ColonelDan

1 hour ago, D&P-OR said:

Is there an advantage over with Steves carbon fiber shaft (over the stock shaft) when using the D2 with 9" & 11" coils (land hunting)?----Or is Steves shaft mainly for use with the big coil?

Big advantage using Steve’s coil regardless of the coil used.  It’s a superior product in every way….no flex, ergonomics, locking mechanism, you can insert the antenna within the shaft if you desire, carbon fiber throughout and extremely lightweight.  

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!!!!

👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻

On 7/17/2023 at 3:30 PM, CPT_GhostLight said:

I watch metal detecting video for entertainment and to gleen useful information. I don't usually watch videos testing detector against detector, but prefer videos testing detectors against their true adversary, the ground, and in this case the environment.

I don't usually have too many problems on the D2 with EMI, especially with the 9" coil, but I've been dialing in my 11" coil lately and hit some horrible EMI in a park I had not hunted before and Frequency Shift could not tame it. I tried all the usual methods like running several Frequency Shifts, lowering the Sensitivity, switching programs, etc, but nothing helped.  I remembered seeing a video in which Paystreak was discussing taming the V1.0 update and in particular addressing EMI by reducing the Audio Response.

I never thought to try that until I hit this particular park and it's very large strong EMI area. I used to set the Audio Response to 5 in V0.71 and have lowered it to 4 in V1.10 and have been happy with that. I pretty much considered AR to be a static setting across all programs. Now I am reconsidering that. So, I put my usual Fast program settings back to where they were with Sensitivity at 95, Silencer and B.Caps at 0, Max Freq at 40, and lowered the Audio Response one number at a time to see if it would affect the EMI chatter and it did. With AR at 2 the EMI chatter was greatly reduced and at 0 it was almost unnoticeable.

I was concerned that lower Audio Response settings would reduce detecting depth, but that didn't seem to be the case. Even with AR at zero, I was able to hear targets just fine, but I ran AR at 2-3 just out of an abundance of caution and hit targets to around 6 inches or so even in the mild chatter of 3. This was an eye opener for me. I will have to experiment more with targets at depth to satisfy my own mind, but I like the possibilities.

Has anyone else experiment with Audio Response?

Here is what I was able to find in the monsterous EMI of that park.

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.

  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....😆

1 hour ago, JCR said:

A 2 box set up is definitely a specialty tool for out of the ordinary treasure hunting.  What is needed to go along with the tool is knowledge & technique. Bottle dumps,  large Civil War relic & hut sites, substantiated Caches and Post Hole Banks are not common features of most Permissions but they exist. Research and lots of time on the ground is required.  You also have to work smarter not just harder. A proper set of ground/bottle probes can save you a lot of unproductive digging as will a big coil on a good VLF discriminator.  It is tough to do alone but that is what a lot of the early guys did with less equipment but more time and more opportunities.  Can you imagine being able to hunt along the actual Oregon Trail before it was all obliterated or fenced off? There were scores of Pioneer trails thru hostile territory.  Or a battlefield or Winter camp? How about Galveston or Padre Island. 

We have less opportunity today but better equipment. You have to admire those early hunters who were very secretive and successful.

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.  🥴😁

33 minutes ago, Deep Beeps said:

Thank you!.... Thats just what Im in need of after being off the D2 for a year now.

Got it. I thought I had read you were using it on the beach.🤷‍♂️

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.

7 minutes ago, Deep Beeps said:

Thanks Dan. Your post is what made me ask the original question in this thread as I have 0 hours on V1.1. I had actually used some of the beach programs to tune out EMI while hunting under power lines in coastal Virginia last year in one of the older versions. likely V.6.

The beaches here in SoCal have a fair bit of black sands. But due to fresh sutures I'll be staying high and dry.

What is the modified General settings? Also I see at the end you started using Gary's Sonar program?

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.

1 minute ago, midalake said:

Could have sworn I did run -6.4 in a few beach programs under .71 for a few days. Did you try in .71? I actually wrote a review somewhere. 

