ATX vs SDC 2300 Video

[Steve Herschbach]

I did not say Alan is wrong. Please do not put words in my mouth. I said I was not sure of Alan's technical explanation. Minelab has told me nothing one way or the other. My impression of the method employed by the SDC 2300 is based on the use of the term "Multi Period Fast" and that it uses a variation of the GPX Enhance/Fine Gold timings http://www.minelab.com/usa/gold-mining/where-to-buy/buy-genuine-minelab

If I am incorrect on that tidbit I can live with that. At the end of the day I am not sure what difference it makes. It does nothing to change the fact I liked the video and am appreciative of the ATX as well as the SDC 2300. Both are great machines, and Alan is to be commended for taking the time to do the videos. Observable performance is all that really matters.

[Jonathan Porter]

Hi Steve, just to correct a couple of misleading comments made by the poster of the video, the SDC has two channels associated with the single timing it uses, the main channel of that timing does the bulk of the heavy lifting when searching for nuggets and the other channel does the mop up work for any "holes" that might exist in the main channel. All timings no matter what they are have holes in them not just the "Smooth" type ones, this includes what ever is used in the ATX and is the trade off we all have to live by to be able to ignore ground signals (the price we pay for having ground balance). The poster of the video has managed to find a nugget that does not signal well on the SDC in the given ground type at the given depth compared to the more open timings of the ATX, if we flipped things into more mineralised soils that situation would be completely reversed. I would have liked to have seen a reasonable high freq VLF passed over the target in the video, I personally feel it would have smoked both PI machines.

The single dual channel timing on the SDC is a variant of Fine Gold, in other words it is in the Smooth class of timings allowing a Monoloop coil to work in extremely high mineralization. The SDC uses a VERY slow auto ground balance which in quiet ground is barely needed due to the timings removing the bulk of the ground signal, the auto ground balance is on all the time. The SDC also has a pretty fast motion filter hence the jittery behavior at higher Gain levels, thanks to this faster motion filter you are able to find tiny little pieces of gold even in the worst of ground types but it can sound a little unstable to an untrained ear.

Perhaps I need to do a Utube video where I have had numerous gold nuggets in the ground that the SDC was easily sensing even on the lowest gain setting but where the ATX did not even respond? These were not holes in the timing just the ATX's inability to generate a recognizable signal of the gold over and above the ground signal due to its timings not being as sophisticated as the SDC.

At the end of the day we all leave gold behind, this is why we keep coming back. The ATX does a pretty good job of things so long as the mineralization does not creep up too high and the operator can maintain good coil control, whereas the SDC is a true switch on an go detector, you do not need to reset to get maximum performance just pump the coil a few times and away you go, maximum fun with minimum fuss.

JP

[Steve Herschbach]

Hello Jonathan,

Thank you for the clarification. No need to create a video pissing match though!

Results speak for themselves. The ATX has been out half a year longer than the SDC and despite the much lower price has not exactly set the prospecting world on fire. Anyone who understands Google and who wants to can get an idea how both detectors are faring worldwide. The ATX is making an impact as a beach detector and the SDC as a prospecting detector. I do not buy the excuses from some that ATX owners are afraid to post their nugget finds or are just less inclined to do so then owners of other brands. Reality simply is what it is and all the videos in the world will not change that.

Honestly, it is a shame Garrett did not get me on board from day one if their goal was to produce a killer prospecting detector. The guts are fine, but I would have concentrated on getting the unit under four pounds with a set of world class coils. That is a detector I would like to get my hands on. So far only Whites has broke the four pound barrier, but the TDI SL is a lackluster performer at best.

[Reg]

I believe all ground balancing PI's made today have holes.  It doesn't matter if it does, if one knows how and why exist and are created, so they can work around them.  Now, fortunately I don't know of any PI that will have a hole that will cause this puppy to be missed.

Here is something else interesting, a home made non ground balancing detector could be made that wold work fine via a long delay and it would detect this nugget just fine. 

As far as Alan's assessment of the Minelab 2300 or the ATX, I can't say just what is true or not, but I am confident something similar could be done with the ATX that would show weaknesses. That is why I try to see people are made aware of them regardless of the detector used. 

I still use the TDI and yes, the TDI has the problems mentioned, but with a few tricks, they can be circumvented and any gold lost in a hole can be detected with a few minor adjustments.  No, the depth capability won't be equal to what would be on other nuggets, but they will be detected.  

Another interesting situation is the "hole" may not be for all depths or it may.  So, a nugget might be detected at 5" but not at 3" or in the worst case, not at all.  Shift the delay if it is possible and the hole changes or if the delay is advanced far enough and the GB turned off, the hole is gone and minimal or no ground signal to deal with. 

As for making the hole and issue in an article, well, it would take a book to fully describe it. 

