Digalicious

From the video: "Garrett's new arrival will deliver new technology".

That's got me hopeful that maybe, just maybe Garrett has new technology that can differentiate between gold and aluminum. That's the only reason I would buy the new Garrett detector or any other new detector for that matter.

On a side note, a member on FMDC replied to Garrett's "new technology" statement with, "New technology for Garrett. Not for every other manufacturer". Ouch! lol

1 hour ago, ☠ Cipher said:

I noticed this too. Makes me wonder if something didn’t happen at the last minute. 

I don't think Garrett had any intention of giving us any details at all. I believe they just realized their mistake of calling the video a Premiere, so they changed it to Teaser Part 1. I believe that because as soon as it was aired, people immediately began with the pissed off comments. Garrett just kept replying with "More info coming next week". In other words, Garrett could have immediately given some details, but chose not to. Even with the massive amount of angry comments that followed for days, Garrett still didn't give any details.

On a side note, someone replied to Garrett's "More info next week" comment with: "What do you plan to show next week for us? Armrest or charging cable?" 🤣

35 minutes ago, abenson said:

 It's like seeing all the movie trailers on TV and going to the theater to see the movie just to be told after all the ads have run that there is no movie, it's coming out at a later date.

The strangest thing is that it was billed as a "Premiere". The title was changed to "Teaser Part 1" in the last few hours before the video aired.

Everyone (and rightly so) was expecting the premiere to be the introduction of the product. Then again, even teasers normally give some information.

Well, I suspect Garrett will never, ever do that again! lol

52 minutes ago, Steve Herschbach said:

It is impossible to tell gold from aluminum based on conductivity/phase shift/eddy current retention. What you dream of is impossible for the underlying tech, either induction balance or pulse induction or a hybrid of both. A sound based system (think fishfinder sonar tech, gpr, etc) working off item density would possibly do the trick, but power requirements are extreme and useability is an issue as far as target interpretation. Not impossible though as battery tech and target analysis techniques improve, but I sure would not be holding my breath at all yet on that one.

Admittedly, I've always said that it's impossible for induction balance to differentiate between aluminum  and gold. I was just kind of hoping that Garrett found a way to at least increase the odds with some new technology. Right now, the odds are effectively 0%. Somehow raising that to even 30% would be a breakthrough. Oh well.

The sound based system sounds intriguing. Will probably drive dogs nuts though lol. Extreme power requirements? Phhht! Nuclear batteries to the rescue!

Most of my gold is found in the water and even that has diminished significantly. BUT, there is plenty of gold in parks, playgrounds, sport's fields, etc. Due to the aluminum trash though, it's not worth the time and body damage to pursue that gold. If we had a detector that could do that? Well Woo Hoo!

 

2 minutes ago, Steve Herschbach said:

No, they are saying nothing and letting people hear what they want to hear.

Ya probably.

I guess my dreams of never having to dig up aluminum trash again are dashed!

5 minutes ago, phrunt said:

Probably me too, but the fact remains if it's not better than what's out there, it's going to go quite badly for them in terms of PR.  This is their make it or break it moment for VLF's.   They either remain the Garrett that just fans use, or they become a competitive player in the market again.  I hope they nail it, but I have my doubts too.

I saw those posts from Garrett that insinuated that their new detector is better than the best out there. That's what really got me and many others hyped up.

Like myself and others have said though...if they really had something ground breaking, they would have said so by now.

 

It's obvious people are very angry at Garrett right now, but if Garrett does have a detector that is much better than what's out there now, the angered people will still buy it...including me!😁

3 minutes ago, IBMe said:

It sort of makes sense. You announce the date before the event.

When software is involved, finalization gets a little unpredictable.,

Tease after tease doesn't make sense to me. It just raises anger.

Also, the video description of "Storm Teaser Part 1" was changed at the last minute. The video title all before that was "Premier". Regardless, people are justifiably pissed off. As one user put it, "I feel like I've been groomed".
 

