 area is the overlap range. You have to avoid 2F and use single tone mode and manually set your disc to about 5 or 6. Or the way I hunt when nugget detecting is run in boost all metal and just investigate any target that pops 6 or higher on the screen on any pass of the coil. In other words, even a single pass of the coil can't be trusted, since the numbers jump around. I work the target and if it even jumps up once above my desired cutoff point it is worth checking out. Look for a reason to dig, instead of a reason to not dig. Running in 2F will cause many borderline targets, like that gold coin in the U.K., to be missed.

If mineralization is very bad, as in the western U.S. or Australia, depth and target id accuracy of any VLF is severely impacted, and that is why so many prospectors use PI detectors or the GPZ 7000 and dig all targets. For coin hunters in the west, max depths of 5-6 inches are not unusual on coins, and I always chuckle when I see guys back east talking 10 inch dimes. Not going to happen here with a VLF. Air tests get little attention on this forum because for all intents and purposes they are worthless for predicting in ground performance in a gold prospecting scenario. All that matters is how a detector handles the ground and air tests ignore that all important factor. In fact, machines that air test the best often make poor prospecting detectors from a max depth perspective, though they are often hot on shallow targets.

Big coils on a VLF make it worse (they see more ground relative to the target), so I lean to smaller coils. I also use a PI for coin detecting but that is a whole different subject. Bottom line is there are lots of old coins out there still waiting to be found due to over reliance on discrimination and not understanding exactly how it works. The real key is knowing exactly what the ferrous / non-ferrous overlap range is on your detector, and be wise to the fact that target id of weak targets is very unreliable. The worse the ground, the more unreliable the id.

The video below features a T2 as part of the test, which is basically a F75. Be sure and watch the whole thing - there is a pause at one point that makes you think it is over. The guy is running in 2F and simply going to single tone mode and lowering the disc would probably change the entire nature of this video. It still is a good illustration however of the effects of mineralization.

You can sum this whole thing up by something you hear a lot of coin hunters say - "Dig iffy targets". Too many people look for reasons not to dig instead of reasons to dig. Sure, you will dig more trash. But unless you have a rare virgin area these days you have to pull out the stops to make good finds.

More on the subject - Tune Out Nails - You Will Miss Gold!

Metal Detector Discrimination Really Sucks

Metal Detectors With Reliable Target ID Numbers

Discriminate, Discriminate, Discriminate!

Adjustable Tone Break

ferrous-non-ferrous-overlap-range-metal-detector.jpg
Garrett AT Pro Overlap Range - Note that although 40 is considered the normal start of the non-ferrous range, non-ferrous items can read down to 30 or lower. Detector manufacturers imply this is only tiny foil or gold, but it can also be any larger items at borderline depths. It is not so much what the size or composition of the target is, but the signal strength that the detector has to work with. Weak targets plus highly mineralized ground means any item can be identified as ferrous at borderline depths.

  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/12/2017 at 2:31 PM, Tnsharpshooter said:

I guess what I am saying(asking),,,can a detector be made that already has capability to turn iron audio off and on,,and vary volume of this audio,,,,,does the iron audio have to be tied to disc setting???

The MX Sport does this. The rejected range of VDI's can be audible by enabling REJECT VOLUME at a user-specified setting. So you get the lower tone at a lower volume.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Steve, Thanks.  I enjoyed the Western lesson.

 I have been running in AM the last few hunts exclusively in two areas I have been getting old buttons, mostly from the point of view that the iron shank is as likely to get picked up as the brass, tombac, or pewter front, especially the teeny cuff buttons.

I started a notebook of airtest results since getting the F75, but mostly to understand the differences between how a huge range of items like buckels and silver jewelry, coins and buttons show an ID when close, then at max range, then at max range with various junk items very close, reasonably close, and even a foot between the target and junk.  ID skews well down into Iron range for some, but I would have to recheck the book to say what is the lowest ID I have of a legitimate target.  No raw gold here, but I do have US gold coins for testing from 1$ to 10$.  I know none of this can take dirt into account, but it does keep me from discounting targets too easily.

