Chase Goldman

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.

Thank you. I appreciate you diving into these Betas and providing these reports, I know you have been on the front lines in this regard, so thank you again. I was coming at it from the perspective that I can't remember everyone's routine, so the report posts need to stand on their own to help the reader, especially for those readers who might be "tuning in" for the first time. Thanks for filling in those gaps with the additional info, answering my questions, and, most of all, not taking offense at all the questions. I probably overreacted to the multiple install thing but that was directed at Nokta - the update Beta's should simply be providing us with almost ready for prime time operating software and no cut corners or sloppiness should be tolerated in the install routines at this point. I know that they had issues early on with update program compatibility and I thought those had been addressed. And, while it is always possible for an update to hiccup during the install process, that situation should not result in an indicated "successful" update because checksums or other error detection methods should be used to identify a failed install and revert back to the previous SW configuration. And there never should be a situation where three installs are needed to get it right without flagging any errors. If the glitch results in the machine ending up in an unknown state due to an added feature or setting, then a factory reset should take care of that. As I said, hopefully, this is not indicative of sloppiness in the update routine and that it gets addressed. It's hard enough to get users through it when everything is working correctly.

Understand what you are saying, but it does not make sense at all that Nokta is doing that intentionally or even unintentionally. And if that really is the case - that's not a good reflection on Nokta's update utility configuration control. If the install utility is wonky, the last thing I want to do is to have to repeatedly install an update and risk bricking the machine on every install, requiring it to be sent in for service. So I'm just hoping the multiple install thing is not real. And recommending that users do that without Nokta acknowledging the issue is a risky proposition for that very reason. However, the factory reset before and after (which Nokta recommends BTW) makes sense and I wondered to myself whether you did that on the first install and that was really the difference maker. Did you test anything between each reset and install or just decided to do the 3 install/reset cycles and then test? Also, suggest for future reports you remove additional new "variables" when testing, comparing new installs to avoid red herrings and confusion. Adding the small coil for the first time while simultaneously installing new software and then reporting reduced depth just opens up questions about wherher the coil was the culprit like HerrUU commented above. It appears you did observe a performance issue with the install that was above and beyond just having the small coil installed based on the reinstall cycle. Would like to know if you are noticing any issues with the stock coil now that you think it is sorted with the LG24. This is probably coming across as hyper critical which is not my intention. Just trying to be constructive so that the reports can help readers better decide if they want to chance this latest beta update. Thanks for the report. Persinally, I'll probably just wait for the March Final release.

Likely they will have you pay for a new or refurbished housing/control pod (obviously the refurbished units are cheaper at ~$225 vs. $350 per this post. But don't know if those prices are still applicable or the post repair warranty terms). If they offer you a discount towards a new 900, I would seriously consider it depending on the offer. Hopefully, your coil-side connector is not damaged and you can remove the separated pins and salvage the coil. Good luck and please do report back on how it was remedied and the quality of customer service.

I had the T2 and the F75 and decided to hang on to the F75 because it was compatible with concentric coils while the T2 was not.

I have heard some positive comments regarding target separation with the Manticore, especially in thick iron. Deus has traditionally had a great rep in this regard as well. Would like folks who have used both machines to weigh in on this aspect of performance. Please provide relative context for any observations or assertions including modes, settings (especially recovery speed/reactivity and audio settings), soil conditions, target types/composition, and ferrous/non-fertous trash density. Thanks. Since M-core is limited to the 11" coil let's keep the discussion constrained to 11" or 9" coil comparisons. Leaving Nox and Legend out of the discussion for now to keep things simple and because they both have smaller elliptical coil options available that just complicates apples to apples comparisons. Have at it... I don't have a Manticore so I will mostly stay on the sidelines unless general logic or technical facts discrepancies are noted or I have questions.

Any pics?

