Chase Goldman

The "Air Metal Detectors" crowd sourced detector effort been discussed multiple times on the forum see the following: Bottom line, there are more downsides than upsides to this approach and the AMD effort has also suffered a number of setbacks technically (basically, many features just don't work, performance is poor to lackluster, the interface app is buggy, and updates are nonexistent), production wise, and distribution wise. Plus it doesn't help that the originating country (Ukraine) is in the midst of war. Perhaps Quest can turn it around, but even though it sounds interesting on paper, the concept is technically flawed because you are relying on standard bluetooth protocols to transfer data in order to ensure generic compatibility with both Android and Apple smartphones. That protocol is introduces too much latency and sources for real-time errors in the whole process, sets you up for multiple compatibility nightmares because you have zero control over people's phone configurations (this is much more complex than just making sure BT audio headphones are compatible). The phone is already doing too much "part time" tasking already, making it do yet another real time task just reduces overall reliability of the detector system. That's my take and it has pretty much played out the way I projected it would.

Good points, Andy and JCR Noting from strick’s results and statements that the similar shaped sinkers varied as to whether they touched the line based on their mass and or volume (i.e., the higher mass/volume sinkers were further from the center line) but also the blob shape appeared to be roughly consistent for each sinker shape group. This might indicate that there is not only a mass/volume bias in the 2D tracing algorithm independent of material composition with the implication that larger target magnetic fields might be considered by the algorithm more likely to be ferrous but that the algorithm is potentially assessing induced field symmetry for target tracing. Understanding these nuances and what the algorithm “thinks” it is seeing wrt to the target attributes would be key to unlocking more utility out of 2D target trace. Wish ML would give us more insight in that respect. Something (like a Treasure Talk article > do they still do those?) that supplements what they provided below in the user guide. For the targets that were less symmetric in one axis (e.g., the pyramidal sinkers) was also wondering, to Andy’s point, how the trace would vary based on the coil swing direction vs. the orientation of the target with respect to the coil. Also wondering if the line attachment shank played a role. Strick - Thanks for doing the test and for the screen shots. Learned a lot. If you have any further thoughts on the speculation above based on how you conducted those tests, would welcome your comments. For reference I am including some excerpts from the M-core user guide regarding how to interpret TT shapes and positions.

13" Detech Ultimate Coil. Bar none.

Gerry - The reason is that the Nox Multi-IQ piece (high frequency weighting and processing under the hood) is fundamentally the same for Gold 1 and 2. The only difference between the two is the user adjustable settings (Recovery Speed Setting) which can simply be replicated by utilizing the Custom User Profile. If you adjust the user settings identically for Gold 1 and 2 (Disc, Threshold level, recovery, iron bias, ground tracking) you will see they are the same. This is NOT true for Park 1 and 2, Field 1 and 2 or Beach 1 and 2. Even with identical user settings they will behave differently on the same targets. At one point, I recall that Nox Gold mode was going to use either 40khz single frequency and/or 40 kHz weighted Multi-IQ by default and at the last minute they chose Multi-IQ. They probably planned for 2 modes similar to what they did for Park, Field, and Beach and then realized at the end of the day, there basically is really is only one true Nox Gold mode and Gold 2 is just an unnecessary user setting variant “filler” mode. The probably translated that logic to M-core. Agree that to prospective M-core users, though, it appears on the surface to be a potential shortcoming compared to the Nox. I personally think the M-core custom user profile implementation needs an overhaul to make it more intuitive and flexible. You should be able to set up and save multiple custom combined Disc patterns AND ferrous limit profiles (not just the ferrous limits profiles, as provided today) that can be applied to any search mode as desired by the user. That would help make the single custom user profile more flexible because it would not be tied up (wasted) by a mode profile that simply has a different discrimination pattern. But that’s just me.

