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.

23 hours ago, abenson said:

I've suspect this will be the same with Civil War bullets to some extent and will depend on their orientation in the ground. I have a .58 cal minie buried in my test garden and depending on which direction I sweep it, it does come off the center line. Not as much as what you're showing, the blob is just barely not touching the line. So shape is definitely playing a part in how something shows up on the trace.

13 hours ago, JCR said:

I was thinking that some of the newer fishing sinkers were made out of some other metal besides Lead. I know automotive wheel weights are now primarily Zinc or some sort of sintered aberration.. You can't hardly find real Lead ones anymore at the tire shops. They were the best base material for hard cast bullets.

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.

On 3/2/2023 at 9:50 AM, strick said:

I wanted to clarify something that I posted in the Centerline thred that Basstrackerman started...also I watched  Video that Andy had made comparing led to gold nuggets. 

On  a recent water hunt I had noticed that some fishing weights I had dug were clearly off of the centerline. And when I got home I tested them on the grass and it was the same result. So I did  little more testing and what I found is this: 

1. Large Irregular shaped Lead fishing weights do indeed hit off the centerline These were Pyramid and Egg shaped sinkers. 

2. Smaller lead fishing weights of the same shape will read on the centerline. 

3. Flat lead sinkers of all sizes will hit on the centerline. 

Photo #1 5 oz pyramid sinker

Photo #2 1 oz pyramid sinker

Photo #3 3 oz  egg shaped sinker

Photo #4 1 oz egg shaped sinker. 

Photos #5-#6 are the sinkers tested. 

Conclusion: Centerline stability for lead fishing sinkers is dependent on the size and shape of the sinker. Smaller sinkers will read touching the center line while bigger pyramid shaped and egg shaped sinkers will read off the centerline.

I did test all the modes in factory and it seemed to be the same for each. I just wanted to clarify as this may help those of us that hunt beaches and fresh water swimming holes. 

strick 

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.

6 hours ago, IronDigger said:

Yeah, yeah...I know its 2023 and a question like this seems a btt out of the ordinary these days, especially one concerning the ole tried and true Whites MXT. The Legendary detector that still chugs and chugs along with the best of them made today. Question is I have been wondering if anyone who uses one what brand and size xoil would you put on the MXT for greater depth on open fields? I am not into trying this or that coil and figuring out which one responds the best, wasting my money. Thanks in advance to all that respond, 

13" Detech Ultimate Coil.  Bar none.

45 minutes ago, Gerry in Idaho said:

Sure the manual may say something to the effect of only needing 1 gold mode. Why take away what you already have and then charge $500 more?

Below info from Minelab Equinox 900 Manual on page 14.  Makes sense to me to have 2 after reading what each does.

Both the EQ-900/Manti operate kHz pretty close to the same in Gold Mode at 20, 40, Multi IQ for 900 and 20, 40, IQ+ for Manti.  I just wonder why no 2nd Mode?

 

 

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.

1 hour ago, GB_Amateur said:

Nice post Hugh, and rather a general one but that's good since not everyone has the 'background' knowledge, particularly with a specific detector model.  I think I agree with everything you said (after one readthru).  I'll try to answer what is specifically directed at my post.

Yes, your drawing is consistent with my air test measurements.  I should have done a better job (with drawings or photos) than counting simply on words which sometimes can be confusing.

My intent (there's that word again 😁) was to confirm/refute the measurements Daniel made with his F75, not to claim he made a mistaken measurement but rather to ask "do all of the DST models of the F75 give weaker air test performances than the original non-DST models?"  I was definitely not implying that my results (or his) would carry over to actual in-ground targets.  (You knew this but maybe others didn't....)  Also, since he used a Civil War(CW) bullet I tried as close as possible to use a similar target, although that alone was a 'weakness' of my test.  At least mine was smaller, not larger, but I think it's likely the composition is different.   BTW, no one has yet answered my question about CW bullet composition.  JCR talked about bullets in general, though.  During a Google search I did see a claim that CW bullets were pure lead, but that was from a metal detecting forum post (not our beloved DetectorProspector.com forum) so I was unsure of its veracity.

My F75 is a great backup detector to the Minelab Equinox 800 and soon it will be 3rd in line, but still not going anywhere.  I've always found it deep, but it's not (in my experience) very good at ID'ing coins nearly as deep in-ground as the Eqx 800.  Part of that is surely its single frequency (13 kHz) vs. the Eqx multifrequency (~5-6 kHz combined with ~38 kHz, with maybe one other freq in-between).  Been said before and worth saying again -- it (ditto its older cousin, Teknetics T2) is still the best ergonomic design out there that I'm aware of.  (Now I've started another detector war....  🙄)

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.

1 hour ago, Daniel Tn said:

Got home and just put the T2 on the measuring board.  Moment of truth....motion all metal. 95 sens. .58 cal minie ball = 14.5 inches loud and clear.  If you wanted to go by just a consistent whisper, you could say 15 inches.   This is on par with my buddies pre DST unit.  If I put that bad boy in BP mode and flip over to all metal mode, it gets it at 16 inches and a very nice bass thump at 14-15.  Very impressed and happy with that.  That's how it should be.  