That's interesting that you should say Deus Target Separation should be improved. Few criticize the D2's ability to separate targets but I also don't have a Manticore for comparison and have heard the Manticore separation ability mentioned by others. D2 is certainly not limited by processing speed as the default reactivity (Rx) setting in Fast is 3 out of 5. But there may be processing and/or audio enhancements that help Manticore in this regard. About the only thing holding D2 back is lack of a narrow elliptical accessory coil like that provided on the D1 to compliment the round stock coils. But that obviously won't be remedied by a system software update nor does that explain the Manticore comments because only the stock 11" coil is available for M-core right now. To a lesser extent, having the ability to operate at a top end FMF frequency higher than 40khz could be advantageous as well. Anyway, I really wanted to focus in on your statement that "only the FAST program performs almost well". The Fast program is just based on the 40khz FMF Sensitive program but with reactivity set to 3 (vice 2.5 on Sensitive) and it uses very reactive pitch audio > so it is geared to improve separation out of the box by the nature of its default Rx and audio settings. But you can improve D2 separation in just about any mode by increasing reactivity and using reactive pitch audio granted the 40khz top end of Sensitive/Fast FMF probably gives you a slight edge over the other base programs. Have you tried Pitch audio and setting Rx to 3 or higher on the other programs in your iron beds? Those settings (Rx 3 and Pitch audio) should make General (Default: 3 Tones; Rx 2.5; 40khz FMF), Park (Default: 3 Tones; Rx 2.5; 24 khz FMF), Deep HC (Default: 2 Tones; Rx 2, 14 khz FMF) and even mono (Default: 3 Tones; Rx 2.5; 45 khz max) similarly reactive in iron and if you set Rx even higher should improve target separation even further (though I recommend also turning down sensitivity in machine gun iron to prevent iron Target signals from overloading the front end and there is a point of diminishing returns because the target audio becomes very abbreviated). Also, Gold and Relic mode have different target processing and ferrous filter algorithms as well as utilizing VCO/Pitch audio which can make them perform well (from a target separation standpoint) in thick iron if you increase there comparatively low Default reactivity settings (2 and 1 respectively). Would appreciate more discussion on the target separation abilities of D2 vs. Manticore from others who own both detectors. Is it just due to default settings differences between M-Core and D2 or is there more to it? Might start a separate thread in the Detector Comparison forum...to limit M-core discussion in the D2 dedicated forum.

OK. Not XP but close enough as far as I'm concerned - Andy Sabisch (Author of the various editions of the Deus Handbook) states that the Mi6 is indeed VLF which supports the published 12 khz frequency spec. A little background: Early on XP was planning on using PI for the MI6 but switched to VLF because it was more compatible with their wireless system. That explains the pre-release discussion of PI and why some of us thought it was a PI. I stand corrected and now we have a reference point if this question comes up again. HTH

Understood. CPT you stated earlier your Mi6 manual states VLF technology, but I can’t find that in the Mi4/6 manual on the XP website - is the manual I linked below the same version as the one you have? https://www.xpmetaldetectors.com/uploads/files/document/manuel-mi-6-02092021_132.pdf

Gary Blackwell stated it was a PI during a Skype informational call during an XP instructional seminar prior to the Mi6 release when asked whether it would have target ID capabilities a la a SunRay probe (i.e., context: because it’s a PI would not be capable of that). I passed that info on to F350. There is admittedly no clear, explicit documented information from XP to refute or support that verbal claim, so perhaps it was in error or I heard it wrong, but until proven not to be the case, I personally trust Gary’s statement (or what I heard) and perhaps Gary will pop in to set the record straight. Latch on to that what you will and make people fall on their swords or whatever but not sure it matters in the grand scheme of things. All I know is that it is highly sensitive under a variety of extreme ground mineralization/salt conditions and keeps that sensitivity when properly initialized and balanced under those conditions. So it appears to emulate the performance of a PI as far as I’m concerned. SMH

Actually, I have heard just the opposite. Namely, generally Lower detector operating frequencies perform better in mineralized soil. Similar to reactivity/recovery speed, however, there probably is a sweet spot operating frequency range that works best.

Agree, but one thing though. D2 Relic mode is an IAR vs. Disc mode so you can only set IAR 0 through 5. As Dan mentioned, he went to one of the disc modes (Sens FT) and went negative disc. T2 is a classic. Dan - I take it you left it in default FT. Pitch (perhaps with some disc) and might (or might not) have made a slight difference on getting a signal, but wouldn't have changed the overall result with T2 taking the prize and really there is no point wasting time going through all the permutations on the D2. You are spot on regarding getting the right sweet spot on reactivity in that dirt. Maybe a little surprised D2 relic did so poorly. One thing with D2 relic is that with mineralized ground especially, 00 registers as a (non-ferrous) phantom pitch tone (but its just a ground feedback or micro ferrous response) even with IAR applied (which gets you iron volume for TIDs below 00). As a result, you have to notch out 00 to get rid of this annoying behavior. Again, this just helps with hearing non-phantom target signals but wouldn't affect overall performance. And again, wouldn't have likely changed your conclusions or the strength of response on the signals you were able to hear. Thanks for controlled run through. I'll be using the Axiom in Culpeper this year. But will be packing a D2 in my day pack. This will give me some ideas on different things to try with the D2 in the field as a change of pace backup machine. If I could "pack in" the T2, I would definitely consider it .