JCR thoroughly answered your question on bullet composition. Typical caliber was .58. There were also .69's and .54's and carbines were typically .52 but some were in smaller caliber. Pistols were .44 or .45 or smaller. Actual bullet ODs varied by type. The objective was to be able to easily push the bullet down through the barrel rifling after inserting the gunpowder, so the unfired diameter was typically less than .58. A conical cavity at the base of most minies would expand upon ignition and engage the barrel rifling. "Cleaner" bullets had zinc inserts in the base that would expand upon firing to scrape gunpowder residue that would build up on the rifling of the barrel. The main point I wanted to make was that translating air test results to actual in-ground performance was always tricky, but in situations where depth performance is degraded such as when mineralization is present (hot dirt) then the depth differences between the tested configurations shrink or get compressed typically in proportion the air test measurements. Thanks for the clarifications and posting your results.

Yep. I hunt there almost exclusively with the GPX and only pull the vlf out for work in thick iron or to scan the dirt dug out of a pit, use it in wooded areas where the dirt is not as hot or simply when my shoulder wears outcfrom the GPX. Not everyone has a PI (I wrote an article for the DIV website on why a PI is the preferred choice of Culpeper "veterans") there so I like to give advice on which of the new VLFs tend to work best in the hot stuff (and even "the classics" like the F75/T2 and MXT) if I have time I run some comparitive tests. The hardest thing to get across to folks not used to the hot stuff is that there is a big diffrence between detection depth and ID depth on a vlf in that soil. ID depth runs out very quickly within anywhere from 2 to 6 inches. After that, you can hear the target but the ID Is unreliable. So it becomes a dig it all situation. I had success at the last DIV by taking my D2 where the GPX's dare not go. One of our crew had pulled a couple keepers in a productive field but it was near roadside modern trash and power lines. I decided to give it a go in another field just to switch things up a little and change my luck. It was painful to keep pulling the 99% probable aluminum cans and canslaw, but was rewarded with a split Breast Plate and a NY Coat button that was hiding there in that relic detectorist's nightmare. This year, trying out the Axiom... Would like to find a new home for the GPX and my ATX backup and "rain" machine). They have both served me well, but really want the clean ergonomics, settings simplicity, lighter weight and GPX level performance of the Axiom.

Daniel, Thanks greatly for the info on that 12" coil. First person I've heard of that has actually used it! I was looking at it mainly for weight and reduced footprint in hot dirt. I have a 13" Ultimate on the F75 right now. I will look into the Super Fly, and thanks greatly for the offer to borrow and try that new coil. I'll PM you if I decide to try it out after all. I think I will bring the F75 to Culpeper at least with the stock and bake it off against the D2, Nox 900, and Legend on Minies. Right now focusing on getting half way proficient on the Axiom b4 the trips down.

So, please take your complaint directly to XP warranty support, if you are serious. This is not an XP customer support site.

Your take regarding XP being "in trouble" is just ridiculous, to be quite frank.

