Tnsharpshooter

Video showing park 2 and field 2 has error. I forgot to change target tone for positions 1 and 2. So need to redo. After redoing test field 2 and park 2 seem identical. These test though ground not in play so much. Think I better just let the squirrel keep running around inside and where he goes he goes. Lol

Next video comparing park 2 and field 2 uploading to YouTube. My test in video shows there is definitely something different between park 2 and field 2. When you watch video note really lack of any nice tone using field 2. Do get 1 in meter though. Stay tuned. BTW, I have witnessed differences (tonally) of same targets undisturbed in the wild comparing park 2 and field 2 (same settings) Usually park 2 gives stronger tone vs field 2. However some times field 2 may give clearer tone yet more mute vs park 2. Both these characteristics come into play when trying to locate a target in the wild especially nail infested site.

Video is close to uploading. So are park 2 and field 2 the same performance with identical settings? i have done another video I think says NO !! It too will be uploaded here this afternoon. Stay tuned.

Interesting thread. So are park 1 and field 1 the same (with same settings) dialed in ? Everything the same including disc. I say no. I have a theory field 1 is higher weighted freq wise vs park 1. Hence field 1 is wrapping more due to higher weighted freq. I have done a video that might show his. Just my opinion based on my results gotten. Seems some got a kick out of my stacked quarters video done yesterday. That video actually showed more than met the eye (electronically speaking). So I have done another comparing park 1 and field 1. Based on results gotten in video seems something is different. Will post video in a little while. Maybe others will try to duplicate tests and report their results.

This dealer’s site still currently reflects military discount. https://bigboyshobbies.net/minelab-gpx-4800-metal-detector

I did a few checks comparing previous version to new. I saw no differences.

I have not yet installed latest update to my EQX 800. Saw this posted. This gent here I pay attention to what he says. Credible gent imo. https://metaldetectingforum.com/showthread.php?t=284513

I think this focus on depth gets more attention when folks see how deep for example some relics are dug at Culpeper area. Problem is lots of these relics were buried incidentally. They didn’t sink this deep through the years on their own. Other relics found in other areas, perhaps they too were incidentally buried. I have a very old site I hunt and test detectors. Truth is I haven’t dug many items real deep. I have been trying to do too over the last 7 years. Even had pi unit in there sniffing around in the cleaner places.

Nope, depth not everything. I believe there is a thing called detector efficiency. How forgiving is detector to operate/sweep. How emi prone? Tones provided on nonferrous. Falses provided on ferrous. Coil height, sweep speed, and coil position variations. I can easily see detector model X being a killer surface to 9” deep detector. Where detector model Y is surface to 10” detector yet is harder to setup, run and doesn’t have edge is categories listed above. One may take detector model Y and keep sweeping and find that 10” deep target while user of detector model X has dug more finds but shallower. Detecting is all about the finds. And older find is not always deeper either. Last, if user doesn’t like or meld with their detector it will have negative affects on their success.

Actually this could be an off shoot. By working on new project. But the offshoot may not be the exact freq used on newer project. We may see a lower freq used too in the next smf released detector. One can almost presume the next project released if more costly than EQx 800 will have some differences.

I read a lot of his posts over last 7 plus years. Never met. Had to be a talented person though to do what he did.