Digalicious

Right, but if I read what you said correctly, then that isn't what I was getting at Chase 🙂 I'm heading out for a few fours, but later tonight I'll explain what I mean in a much more detailed and thorough manner.

If an aluminum target is hit at 1 Khz and then 100 Khz, would the target signature change? If a gold target is hit at 1 Khz and then 100 Khz, would the target signature change? What I'm getting at with the above, is if there is an amount of change in the signatures between the two, or one signature changes and the other doesn't, then can that amount of change (or lack thereof) be used to help differentiate between gold and silver?

Yes. The ID of 28/29 is always a "particular" type of tab for me, but depending on other variables, that particular tab can also ID a little higher or a little lower. Then of course, is all the other types of tabs. To add insult to injury...foil / can slaw and all of its shapes and sizes 😡

Ha ha. No one ever wants the crust! Not even A.I. lol Ok, well there is always the exception of "that pizza person" who says, "The crust is the best part". If someone replies to that with, "Ok, then you eat all the crust, and I'll eat the rest of the pizza", the awkward silence is epic 😁

I though I've read a couple of times on DP that gold fields are drying up or dead. If so, why would Nokta, Garrett, and an ex Minelab engineer create new PI gold detectors? Is there still a large market for dreamers that don't know the gold fields are dried up? Or???

Agreed: When I'm using my Legend in an aluminum trash site and looking for gold, I don't dig 11, 46/47, and 28/29. For me, 11 has always been small foil, 46/47 has always been a penny, dime, or a full size aluminum screw cap, and 28/29 has always been a rectangular pull tab. Granted those lower numbers could be a gold ring, and the penny / dime signal could be a very large gold ring, but I play the odds...and the odds overwhelming tell me those numbers won't be a gold ring.

Yet, the most experienced and knowledgeable jewelry hunters are digging massive amounts of aluminum trash. Why do you think that is Kac? Just about any park or sports field will have a lot of gold rings. Problem is, who is going to dig all that aluminum trash to get those gold rings? I've heard of many who claim that they can distinguish between gold rings and aluminum trash. When asked to prove it with a video hunt in the wild, it's all crickets.

I agree, but that's a controlled test with very specific targets. In the ground, the various shapes, types, sizes, densities, orientation, and depth of aluminum trash is the major problem. Ditto for gold rings and gold jewelry. As such, the raw signal for gold rings, gold jewelry, and the various aluminum trash, is most often identical and overlapping. Metal detector engineers have tried for decades to reach that holy grail of metal detectors. If it was possible to do with induction balance, they would have done so by now.

Kac gave good examples of detectors that show a visual representation of the raw signal. The question then begs: To what end? Detectors already do a pretty job of distinguishing coins from trash, but they do a very poor job at distinguishing aluminum trash from gold. The latter is never going to happen with induction balance. Induction balance is just too crude of a metal detection technology to accomplish that task. Getting an induction balance engineer to distinguish aluminum trash from gold, would be akin to getting a drummer to create an epic drum solo, while using a spoon and a frying pan 😁

Dilek was asked a similar question on a live stream a couple of years ago. Dilek mentioned that instead of making a lot of profit on highly marked up detectors like the competition, Nokta profits on high sales volume. Then again, Nokta's "Mission Statement" so to speak, was and still is, to provide well built, high performing detectors at a much lower cost than their competitors. As much as I admire and respect the technology that Minelab has brought to this hobby, I truly believe that their empire is crumbling. I think the final blows to Minelab will be the two new Nokta PI detectors, as well as the successor to the Legend. The only way I can see Minelab surviving, is if they invent some new technology that is leaps and bounds above the competition. Failing that, it wouldn't surprise in the least if in a couple of years, Codan sells Minelab...and quite possibly to Nokta.

Well, it's interesting "happenings" between Nokta and Minelab 🙂 Minelab has the 800. Nokta tops it with the Legend. Minelab has the Vanquish. Nokta tops it with the Double Score. Minelab has the X-Terra Pro. Nokta tops it with the FindX Pro. Minelab has the Voyager. Nokta tops it with the FindX. Then there is the upcoming Nokta relic and gold PI detectors. I think it's safe to say that Nokta has become the proverbial "thorn in the side" for Minelab. Now, I guess it's about due time that Nokta puts out the successor to the Legend.

They have the submersible to 16 ft version for $179 U.S. Sheesh. That's about $100 cheaper than the X-Terra Pro. Plus, the FindX comes with a carrying bag, a metal digger, and wired headphones.

Found it! It's from TnSharpshooter: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jW7x0LjC7Bs&t=3s

Any version above 1.09, for the same reasons Jeff talked about, but preferably 1.14 for DT and possibly BM. DT set at 2 in my conditions is a definite improvement on the fringe targets. Plus, I really like how easy it to use, while still being able to use all the other features. BM has been a strange one for me though. At first, I really disliked the pitch type tones of BM, but after a lot of testing, the zip-zip tones of BM has really started to grow on me. Enough so, that I might start using pitch in Park and Field mode. BM is much more limited in its use than DT, but I have found a few deep targets with BM that gave a solid and clean two way hit, that Park could barely hit (if at all), and Park with DT would get a one way hit, or a very scratchy two way hit. On many other targets though, BM would be no better than Park and often it was worse. For me, BM only works at a specific depth, but when it sees a nonferrous target at that specific depth, it sure does let me know in a way that Park without DT can't do. So ya, contrary to DT, BM is a very niche mode that does have benefit under certain scenarios. An example of that, is a private swim area that I hunted that had little to no trash and a lot of jewelry. I cleaned it out of all the nonferrous targets, but I really want to go over that area again in BM. Given my testing and comparisons with DT and BM, I'm certain I can find a few more pieces of jewelry if I use BM. I'm glad you mentioned that Jeff, because it reminded me that I could be wrong in the way I described the Iron Stability setting. I recall watching a video a couple of weeks ago, that showed IF1 / ST5, is a higher iron bias setting than IF2 / ST1. Your post remined me that I've been meaning to test that for myself. If true though, in the big picture of the main 10 IF settings, it's probably not going to make much difference. Although I was surprised none-the-less. With that said, I will still permanently keep my ST at the mid default of 3, and my IF at 0-2.

On second thought, a type of overload may indeed be what's occurring. Notice the audio is much louder in BM compared to Park and Field? So maybe on some non-fringe targets, the signal strength is so high that BM sees it as an audio overload and then just ignores the target? I think BM mode would be beneficial for hitting fringe targets in low trash sites, OR hitting fringe targets on sites that one has already cleaned out using Park or Field.