Just some specific and general commentary on this thread discussion… Chuck, I’m personally aving trouble visualizing your axis orientation descriptions above but I’m also just naturally challenged at visualizing 3D word problems, I guess. Specifically, your axis at coil terminology/descriptions, i.e., “pointing at” and “perpendicular to” the coil and “short side” and “long direction” are confusing to me when I consider the bullet’s shape and “in ground orientation” and the plane of the coil and the fact that a DD coil’s active detection “spine”, oriented roughly perpendicular to the sweep path. For example, a bullet could be oriented roughly vertical in ground (which is my interpretation of what you mean by the axis “pointed at” the coil, but that also means the the axis is “perpendicular” to the coil sweep plane). Explaining it with a reference to how the bullet would be oriented in the ground assuming a DD coil parallel to the ground perpendicular to the coil sweep path (assuming you were using the stock DD coil) or providing a simple diagram would help (see my crude cave drawing below). Also, a lot of discussion about air tests here and somebody mentioned that real world, in-ground detection depths would be less than air tests. You really can’t make a definitive statement like that because soil conditions (moisture, mineralization, and density) and how the soil responds to the detector’s particular operating frequency, and target characteristics can all contribute to make in ground detection depth performance exceed or be significantly less than measured in air tests. In general, highly mineralized ground will indeed show depth performance significantly less than air tests but this situation would also compress the difference in depth readings vs. the air tests, potentially rendering those differences insignificant. Example - an air test could show a minie ball for one set of conditions in air to be 14 inches and the other to be 12 inches. In hot ground, that might translate into 5 inches and 4.5 inches. Yes even half an inch is not insignificant (miss it by half an inch, miss it by a mile), but just noting that it’s always hard to draw hard and fast conclusions from air tests. Looking forward to what @Daniel Tn experiences in that bullet field with the T2. I am also a relic hunter and I could dig minie balls all day long (and have done so) with total enjoyment. But I love buttons, tokens, ID tags, Corps badges, coins (copper, brass, bronze, nickel, silver, and gold), brass knapsack and uniform accoutrements, belt and cartridge box plates, artillery projectiles, and even ferrous camp objects. I have found that optimizing my machine choice and setup around a specific target objective or test target type is mostly counter productive unless I am solely seeking that target type. Not saying this is the case, but that T2 may kill on lead minies but might turn out not being all that on buttons or other relics, for example, under certain conditions, because you are limited to a single frequency while dealing with an infinite number of variables. It is the reason I moved from single frequency, to selectable single frequency, and now to simultaneous Multifrequency and really haven’t looked back. Plus I subscribe to the @Steve Herschbach school of thought: VLF when you can, PI if you must. Yep, I still have my venerable MXT, F75, and a G2+. But that’s mostly nostalgia mixed with wanting to retain at least one machine that still accommodates concentric wound coils (which is why I did got rid of my T2). Though I haven’t used them for that reason for close to 5 years now. But this thread has tempted me to re-visit the F75 and consider marrying it up to Fisher’s latest coil just to see what it can do, perhaps even in my planned visits to Culpeper this month. Though to be honest, I’ll probably just run the Axiom and bring along my D2 in my day pack as a backup. Again, would like to hear how the T2 works out for Daniel on bullets and relics in general. I understand the desire to neck down to as few machines as needed, and for my part will start thinning the herd soon. GL. HH.

I also hope we don’t have to wait 3 more years for Coiltek coils for the Manticore like we had to wait for the Nox. I don’t know if ML realizes it or not (which makes me question their overall consumer business model savvy if they don’t), but simply striking a licensing deal for the embedded coil interface electronics with Coiltek for accessory coils in manner that enables Coiltek to release accessory coils for M-core in a time frame similar to or even faster than ML’s spool up of their own M-core accessory coils could actually tilt fence sitters into purchasing an M-core without ML having to invest any additional capital. Their track record of aloof behavior with respect to accessory coil options and availability from a customer demand perspective makes them appear to be blind to this fact. And I’m not just talking small circular coils, but an elliptical slightly bigger than what is presently envisioned would be welcomed by non-prospecting users to fill the remaining gap between the stock and the planned ML 8x5.5. A solid coil body or skid plate variant option would also be welcomed.

As far as complimenting the D2, Legend is not really going to bring anything to the table that you can’t already get with the 800. And to be frank, I really haven’t really seen the need to pull out the 800 or Legend much since I started swinging the D2 despite also owning the 10x5 coil for the 800 or the LG24 coil for Legend. If I was starting from scratch, I might go D2 + Legend for max value or D2 + Nox 900 or Manticore if price was no object. Now Legend might be worth it if your 800 is well beyond warranty, but like I said, if you are primarily swinging the D2, the 800 is fine and Legend will just be the competent shiny new toy but not a game changer. I find the Legend to be jam packed with great features and great ergonomics. But with that comes a less intuitive interface with a lot of secret key combinations to pull up the features they keep adding onto it and settings that you really need to understand because it is not clear that the added filters are necessarily optimal even if you just leave them at the defaults. Frustratingly, Nokta also decided to make the keypad matte black with raised matte black symbology marking the key functions. You will likely have to paint on highlights to make it easier to see the keypad key functions or get the Nokta protective cover that has the key pad symbols highlighted. Still learning the Legend and the new LG24 coil, but really haven’t clicked with it yet. I blame that mostly on the great success I am having with the D2 rather than any real shortcomings with the Legend. I am having the same lackluster bonding with my new Nox 900. They are each fine detectors, that are just both overshadowed by the D2 for what I do most, mid-Atlantic relic detecting and summer beach hunting. Just my 2 cents.

