Digalicious

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.

Thanks for that. I would have to do more testing to know for sure, but are you thinking that BM is so "sensitive", that when it encounters some mid to high signal strength targets, BM sees it as a type of overload and then just ignores the target?

Maybe even the type of mineralization? A clue confirming that might be Nokta stressing the importance of ground balancing while using BM. Then stressing the importance of GB2 when encountering hot rocks or red brick (red clay ground?). Is that red clay ground in the video? In my very low mineralized ground, the improvement using DT and BM is subtle, but noticeable. If I had to put a number to it, I would say that BM and DT correctly a identify a fringe nonferrous target as nonferrous, about 1" deeper than Park and Field mode does.

It's freezing outside with gale force winds, but I couldn't wait any longer and had to do a new test. Park Mode in A, first tone break at 1, 25 sensitivity, 3 recovery, IF 0, BC 0, AG 3. I used a U.S. nickel, ground balanced at 26 on clean ground, and buried the nickel deep enough that in Park mode, I would very occasionally get a tone and an ID of 2 and 3. The signal was so iffy, that it could easily be mistaken as some of the ground signal coming through. I switched on DT and set it to 3. I now got fairly consistent two way hits, but they were kind of "crunchy". The ID jumped from 2/3, and I saw a 48 / 50 a few times. Switched to BM using A and set the IR at 2, AG at 3. Ground balanced at 31 on clean ground. The two way hits were much cleaner than DT, and the ID was similar to DT. On a side note, I tripled checked the ground balance in Park and BM, to confirm that the ground balance was slightly different between those modes.

I sure hope it would be silent. When I get around to my testing, I'll be checking Park mode with and without DT.

Thanks for that Hardpack, but I understand that 🙂 What I was getting at, is if Park mode was used in A for those targets, and the tone break was set at the minimum of 1, then would Park mode have given an ID and/or tone on those targets? Perhaps choppy ferrous tones and ID of 2 or 3? Or maybe an occasional nonferrous tone and ID? I would have liked to have seen the differences between BM and Park on those targets, with Park mode setup the way I mentioned (more equal to BM mode). I won't be able to do any more testing until Saturday, but that's the way I'll set up Park mode when I do that testing and compare each mode.

I just noticed that in Park and Field, the Disc pattern was G. The G pattern discriminates out the ID's of 1 and 2, which is what the targets were mainly showing for an ID in GM. Now I'm wondering what would have happened if A was used in Park and Field. Iffy audio? No audio?

So BM is indeed all about the ferrous or nonferrous tone, because the fringe target doesn't have enough information to provide a nonferrous ID. Well, that explains why tone breaks and anything but the "A" disc pattern would defeat the purpose of BM.

Also... Does BM not work at all in the G, F, or C discrimination pattern? OR, does it only partially work in those discrimination patterns?

Dilek, Thank you for the demo. It was very convincing.

Very cool JCR. Well, "cool" for us nerds lol. Thanks for posting 🙂

I did even more testing, and I think I'm convinced that BM often, and deliberately, ignores shallow to mid depth targets (mid to high signal strength targets). That would explain why so many of my in the wild targets weren't even detectable in BM, but came through loud and clear with a good ID in Park mode. The 30% of targets in which BM was much better than Park mode, were all deep or tiny targets (low signal strength targets).

According to the release notes of the new update, the 2nd GB is to overcome mineralized/hot rocks, red bricks and other ground changes in the surrounding environment that have different properties than the soil that’s been ground balanced.

Agreed. With a mode so "different" as BM is, a demo before release would have been very helpful. I'm still thinking BM is a niche mode. Relic hunting in iron infested sites maybe? How did Gen D mode work JCR?

Hi MotoMiami. Did you check your spam / trash / deleted folder? I've come across many similar instances in which the service center reply was in one of those folders. Some even mass deleted one of those folders, and used their mail program's recovery option to find the email. If none of that applies, try contacting Nokta directly: Contact Nokta