Chase -- My first few trips to Culpeper was with the F75. I can tell ya...nothing is going to read right.  Almost every target I dug had an iron ID.  Seemed like the numbers were 11s and 13s most of the time.  I dug a breast plate just 10 inches or so deep...total iron signal til it was out of the hole.  I think I had 80 something dropped and carved bullets, 20 or so buttons, a plate, and other odds and ends like j hooks, bayonet scabbards, etc on my first hunt up there with it.  But...my buddy had a TDI and he came over to the little spot I had found and was pulling stuff left and right after I had pounded it for 2.5 days with the F75.  I had a TDI by the next hunt lol. That was my intro to pulse vs vlf.  The next hunt there (Coles Hill) I went back to that little camp to get leftovers and never left it for 3 days. I pulled over 100 minies out of it, close to 50 buttons, and another breast plate.  I never got to hunt there with a GPX.  

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.

47 minutes ago, Daniel Tn said:

Chase -- Are you referring to the newer 12" weird looking coil by Fisher?  I have one for the F75 you can borrow if you don't have one. No sense in paying $200 just to try one. I did not notice any real difference in depth over the stock coil but it certainly is lighter weight. I ordered the Super Fly coil for the T2 last night.  I really liked those machines paired with the DeTech Ultimate 13 coil...but that Super Fly looked bad to the bone.  

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.

19 hours ago, Zord said:

That's funny...

No, that's not fair...

I paid for the WS6 Master version which is INCOMPLETE.

The WS6 manual shows the Ground Tracking option, but it's still not in the software.

It cannot be used because it does not exist.

 

So

Xp, you sold me an unfinished product. I want my money back or I want you to finish the detector.

 

 

 

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

43 minutes ago, raziel900 said:

at this point it is evident that the engineers cannot solve the various problems, 
they are in trouble i don't know what to expect for deus 2 in the future.

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

Just some specific and general commentary on this thread discussion…

18 hours ago, GB_Amateur said:

I was operating in Motion All Metal mode.  I varied the sensitivity as well as turning DST on and off (see table below).  I swiped the bullet in two directions.  "Orientation 1 -- axis at coil" in the table below has the bullet oriented pointing at the coil.  For "Orientation 2 -- short side" I swiped the bullet with its axis perpendicular to the coil and in its short direction.  I didn't do any tests perpendicular to the coil sweeping in the bullet's long direction.

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.

8 hours ago, phrunt said:

I hope Coiltek comes out with a 5" or 6" round for the Manticore, that'll be fantastic.

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...

16 minutes ago, Jeff McClendon said:

This forum and another has page after page of some members arguing, asking for and outright demanding video proof or test results so that they can feel good (or not) about what they purchased since those videos and results prove that detector W has the same performance as detector X, Y or Z?????

It's ridiculous.

Why would I setup an Equinox 800 and an Equinox 900 and a Manticore with the same numerical settings so that the "test" or "video" is fair.

Conversely, why would I spend hours trying to find out exactly (impossible) which settings on the Equinox 800 equal the corresponding settings on the Equinox 900, Manticore, Legend or Deus 2? Throw in a CTX 3030 and an Etrac too for good measure. For what purporse?

 

 

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.

On 2/22/2023 at 1:14 AM, DSMITH said:

The Main differences is the V80 runs 80 KHz in Hyper Q (Multi F) both the V80 and the V60 runs the same coils, the V60 is the same as the V80 but only runs up to 60 KHz 

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.

2 hours ago, Ndrefg said:

Hello,

I would like to know if anyone has tried to install a older version (1.08 or 1.07) of the firmware into your detector with a newer version already installed (1.10)?

Is it possible?

I got some nice results in park on the beach with 1.07 but upgraded the firmware to 1.09 and now to 1.10 and was interested in trying if possible to make a "downgrade" to understand if it was luck or not.

Thank you and good finds!

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.

9 minutes ago, GB_Amateur said:

Aha, so your bullseye is comparison videos!

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.  

1 hour ago, GB_Amateur said:

Have you bought any detectors recently?

Yep

1 hour ago, GB_Amateur said:

Have you had an epiphany since?

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.

2 minutes ago, Steve Herschbach said:

But, but, but…. where would the forum be were it not for hair splitting?!

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

3 hours ago, phrunt said:

I contacted XP customer service on their website to ask about their XP Pinpointers and if they're pulse or not, they never replied.   They don't appear to have fantastic customer service. 

 

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.

24 minutes ago, Doc Bach said:

I was sort of hoping that they would buddy up with Apple as well. So that when the updates finally do begin I won't have to spend my time finding someone else to install them for me.

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.

9 minutes ago, steveg said:

Sometimes that "machine-gunning" is your clue that your ground balance is slightly off...

Steve

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.

23 minutes ago, midalake said:

I am starting to wonder if anyone works there! 

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.

1 hour ago, GB_Amateur said:

Is this in any way parallel to what the Deus 2 does, setting a discrimination level independent(?) of notching?  (I may be way off base with this, never having had an XP detector and thus not understanding its language...).

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.