31 minutes ago, Lead Detector said:

By the way they are stringing us along, I am betting they already know this new "storm" is really just a light breeze that won't even clear out Chuck's fart. Be prepared to be underwhelmed.  If they really had something good, they would have leaked more details.

Exactly. That's pretty much what I wrote in the YT comments about an hour ago.

I think they've just got another SMF detector like the rest. It will have some "feature" that sounds great in an ad, but will be a gimmick in the field.

That BS video leads me to believe that they've got nothing special. Just yet another SMF detector that will be about the same as the rest.

I hope I'm wrong, but I doubt it.

1 minute ago, abenson said:

Waste of time watching that video.

What a piss off!

1 hour ago, phrunt said:

they seem confident.

I saw that post from Garrett and it made me somewhat hopeful. Hopeful that a metal detecting company might have found a way to discriminate between gold and aluminum!

Minelab ad: Impossible?

Nokta: No. We already introduced that.

Minelab: Yes, but we meant "impossible for us".

😁


 

34 minutes ago, romar said:

I will not buy a PI detector, unless it has an alternative to the potentially explosive, built-in, lithium-ion battery.

Me either.

I'm getting sick and tired of all these exploding metal detectors!

Steve,

7 years later...what are your thoughts on the V3i compared to the SMF detectors from the Equinox and forward?

DSMITH,

Analog and digital are just different ways of manipulating electrons to one's desire.

Analog does it with a continuous but varying flow of electrons. Digital does it by a series of ones and zeros. Neither method has any bearing on the detector's iron unmasking performance. 

What would make a difference in iron unmasking performance, is how the engineers designed that particular detector. For example, how they designed the iron bias, the algorithms, and the coil.

I can't recall if I mentioned this, but a couple of weeks ago, Nokta posted on their Facebook page that along with the two new Pi's, a "higher end" coin / jewelry detector was coming down the pipe.

 

5 hours ago, Dubious said:

A cpu-based digital detector might suffer from circuitry that is just too slow in running the code to keep up with a swing across certain configurations, depending on what it is trying to do.  A true analog detector likely wouldn't have that problem.  I think this is much less of an issue with the newer machines.  I believe I still have a couple of old Tesoro detectors, and may do some comparisons.

Hi Dubios.

An iron unmasking video comparing a true analog detector to a digital detector would be cool to see. Although I don't see speed as being a factor when trying to unmask in iron, because the detector sees the multiple targets as one target, regardless of speed. Speed is definitely a factor in separation though.

Also, speed isn't an issue on detector CPUs, because for detector usage, even bottom of the barrel CPUs are more than capable of the maximum needed speed for detector signal processing. For example, a typical CPU for a metal detector, has so little speed requirements, that the CPUs for that purpose cost about $5 to $10. Put more simply, the CPU in no way causes any sort of speed bottleneck in a metal detector 🙂

 

32 minutes ago, DSMITH said:

I think you are missing what I am saying when I say Digital I mean these detectors on a stick like the Legend and the Nox series detectors and several others with inaccurate target IDs and things like that, maybe i am stating it incorrect, don't really know

All I can tell you is the detectors I am referring to, have no computer screen with confusing settings to set up, you ground balance set your disc to what you want to disc out and start detecting, for me personally they have made detecting fun again and for me personally that is what detecting is supposed to be (FUN), for me personally you should not need a degree in setting up a dang computer (Detector), for the ground you are detecting.

Now that you elaborated, I can see we're referring to two different things. I'm referring to the type of circuitry. I think you're referring to ease of use and analog controls?

Then again, the Vista X could very well mainly use digital circuitry, coupled with analog type controls.


 

11 minutes ago, DSMITH said:

If you think your digital detectors can do that same test then try it and prove it,

Whether or not digital detectors can pass that test, isn't my argument. My argument is that the results of that test would be the same whether or not the detector used digital or analog circuitry.