This topic often confuses people and because the details are hidden within specific detector threads people are not aware of nitty gritty details that can help you select the right 3rd party accessories to pair with the wireless audio capability of your detector. First post will provide a link to a great article that provides some background information on BT Audio and explains and tries to clarify some of the terminology that gets thrown around which tends confuse people when they are looking for compatible low latency wireless hardware that will work with their detector: https://www.audioreputation.com/bluetooth-audio-codecs/ This link from a manufacturer of low latency BT hardware explains latency differences associated with some common codecs: https://avantree.com/knowledge-base/general-different-bluetooth-codecs-latency/ To be continued...

I like the way you just put your data out there to for people to interpret on their own. You make and voice your own conclusions but they are typically focused on a specific aspect of performance noting how you think the detectors differ in that aspect. I view that in the grand scheme that even in these comparisons, for the most part, the differences are relatively small (but I guess I would avoid the expression "hair's breadth" ). But you know which one you would clearly choose for the task at hand based on YOUR testing and experience. You don't try to crown an overall king. And I have yet to see you neck down to a single detector that you prefer for ALL your detecting situations. Though you probably know which detector you would use if you could only bring one for any given detecting scenario. This is what I am driving at.

Just a note to clarify/correct the statement in bold above: I have been unable to find any documentation that explicitly states that Hyper Q Multi F (i.e., 7 - 80khz range) is not the same on both the V60 and V80 (although the model numbers might imply that there is a difference). Furthermore, I have confirmed with a trusted tester of the V80, that similar to Multi-IQ on the Minelab Equinox 700/900 (or legacy Equinox 600/800), the Hyper Q Multi F implementation is identical on both detectors (i.e., they will both operate up to 80 khz while operating in Hyper Q Multi F) while the V60 is limited in other ways such as with the range of single frequency settings (see below), total programs, iron volume levels, and tone selection. The V60 also uses an aluminum vice CF shaft and does not include the universal wireless receiver (dongle). V60 has 5, 10, 15, 20, and 40 khz selectable single frequencies V80 has 5, 10, 15, 20, 40 and 60 khz selectable single frequencies I think some ambiguity/imprecision in the way Quest refers to Hyper Q and the individual selectable single frequencies in their written literature and also some spokesperson misstatements in their demonstration videos contribute to this confusion. Other than the minor clarification above @DSMITH's previous post, linked below, accurately summarizes all the specs and spec differences on the V60/V80 as grabbed directly from Quest.

I can't honestly say without any knowledge of the circumstances of the original hunt, regarding whether luck was involved. But I tend to agree with Cal. If you set up the machine with identical settings, and are not getting the same results I would chalk that up to a lot of other site variables that have nothing to do with the detector firmware.

Yep. That’s what I meant by splitting hairs. The key is if you are basing buying decisions based solely off videos that purport to demonstrate a clear winner (not even talking about the manufacturer’s marketing dreck) in any specific detector performance category - it’s a fallacy and you will likely come away disappointed once you discover you don’t now possess Harry Potter’s magic wand. It’s a cliche, but also true, no one detector does it all. If you can afford to own two diverse, but capable detectors, that’s a bonus. But if you can only own just one VLF, just about any high profile detector released in the past 2 to 4 years that hasn’t demonstrated a serious, fatal flaw will serve you well performance wise . So then it just comes down to what you can afford and the specific features you want or need.

