ColonelDan

Without question, it was Steve Goss’ carbon fiber detector rod for the D2. Light years better than the stock rod in every way.

I tested a number of PI machines when I was doing that for Kellyco. Two issues I had and never got over with the PI: 1. No useable discrimination… no matter what the advertisements claim. 2. I got real tired real quick of digging 20 inch holes for a Bobbi pin!!😡

A First class organization.

Outstanding job soldier!!!! 👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻

CPT, I’ll never argue success and you’ve certainly had your share based on those photos In my case, I have very little EMI or chatter on our beaches. The little we do have, I can neutralize with frequency scan and sensitivity adjustments as needed. Regarding Audio Response, I keep mine at 7. Why? I want to hear every good target really sing out and I personally don’t care about an auditory depth indicator. The beach sand is easily dug so I just keep digging until I find whatever it was singing out to me!!!😉 Just the view from my sandy foxhole….

CPT, You bring up a good point regarding test targets. Below is the "Test Kit" I take to the beach. Each target can slide along that rope so I can separate them for individual testing or place them close to the other one(s) for separation/unmasking testing. These examples/samples pretty much cover what we're most likely to find on our tourist beaches. Clad quarter, pull tab, 10K ring Bottle cap, 925 ring, tent stake Glad you brought that up. You just may have helped some fellow detectorists...especially new ones to the game...by giving them a good idea! Good job CPT

Approximately one year ago, Savannah Harps posted the video below wherein he reported that frequency shift affected VDI consistency. I just saw this video and decided to run an informal test to see for myself what the impact was on VDI of manually changing frequency shift values. I used a modified Beach Sensitive program with the Deus II version 1.1. Max Freq was 40kHz. I did a frequency scan at the start of the test to reduce the effect of minimal EMI in the test area. I manually shifted the frequency from 0 - 6 using common targets found on the beach---pull tab, clad quarter, 925 ring, 10K ring. Each target was buried in 6 inches of beach sand. My results are shown in the table below. Freq Shift TID From 40kHz Pull Tab Clad Qtr 925 Ring 10K Ring 0 62 93 89-90 75 1 61-62 92-94 89-90 75-76 2 61 92-94 89-90 74-75 3 61-62 92-93 90-91 76-77 4 61-62 92-93 90-91 76-77 5 61-62 92 90 77 6 59-62 92-93 91-93 76-79 As shown, there was a slight change in a few of the VDI numbers that Savannah Harps noticed as I ran through the available frequency shift options but nothing that would change my ability to ID what was under my coil. VDI values remained in the expected range as far as I could see. Your opinion and results may differ depending on the environment and test conditions. Just a curiosity to fill an uneventful morning....😆

JCR, one other critical item that would be imperative in the case of this 75 year old Cav guy is a strong 20 year old to dig the dang holes!!! 👍🏻😂

I’ll tell you the truth guys, I have no interest in digging a hole as deep as that thing can probably detect. I don’t care how much it costs. 🥴😁

Keep in mind that predetermined settings only get you in the ballpark. It’s up to you then to pick the best seat. Adjust to your environment.

I merely experimented with Gary’s Sonar program. I’ve not seriously used it for anything yet. Relic hunts for me are very few and very far between. Later today, I’ll PM you my spreadsheet of the programs I use which includes the modified General.

Super!

It's true that the beach programs have an issue with iron separation on buried targets...ferrous and non-ferrous targets on top of the ground can be separated by those same beach programs...a conundrum as I called it in that post. However, just going by my experience on the Florida tourist beaches I hunt, we don't run into much iron at all...unlike land hunters. So until the talented XP engineers can resolve this issue with the beach programs, I'll continue to place ultimate trust in my Deus II, the best detector on the market in my opinion, and bank on the odds that the little iron we do see on our beaches won't affect a successful hunt very much. As for using land programs on the beach, I have used a modified General and Deep HC but ONLY on VERY dry sand away from any "saltyness." My experience over the years has been that once you get into even the least bit of sand tainted by saltwater, those land programs aren't effective. They're just not designed to hunt in saltwater environments. Now again, I caveat all of the above in that this is just my experience on the beaches I hunt. Not all beaches are the same by a long shot. The settings I use in Florida may not be effective on Virginia or Hawaii beaches for example. Programs and settings must be tailored to the specific environment...particularly on saltwater beaches. Just the view from my "beachy" foxhole... 😉

My initial thought…,looks like added protection for rocky environments…in the water or not. In my case on our beaches, I wouldn’t need it. Our beaches, like most others where I hunt are rock free. I too wonder about the charging clip fit. Given the design, I just assumed it would have to be removed.

I must conclude that we who use the beach programs are destined to see this masking issue continue until XP engineers solve it for us. No combination of settings on our end yet found will do it on buried targets. Several of us here on this thread have tried all we know how with no success. We can successfully unmask good targets using land based programs but not the beach programs. For those who do hunt the beach, the General program will work but only on the very dry sand....and I've also used a modified Deep HC program but again, only on the very dry sand. Once you get those programs into even minimally wet sand, they are not effective...nor can they be. Another small consolation is that, at least on the beaches I hunt, good targets are seldom laying very close to ferrous junk. So if you're an odds player, those odds are slightly in your favor. But in as much as this is a software problem, I'm confident that the software developers, and only they, can solve it. Those same engineers have created the best detector on the market today by far, so again, I'm highly confident this too can be overcome....but only with their help. I do hope this issue gets into the hands of XP engineers so they can work their magic. Thanks again to all who jumped into this and gave their time and effort in trying to resolve it and find a solution open to us...the Deus II user community. I salute and appreciate you all....👍 Soldier on.

You may be right about .71. I can’t swear to that one way or the other. Both of my D2s are using 1.1 and they don’t go into negative territory

👍🏻😊

Yep, I routinely keep reactivity at 0-1 on the beach because of the depth issue and I really don’t need too much separation….which is one saving grace where this masking shortcoming is concerned.

A MineLab convert learns something new about the D2….again. I was experimenting yet again with settings to see if I could unmask the quarter…. No luck except for my modified General program much like F350 reported. I went back to Beach Sensitive to try yet again, this time by adjusting the discrimination….and that’s when I realized that you can’t go below 0.0 discrim in the Beach programs. I’ve experimented with negative discrim in Gary Blackwell’s Sonar program but it never crossed my mind to try it with a beach program….until now. Initially, I thought it was some sort of malfunction, but no, it’s embedded in the software from what I could determine! I never stop learning about this amazing detector!😁 BTW CPT, I use an 11” coil. Since 99% of my detecting is on the beach, I don’t even own a 9 inch coil.😉 I sincerely want to thank all you guys for jumping in on this unmasking investigation. If we can find a way to unmask the good target next to iron on the beach or make XP aware of all this so they can address it, we will have helped many fellow detectorists in my view…..of course that also means helping out our competitors!!! 😂

That’s exactly what I want to try…. Notch on 0-10 which should not affect the quarter at all if the software properly unmasks the quarter.

Same here. I try to stay at 0 and 1 at the most.

I will test this approach tomorrow. I’m particularly interested in trying a negative discrimination setting along with the lower iron volume because when I tried low iron volume without negative discrimination, the masking remained. If we find a solution, we will certainly capture those settings, post them in total and send a report to XP.

Excellent report CPT. Very thorough and promising. I wonder what impact those settings might have on targets that aren’t next to ferrous items. In any case, I’ll give them a shot here and see what happens. Thanks again. 👍🏻

What a great “fun hunt!” Good job. 😀

No, fresh water does not need the beach programs. I use General in fresh water lakes and it does just fine.