For example, I'm saying that if the analog circuitry on that VistaX was digital, it would still hit that coin.

5 minutes ago, DSMITH said:

Well you can believe what you want, but I will tell you that you are wrong,

I don't think I'm wrong in stating that an analog detector doesn't have some sort of magical ability to unmask in iron any better than a digital detector. They both receive the same signal. Although if I am wrong, I'll gladly eat crow 🙂

I think the iron bias is the main factor when it comes to iron unmasking. Like I said in my previous post, any detector can hit that coin in the video, provided the iron bias can go low enough. The question is, how much iron falsing will that result in when hunting in the wild?

For that test to actually mean anything, the tester should have done a comparison with a competing detector, as well as shown if falsing occurs when the nails are vertical, like they often are in the wild. 

 

43 minutes ago, DSMITH said:

show me a digital detector that can do this and I will purchase one, this is what the Analogues offer.

I can't see how an analog detector would be better at unmasking in iron than a digital detector. After all, it's the same signal either way. Plus, any detector can do what is shown in the video, as long as the engineers introduce a low enough iron bias setting. Such a low iron bias can unmask great in a controlled tests with nails lying flat, but out in the wild with nails at different orientations, would likely result in major iron falsing.

1 hour ago, Skate said:

Not to hijack the thread but I have a question on your parks, specifically the age of the park you're hunting. Are your deep rings in old parks (50-100+ years old) or are they in newer parks? I'm trying to get more scientific (if that's possible) on my jewelry recovery. I'm curious if the sink rate is such that rings will go to greater depths faster especially in newer parks. My two parks in town are both on the new side, one 35 years old and one 15 years old. I have found rings in each but mainly in the top 2-5 inches. 

I can't say for certain Skate, because close to all of of my rings are found in the water. I just haven't found enough dirt rings to make a comment on the sink rate. However, 4 of the 5 rings in my picture, were in the shallow roots. Also, the second and third ring from the left look very old, and they were in the upper roots. Sure, rings can be deep in turf, but I do think that most get caught up in the grass roots. For example:



I could be wrong, but I would think rings would get hooked in that tendril mess 🙂 Well, at least much more so than something closed shaped like a coin.

Thanks Midalake.

Unfortunately, I didn't find a sweet gold ring in that experiment. I was just taken aback at the epic ring to aluminum trash ratio, compared to my dismal ratio when "digging it all" in aluminum infested sites.

The next couple of experiments I do, will give me a much better idea of how successful the method is for me. What can say for sure though, is that I will never, ever!, go back to "digging it all" in aluminum infested sites.

 

13 minutes ago, Tom_in_CA said:

I notice that of the 5 rings, none were gold.   Right ?   When it comes to gold rings and notching (in and out of certain coordinate #'s), in the old days this was known as "Ring Enhancement programs".

Hi Tom.

The point of my experiment, was to see if my ring to trash ratio would be much better if I used that notch method, instead of the dig all method. As it stands now, the answer to that is a resounding "Yes".
 

13 minutes ago, Tom_in_CA said:

But you can throw the programs out the window if you're in a park where lawn-mowers have made can slaw of aluminum cans.   The trick only works if your location has commonly recurring junk items.   But not if mowers have chopped things into confetti.   Then you can kiss Las Vegas odds goodbye at trying to get gold rings.   You'll be condemned to 100s & 100s to 1 odds.

For whatever reason, there is very little can slaw in my hunting grounds. Regardless, I don't understand what can slaw has to do with notching out the numbers that in my experience, are pull tabs and small foil 99.9% of the time. For example, I've dug hundreds of 28/29 on my Legend, and it's always been a rectangular pull tab. The odds are extremely remote that a gold ring will ID at 28/29 compared to those tabs. By ignoring 28/29, I stand a much better chance of finding a gold ring in the numbers above and below 28/29.