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 

33 minutes ago, CPT_GhostLight said:

I'm sorry, Colonel, you're right. I forgot I was on the duplicate settings in the General program when I was lowering Disc below zero. It's hard to keep good notes when I'm trying to beat a target into submission. 😏

Also for some reason I thought you had the 9" coil. Well that's just one more reason to go back and test again. 😉

👍🏻😊

31 minutes ago, F350Platinum said:

From what live beach results I've seen lately with other newer machines, we already don't have that much to worry about. 😎 It's sad but kinda a thrill to have another detectorist ask me if I'm finding anything because he isn't. I just say "I'm doing all right"... 🤷‍♂️

I would hope adjusting reactivity would sort this out, but it really doesn't, and the higher you go you begin to lose the deeper stuff. That's always been the deal relic hunting, and I agree with the Cap'n that higher sensitivity gets you fringe targets outside the swing that are worth investigating.

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!!!  😂

1 minute ago, Chase Goldman said:

Same here on the beach.

Yes, that with Notch might be the answer.

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. 

9 hours ago, midalake said:

Ugh, I have not had good depth testing responses with reactivity 1.5 and beyond. 

Myself, I hunt in 1 reactivity. 

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

36 minutes ago, Chase Goldman said:

Hmm. Interesting.  So there potentially is merit to zero iron volume as I suggested earlier in this thread.  But to be fair, I was suggesting it as an alternative to notch. Great info CPT.

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.

4 minutes ago, CPT_GhostLight said:

Okay Colonel, I got a chance to slip out and test the masking scenario today. Let me preface as saying my soil is mineralized and sandy in my back yard and has dried out some since it hasn't rained since early yesterday and was sunny today. It's about 6 bars on the Ground Level Mineralization Strength meter. My ground balance varied from 87-89, but with Ground Tracking on, it settled in the 87 zone.

This is not exactly scientific testing but I approached it with a mind set to see if I could make the D2 unmask the clad quarter in your program. I was able to get it to unmask with the various land programs, but not with all of them. Granted I didn't spend too much effort adjusting the land programs, just basic hunting tweaks I would normally make to see which programs could hit the quarter. 

I set up for the test with your listed settings:

Base Program = Beach Sensitive, Max Freq = 40, Disc = 0.0, Notch = Off, Sensitivity = 95, Silencer = 0, B.Caps = 0, Reactivity = 0, Audio Response = 7, Iron Volume = 7, Tone = Pitch, Threshold = 0, Audio = High Sqr, Audio Filter = 0, FE TID = On (I forgot to turn that off from the factory default setting), Ground Tracking = On, Ground Stability = 2, Salt Sens = 7, Magnetic Ground = Reject.

This was the orientation of the quarter and tent peg in the ground with the quarter and tent peg in an East-West relationship:

 

I tried all the various settings and combinations as you did to unmask the quarter with no success. Pitch tones was giving me a high false tone on the tent peg but low VDI number, probably because I forgot to turn FE TID off. I raised the Disc up to 10 with no change, I began lowering it back down to zero with not much change in audio or TID, but when I lowered the DIsc below zero, the audio on the spike began to change and break up a bit and there was an occasional higher number (56- 85) flashing sporatically and the non-ferrous bar showed response as well.

This would only show up on the Southern  and sometimes the Northern end of a 360 swing rotation. It was also more pronounced if I did a rapid wiggle off of or onto the location of the quarter. When centered on the quarter, the tent spike would dominate the tonal response and TID.

Here is an unexpected result. I was going to raise and lower the Reactivity to see how that might affect the signals when I acidentally lowered the Iron Volume instead and, for some unknown reason, the lower the Iron Volume went the higher non-ferrous numbers appeared  on the TID while doing a 360 sweep. With Iron Volume from 3-0, I was able to tell there was a good enough non-ferrous target there to dig near the tent peg. When I set the Reactivity from 1.5-2.5, it improved the response even more with the lower Iron Volume settings. I don't know how that happened, but I would have dug those signals knowing there was something near the peg. You might give that a try to see if it makes any difference on your turf and beaches, but it worked for me.

 

 

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. 😀