That didn’t take long. Haven't you learned that you need to refrain from quoting me until a half hour after I've posted to make sure I'm done self editing. Yep Yes but not from ANY comparison video. It came from my own learning and swinging, and comparing notes with other trusted detectorists that I have talked to or corresponded with directly, some of whom DO generate the videos I ignore. Or from instructional information in written and video form. I’m talking about the “which detector is deepest/fastest type videos”, and the sensationalist “how to set up the detector to see through foil” and “the secret setting to eliminate all pull tabs and find only gold” or someone talking about thousands of holes they dug or that their (fill in the blank with the name any popular detector) is the best because they found three silvers in their pounded site is such nonsense. Determining “the best” based solely off what someone else is telling you is waste of time IMO.

Oh this forum is going to rock, Steve, when the opinions start flying on this one. 🤣

Which machine is the best? Pretty simple, really. It’s the one that you do not hesitate to use most frequently because you know it well and tend to get the results you desire. That’s it. People should just stop splitting hairs on equipment and focus instead on learning the equipment they have and doing the research and legwork required to gain legal access to productive sites. You can do a lot worse than working on social and communication skills vs. viewing endless air tests or listening to anecdotes that have little to no real world applicability to your specific detecting objectives and primarily serve the content provider. I’ve seen this content just serve to provide more confusion and acrimony than legitimate insights, even when conducted in a controlled, scientific manner. Just too many variables out there. It may hold entertainment value for some but I’d rather just see the data and “conclusions” in written form as they generally bore me to tears. OTOH - I love to supplement my learning of a new machine with instructional videos. Nothing like seeing and hearing the machine do it’s thing and gaining tips and tricks from those who’ve taken the time to put in the hours of real swing time needed to truly learn a machine inside and out before they even post their first video. JMO

I guess then it's a good thing that after owning 5 of their detector control boxes, 9 coils, 2 pinpointers, and 6 sets of wireless phones over the past 8 years (I believe in backups and loaners for friends and family), I've never had to send any back for repair. Though, I know of a few who have dealt with the US repair facility for repair and replacement and have not heard complaints. But yeah, they don't seem to be responsive to inquiries or routine questions about equipment.

Speaking of Amazon - I totally get why people are adverse to Windows (I primarily use Android and a Chromebook) so I bought a relatively cheap Win 10 S Mode laptop (designed for grade schoolers) and have dedicated it for Detector updates (Nokta, XP, Minelab) and other Metal Detecting related IT tasks (research, mapping, web searches) in the field. It’s not going to break any productivity speed records, but it doesn’t have to (that’s what your Mac is for). I see several on Amazon for around $150. You might be able to find a used one for even less. It costs less than many metal detecting accessories out there that are a heckuva lot less useful. Just a thought.

Exactly. That’s why I use pinpoint in that situation to find a spot to ground grab rather than getting fooled into thinking I’m completely surrounded by ferrous and can’t.

Bob and I are killing it out there with our crippled Beta test D2’s. My fully updated Nox is collecting dust and the 900 has been a mostly disappointment so far for a version 2.0. Sorry this 0.71 beta is holding you back, Dave. But hard core beach hunting is not my wheelhouse, so I’m probably missing something. Anyway, I just hope they don’t break anything that works now once they do release it.

To a certain extent this IS what discrimination does on Deus 2. That's why I advocate use of discrimination (and highly reactive pitch audio) because it helps to differentiate ferrous from non-ferrous in the presence of both and helps to keep ferrous down averaging from affecting the non-ferrous TDI. It's not full proof but it does help and if you want to not hear the iron, simply turn off iron volume. If Manticore is indeed doing something similar, then that would be a definite feature enhancement beyond the Nox's discrimination implementation that peaks my interest in Manticore. Will be interested in how this unfolds.