One last note, I have been working with a few guys in OZ and now I am trying to convince them to try a little trick that will allow them to walk over some of the worst ground and have a nearly perfectly smooth threshold almost silent detector while still detecting gold at very respectable depths.  In fact, the nugget displayed in Alan's video should be detected quite easily while using my technique while at the depth it was buried. 

Reg

[Steve Herschbach]

Hello Reg,

Thank you for chiming in. I hope all goes well in your world.

I have to admit my grasp of the whole "hole" thing is loose and in generalities only, so I am not the person to write an article on the subject. The TDI is probably the machine best used to show not only that they exist, but also how they can be avoided or at least lessened in effect to some degree. There is a great Excel spreadsheet at http://www.mytreasurespot.com/main/read.php?49,578762,585756#msg-585756that I am sure you have seen compiled by relic hunters to show different TDSI responses on targets at different pulse delays and different ground balance settings. The spreadsheet can be downloaded directly at http://www.mytreasurespot.com/main/file.php/download/49/89270/TDI.xls

[Rick K - First Member]

Hey Reg, nice to hear from you. I haven''t given up on my thru-hole TDI - I will be interested to hear when the dust settles on the mods what of it is applicable to those early TDI's

As far as the SDC-2300 being "single channel" it would be odd indeed. As I understand it, ML's original patents on the SD machines were for the MPS two channel approach and I have read elsewhere that the SDC draws heavily on the sd-2200 platform, now tuned for small gold including presumably shorter pulse delay and the simgle optimized coil. Interestingly enough it seems to have a threshold less even than the GPX detectors.

Maybe Alan has comfused the single timing of the SDC - as opposed to the multiple timings of the GPX series - with single channel operation. Don't know.

Enough flogging of dead horses.

[Jonathan Porter]

The SDC is in the same family as the GPX 5000, so it has SETA, and is also DVT.

JP

[Trev (NZ)]

Hi Folks

These Detector Gunfights are a source of amusement to me, and there are plenty on Utube.  There is little to be gained from them, apart from working out which Detector the Poster is pushing or has a bias for.  Obviously in this case the ATX is the preferred machine, be it for commercial gain or just outright, I have the better detector.  Now let me show you, But of course I am not biased. Like you say Steve, Its a pissing contest.  Some days I bet I can pee higher than you, other days you will win.  But lets not have a New Zealand Versus The USA peeing competition lol. Lets just call it a draw.

The biggest hole I can pick in that video is.  How many times do you find a piece of gold that size, already in a plastic container. In my years of gold mining, be it underwater dredging, black sand beach mining, or detecting. And I have done over 300 ozs.  I am yet to find my gold already in the plastic container, clean and ready to sell.  So to me that test is flawed.  Yep the ATX seems to do better than the SDC on buried gold in a plastic container. 

Bearcat, no offence.  Go out and do the Gunfight again.  But this time just try putting the gold in the ground on its own.  Bet the SDC will do its magic then.  Hell my Minelab Etrac would probably  beat them both hands down.  But then I am not into gunfights or peeing competitions lol.

Just my thoughts.

Cheers Trev

[Steve Herschbach]

JP makes the kind of videos I like. "Here is the ABC machine and I am going to show you sixteen ways to be successful with it."The only detector videos I value enough to pay money for are on my shelf right now, by Jonathan Porter, Jack Lange, and Thomas Dankowski.

Sometimes the real motives are far different than you might imagine. Detector comparative videos draw a huge amount of controversy and therefore a huge amount of views. When coupled with the incorporated ads they can be a substantial revenue generator in their own right.

[Bearkat]

Wow, great thread here and fantastic information. I think if most of you watched my entire 8 part series on the ATX vs SDC 2300 you will see how much I say I love both detectors and you will see that I actually discovered the hole while doing the testing. 

Do I dislike the SDC 2300 any more now that I see a hole? No way! A fantastic machine and as Steve correctly said, the ATX looses sensitivity and depth when the ground gets hotter, where the SDC 2300 does better in this dirt and retains more of its sensitivity. The best part is, I said all that in my videos...holding nothing back regarding both machines. 

And yes Trev, I did find that nugget in a plastic container out in the field after it sat there for thousands of years !..........

just teasing man, that is a Klamath river nugget. One of 200 + nuggets I tested on both detectors. 

For those interested, here is the 8 part series with the last video of the series doing a Pro's and Con's video discussing both the good and bad of each detector: http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLfjOj2OMqlSS9tvqHJl9xI88xwOIeMNZ8

Including discussing the dreaded ATX 8" mono coil noise!

As far as the hole in the SDC 2300, you really won't know it is there in the field, most likely, since the ground balance is always tracking, the hole moves along with it, unlike the TDI you can "make a hole" with it's manual ground balance. 

But I will say it here, like I did in my videos, the new Minelab SDC 2300 is my favorite Minelab detector they have ever built! 

My wallet, however, does not have the same feelings... 

Alan