 

 

Link to post
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
  • Similar Content

    • By WhiteRabbit
      Hello, now here’s an opener that might just get me banned on my first post!
      Bear with me, my intentions are pure :)
      Does anyone know if it would be possible to jam an MD signal? The reason I ask is to combat the evident problem we have in the UK with “nighthawks”, illegal detectorists.
      Over here, any landowner can grant permission for detecting on their land (with caveats, known historic sites are protected by law). What often happens is that such a permission is granted and a detectorist innocently sets about his / her business. Someone less scrupulous spots this person and assumes there may be something important there, so shows up at night with a couple of friends and the landowner awakens to a field / lawn full of holes, then bans metal detecting.
      Historic sites are also looted.
      Just an off the wall question, how tricky would it be to build a device to block this on a piece of land? Anyone any ideas?
    • By ColonelDan
      99% of my detecting is done on central Florida beaches. Since it’s impossible to establish a well stocked test garden at a public beach, I sorta brought the beach home with me and developed my own private beach garden!
       
      I cut slots in two large empty chlorine tablet buckets at various depths as shown from 2 -16 inches. I then filled one with New Smyrna Beach sand and the other with soil...for the few times I land hunt around here.

       
      I embedded numerous examples of ferrous and non ferrous targets into paint stirring sticks. I also have several blank sticks I use for gold and silver jewelry as well as artifacts that I don’t want permanently attached to a stick.

       
      I then insert the target(s) in the slots, each at its desired depth, and start scanning.
       

      This allows me to rapidly change the targets, depth and relative position of each.  I can now test for sensitivity at depth as well as separation of ferrous and non-ferrous targets in a variety of scenarios using actual beach sand where I do my detecting.
       
      If I want to test in wet salt sand, I just soak the bucket sand with authentic sea water that I also brought home from New Smyrna Beach...and the Atlantic Ocean never even missed it.  😉
       
      Works for me.....
    • By Steve Herschbach
      I always have my ears perked up for something new in metal detectors and metal detecting technology. I’m not educated enough to really get deep into the technical side of it, but I have a general layman's knowledge of the subject.

      A couple years ago Carl Moreland, the Engineering Manager for White's Electronics, was interviewed on a radio show. I tripped over a reference to the interview on another forum and checked it out. It is very long, and near the end Carl dropped a bombshell. At least I thought so, but it went unnoticed and uncommented on in the metal detecting online world. I thought about posting it on a forum back then but decided to wait and see what developed. Here is the applicable portion of the interview:

      Relic Roundup Radio Show, January 17, 2012, Interview with Carl Moreland, Engineering Manager, White’s Electronics
      http://en.1000mikes.com/app/archiveEntry.xhtml?archiveEntryId=260469

      Transcript beginning at 50:57 mark:

      Carl Moreland - “I can mention one technology that we’re working on because the patent has already been published… or the application, not the patent hasn't gone through yet. We’re working on something called half sine technology, which has actually been around since the 1960’s in geophysical prospecting applications. This is where instead of transmitting a sinusoidal signal you actually just transmit half of the sine and you can do that at extremely high voltages and high ? rates and so on. It’s technically not pulse induction but it’s not VLF either and it is a time domain method. And with that we can get really good depth and we can even get target id information and do discrimination and so forth.”

      Can you see why I perked up at that? I am still amazed it did not get any notice at the time. Nothing happened for a long time. Then I got this PM from Rick Kempf recently:

      Sent 29 January 2014 - 09:04 AM

      Was looking for info on my new SD 2100 this AM when I sort of fell down a rabbit hole of old forum posts and emerged reading Whites new patent. About the first thing I noticed was that you were cited in "prior art".

      Here's what they cited: http://www.voy.com/76600/7/475.html

      The patent is here: http://www.google.com/patents/US20110316541

      Is this something you knew about? Just wondering.

      Rick Kempf

      I told Rick, yeah, heard about that. It was the patent finally being granted from the application Carl mentions in the interview. It was fun getting a mention in a patent though I think it was just the examiner studying up on the subject and finding my old post helpful in simplifying the subject.

      For a long time the Holy Grail in metal detecting has been something that combines the target identification of an Induction Balance (IB or more commonly known as VLF) detector with depth of a Pulse Induction (PI) detector. There have been many promises and false starts over the years, and that was one reason I kept the radio interview mention quiet the last couple years. Frankly, I had half forgot about it until Rick brought the patent being granted to my attention. Notice the title:

      Hybrid Induction Balance/Pulse Induction Metal Detector

      A new hybrid metal detector combines induction balance and pulse induction technologies. Target signals are generated from a transmitted wave that has both induction balance and pulse current inducing characteristics and uses pertinent sampling of the receive data. Combining the two data sources provides eddy current target identification while excluding ground permeability and remanence obscuration.

