Jump to content
Ridge Runner

Would You Like To Be One Of The Testers On A New Detector

Recommended Posts

I was just wondering if you had the opportunity to test a new detector before it came on the market would you be willing to do it ?

 Most of the time it’s given to people you could say that their name is in lights . We have so many people that has been swinging a detector for years that are more  qualified than the so call star .

 Let me hear your view point on this subject . If you ever have the pleasure or opportunity  to do it in the pass let us hear that too .

 Chuck 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

39 minutes ago, Ridge Runner said:

Most of the time it’s given to people you could say that their name is in lights . We have so many people that has been swinging a detector for years that are more  qualified than the so call star.

I have to agree with you about the people testing detectors for White's and other detector manufacturers. Though White's did a better job this time on the testing of the 24K. Some are very qualified to test and give a honest report on a new detector and some are there to promote the social media end of the business and I'm not sure what that exactly does for the seasoned metal detector user.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, I don't think so, although I'd be flattered (and surprised) to be asked.  I hardly manage the time to swing my own detectors and can't really afford to do more unpaid work 🙂  As to why manufacturers are more likely to select "famous" detectorists to do the testing, part of it may be simply that they are more likely to know of their existence.  In any case, while the experience is no doubt interesting for those who can manage the time, it doesn't seem to do much to help early adopters make their decisions, due to the nondisclosure agreements.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not that I would ever get that call :laugh:, but I would pass. I bet it requires a lot of time and I would be very disappointed if I found an area that needed improvement and they just ignored the suggestion. Plus the extra time needed to do the social media would kill me.  I'm not patient enough to respond to the flood of inquiries that come your way. Everyone wants to know everything about the new machine and you can only tell them vague, watered down information.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My contributions in that regard are at an end. It’s basically working for others for free and detracts from regular detecting. It was a lot of fun in the early days when people wanted information and were appreciative of it. These days however people don’t want to hear from industry experts and insiders. It’s all about getting YouTube reports from “regular users”. People with industry connections are now looked upon with suspicion and so for me personally I don’t see the point anymore. I purposefully took on testing/reporting on the Goldmaster 24K as a bookend to my reporting effort. It started with me and White’s ages ago and so it seemed fitting that I wrap it up with White’s. :smile:

  • Like 5
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Depending on the company and the scope of the work I would consider it.

However the concept of "tester" seems to be kinda new and directly associated with unpaid peer to peer advertising rather then actual testing in the traditional sense. 

Testing is usually done behind closed doors and performance is usually tight lipped, rather then say the hoover boys and the girl with the purple hair asking for a volume control on a youtube video. It's a legitimate question, but the machines already built at that point, these people where just pawns used to cover up a slow roll out.  It's sales tactics to keep people waiting rather then buying from a competitor, they all do it now. 

Under that guise I suppose I would not be suitable as a "tester", due to lack of media following and not wanting to conflate equipment trials with advertising to begin with. I have nothing against sales and advertising per se.

If somebody wanted to give a bit of compensation in exchange for some testing that somehow requires my hours of experience, that might be alright. That brings up the question does all testing have to be done by an experienced operator? This brings us back around to Steve's point about regular users on youtube. The third generation ATPro that amounted to a sticker change, so why the roll-out at all? Free advertising. The question is moot unless you are a influencer, a job so new it doesn't even come up on the spell check here. lol

Infuencers are great for selling detectors, not making them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are many types of testing that grade one into the other with lots of overlap depending on the situation. Here is a short essay by detector engineer guru Dave Johnson that describes some of the differences....

http://www.fisherlab.com/hobby/davejohnson/field-testing-essay.htm

 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I understood everything in Dave J’s article except for one thing he referred to...

What’s a MAGAZINE?

Share this post


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 Alluminati
      Deep in the depths of winter here, I found myself partaking in some serious speculating.
      With all the controversy of whether or not the Equinox is multi frequency or not, I figure I'd bring some wood to keep warm lol.
      Some of you may recall in one of those threads I was trying to explain that the waveform we see can actually be comprised of more then one, two, three or more frequencies. Additionally I pondered if the multi frequency processing could just be done on the receive side using typical sinusoidal waves that are actually doing the work. Nonetheless here is the transmit side, the side that actually excites the target.
      Below you will see a FFT (Fast Fourier Transform) of the Equinox in Gold2. The scale goes from DC to 125 kHz. (Left to right)
      If you consider the advertised range of Multi-IQ frequencies as being 5 kHz to 40 kHz, you might be satisfied by this as the left half of this 125kHz graph is filled out nicely. There is even a couple little peaks up around 100 kHz, whether or not that is utilized I don't know.
      I'm way off base as to how MIneslab actually does this, but I just wanted to show the kind of information that can be extracted from these signals. I am not trying to prove anything specific other then to say I don't think Minelab is being misleading IMO. Assume something is a little off with my measuring, still that looks like multi-something.
      The approximate frequency peaks of interest measured from left to right are:
      -2.5 kHz
      -8 kHz
      -13 kHz
      -18 kHz
      -23.5 kHz
      -28.5 kHz
      -33.5 kHz
      -39 kHz
      -44 kHz
      -50 kHz
      -54 kHz
      -59.5 kHz
      That covers the advertised range of frequencies which exist on the left hand side of the graph, (Midpoint is 62.5 kHz) I wont bother with the higher frequency stuff as it may not be relevant.
      It doesn't really hit any of the single frequencies, on the other hand Minelab does not explicitly say what frequencies are used in Multi-IQ. (That I know of.) I am happy to see that low frequency response. I was thinking the Equinox was going to be all 8 kHz and higher, which it basically is, but I'm glad to see the 2.5 kHz peak right beside it and of almost equal strength.

    • By Steve Herschbach
      Metal Detector Basics And Theory by Bruce Candy, Minelab
      1.42 MB pdf file, 24 pages
      Bruce is a co-founder of Minelab and the man behind their most advanced designs. This information delves into much greater detail than the above link and has many more illustrations and diagrams.
    • By Steve Herschbach
      Gold Prospecting With A VLF Metal Detector by Dave Johnson, First Texas
      10 Mar 2010 Edition, 2.93 MB pdf file, 56 pages
      Dave is the Chief Designer for First Texas Products and has been involved in designing most of the VLF gold prospecting detectors sold over the last 30 years. This is an excellent primer on using VLF detectors to prospect for gold.
    • By Steve Herschbach
      Advanced Nugget Hunting With the Fisher Gold Bug Metal Detector by Pieter Heydelaar & Dave Johnson, Fisher Labs
      3rd Printing Jan 1993, 2.36 MB pdf file, 46 pages
      This out-of-print book is a good basic text on gold nugget detecting. Although it uses the original Fisher Gold Bug as an example the information applies to most nugget detectors. Part 2 by David Johnson is an excellent primer on hot rocks.
    • By Steve Herschbach
      Fisher Intelligence - Advancing the Hobby of Metal Detecting by Thomas J. Dankowski, Fisher Labs
      5th Edition 04/2006, 6 MB pdf file, 48 pages
      Thought provoking articles on aspects of metal detecting not often talked about.
    • By Steve Herschbach
      A nice summary quote from Tom Dankowski about why Simultaneous Multi Frequency (SMF) is worth consideration over single frequency options...
      “SMF's punch through bad dirt better. Hold on to accurate ID's at depth....and in bad dirt....better. Handle EMI better. Genuinely handle wet-salt better..... to include more accurate ID at depth.,.,.,.,.,.,.,., and a host of other rationale/justifications.”
      Fisher Intelligence (5th Edition) by Thomas J. Dankowski
×