Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location:
  • Interests:
    Metal Detecting, electronic music, HAM Radio, astronomy and others.
  • Gear Used:
    Ace 250, Euroace, AT Pro, Deus 1, Blisstool V6, Pirate TH2 Pro, Nautilus DMC 2B, Relic Striker, Garrett ATX, Spectra v3i, Infinium, TDI SL, CTX 3030, GPX 5000, Deus II.

Contact Methods

  • YouTube

Recent Profile Visitors

1,154 profile views

Ogliuga's Achievements

Copper Contributor

Copper Contributor (3/6)



  1. Very nice, love these kinds of tests!
  2. I agree with you! 👍
  3. This morning I went on the hematite area where last time D2 (V.071) couldn’t detect my very low conductor target in the bottom of a 8 inch hole. The “More tones less depth” test was with a 6” hole because 8 inches were too much. I dug another 8” hole previously wetted with 2 bottles of water. In the bottom of the dry soil hole D2 didn’t detect the target while could 100% detect it in the very wet hole. Tested my own program Focus1 and the program 2 with settings I let see: Pitch tone, discrimination 5, audio response 6, iron volume 5, sensitivity 95, reactivity 2, silencer 0, ground stabilizer 1, bottle cap 00 and notch off. Firmware is the same, V0.71: no depth issue but only a big difference between dry and wet soil. See you next time guys. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=68D_o2JVAPA
  4. Yes, you’re right! Anyway, as far as I could see, General program is nice and it’s performing on mineralized soils as well..I hope that this difference in depth is due to the dry soil. During next week I’ll come back on the hematite area: hope it will rain a lot otherwise I’ll have to bring a couple of bottles of water!
  5. Thanks for your answer! Yes, I noticed more depth because of the more conductivity with wet ground also with other detectors. And we know the more conductivity of the wet soil because of the water in the soil. But this has been my first “wet vs dry” soil test with D2 and the difference is really big. I’ll try to do a dry vs wet test with the same target because a 2.5” depth difference is really big. We’ll see..
  6. Hi all. Have you ever noticed more depth on wet ground than on dry ground? During my last test, I have the 0.71 firmware, the little low conductor target couldn’t be detected in the bottom of a 8” hole so I tried again with a 6” one and was ok. 1 month ago, with the V07 firmware, D2 could detect that target in the bottom of a 8” hole. But couldn’t detect it in the bottom of the same 8” hole with 0.71. So, or there is this big difference between wet and dry soil or it’s a V.071 issue..2.5” is a lot..
  7. If you are looking for depth, in my opinion audio response 6 is nice. Anyway with high audio response detector doesn't go deeper because it only amplifies audio and, talking about EMI, I agree with Abenson. Ok bottle cap off but try also with silencer on 0 because it helps going deeper. Try also with ground stabilizer lowered to 1 and remember to keep reactivity not too high, I would say 1.5/2.5.
  8. Agree. I like your “tones’ philosophy”, 2 tones are essential but they work! If we take a look at the deepest analogs, like Blisstool V6 but Relic Striker and Desert Gold as well, we see that many are single tone or 2 tones: and they are the deepest VLFs on the market as well as performing on mineralized soils..
  9. I 100% agree with you. As if I said so! 👍
  10. Have been in the high mineralization area to demonstrate that full tones is less deep than 2-3 tones and obviously than Pitch one. Signal difference is clear: very low conductor in the bottom of a 6” hole, with full tones signal which is much weaker, “dirty” than 2-3 and Pitch. That’s why I wrote that with pitch machine is less filtered, maybe it’s not the right term but it was definitely what I wanted to demonstrate. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ofQwoJ1qDps
  11. Nice test. I’m afraid that very low conductors would be cut out with BC 2. Anyway thanks for sharing. 👍
  12. I have the 11” because open fields are my favourite areas. But the 9” is lighter, it’s very accurate. I’d say surgical and the best option on iron infested sites.
  • Create New...