      Is it time to sing Hallelujah? Well, there is a big gap in between getting a patent and bringing a detector to market. Many patents get filed and you never even see something directly related to the patent. Maybe it looked good on paper but does not pan out well in reality for numerous reasons. So just because White's was granted this patent does not mean something is around the corner. However, they have been working on it for over two years already obviously. And it has been some time since White's put something new out. I do not count remakes of the MXT etc as new. So I think there is reason to be hopeful we may see something one of these days.

      John Earle is one of the unsung heros in the industry. He had a hand in many of the best products at Compass Electronics before moving over to White's after Compass went under. To this day I have never used a VLF that goes any deeper than my old Compass Gold Scanner Pro. John was one of the brains involved in that, as well as the White's Goldmaster 3, regarded by many as being the pinnacle of the analog development of that model line. I was fortunate to have met John at the factory some years ago. He is listed as the inventor on the new patent. Half sine technology is also mentioned in an earlier patent filed by White's, again with John listed as inventor at http://www.freepatentsonline.com/7649356.pdf

      Looks like serious stuff brewing. Bruce Candy of Minelab makes mention of half sine technology in a patent application at http://patents.com/us-20130154649.html which makes me wonder about the new "Super Gold Detector" he is working on. But it is this most recent patent by White's that seems to put the finest point on it. Maybe the Holy Grail of detecting is soon to be a reality. The fact it is White's certainly gives me more hope than what we have seen in the past.
      Edit May 2015 - see also White's patent for Constant Current Metal Detector
    • By kac
      Found this patent that Whites filed and got a patent on in 2014 on a hybrid IB/PI machine.
      https://patents.google.com/patent/US20110316541A1/en
      Curious if anyone heard anything about this. Maybe Garrett will take it on?
    • By NV-OR-ID-CAL-AU
      I know we have had some great advancements in VLF metal detector's over the recent past, but I am hoping that we can keep some of the older design features that seemed to work well. 
      My favorite new technological features being offered in VLF's are Multi-IQ and single frequencies options, fully programmable settings, waterproof, noise cancel, USB chargers, li-ion batteries, Bluetooth headphones, prospecting & coin/relic options, and lightweight. Really a great job by the inventors of these detectors.
      IMHO I hope we do not lose some of the past designs that worked well, such as the ergonomics of the balanced s rod that would separate in three places for backpacking, the hip mountable brain box, the detectors that would not fall over when put on a little bit of an uneven surface, the 6.5 inch elliptical concentric or double DD coils for great access in rocky areas, the 1/4 inch headphone jack, the spare interchangeable battery pack that takes regular batteries to serve as a back-up for the li-ion battery pack, and higher frequencies options.
      I would like to see what else had worked well with other detector user, seems like we are always buying aftermarket parts to retain some of these older features where possible. 
    • By schoolofhardNox
      Not sure where this belongs on the forum, (or if it even belongs here), but this seemed to be the best category to discuss this. Ever since information on the GPX 6000 started to trickle out, I had this nagging feeling something in detecting has changed for those of us who like the thrill of getting to know a new detector. I never would have envisioned the GPX line morphing into a simplified detector. After having the GPX 5000 for a bunch of years now, and using it for relic and beach hunting, I could not imagine relying on a machine that adjust everything for you. I get it that money talks, and when you are a publicly traded company, you go for profit first, and then deny it 😄 And now that there market has switched to an area that probably has very little experience with detectors, the GPX 5000 must have been daunting for them.  So they cater to that market. But I was hoping that a new GPX would fix some of the issues that the 5000 had. I was naive. Minelab has never kept the good parts of their previous machines and just added the the things that needed improvements. On the E trac, the best part of it was the depth it had in finding deep silver,  in long tones, multi. Also the bouncy numbers helped ID deep Indians. When the CTX came out, it lost some of that fluety tone and they tried to straighten out the numbers to a number 12 line. So a two dimensional screen that worked well was transformed into a 2 dimensional screen that bunched most targets on one line. The The EQ comes out and squashes out the numbers even further. So why I thought the 6000 would not do the same is beyond me. I guess I'm disappointing that the "trend" is to make machines where the manufacturer decides on how your machine is going to be set. I hope someone in my area gets a 6000 and is willing to bring it to the beach to compare settings on deep silver. If it wins, then I will eat my words. I know I will get some slack with people saying it's a gold machine, not a relic or beach machine, but to them I would say.... you should be worried when a company controls your ability to fine tune your machine. Thoughts?
×
×
  • Create New...