Digalicious

Here it is for $120. Unreal indeed. It goes to show just how low the parts and manufacturing costs are. Amazon.com : Quest X5 Metal Detector with Blade TurboD Double D Waterproof Coil 970gram Super Lightweight Weatherproof Control Box Large Target ID USB Rechargeable Battery Flashlight : Patio, Lawn & Garden

Get real guys. As much as you, and admittedly I, want to believe in wishes, this detector is just yet another SMF detector that will (or should), perform about the same as any other SMF detector. In other words, YAWN.

Hi Chuck. I owned a 540, but quickly grew out of it and got a Legend. Yes, the Score models use Legend hardware, minus some features and settings. The Vanquish line uses the same technology as the Equinox line. The Score models, the Legend, the 540, and the Nox, all have about the same depth. Is it just the waterproofing you're after, or was there something else as well?

I agree. I guess I worded it wrong, because that's what I meant 🙂 For example, when I'm in high EMI and use a SF on my SMF detector, the very slight frequency shift of the EMI noise reduction does little to nothing to mitigate the EMI noise. If I want to stop the EMI noise, I have to manually change my 5k to a massive change of 20k or 40k.

Me either. I look back at my teen and early 20's years, and I cringe at a lot of what I said and did. I suspect most, if not all of us, can relate to that. The mistakes I made now, wouldn't fall into the category of "stupid". It's more like making mistakes because I was rushing, or trying to cut corners for whatever reason. In other words, those mistakes aren't "stupid" mistakes, because I knew the possible repercussions of the actions, and rolled the dice anyway. However, when I was young, I didn't even consider repercussions for many things I did. I was truly "stupid" in that way. I guess realizing all of that, is what maturity and wisdom is all about.

That makes complete sense to me Chase. Thanks!

That "true" part is interesting Carl. If I would hazard a guess, I would guess that you may be suggesting that even the SF modes of SMF detectors aren't true SF. In all the EMI I've encountered, a slight frequency shift when using SF on my SMF detector, does nothing. For example, there is little change in the EMI noise when switching between 5 khz and 10 khz, or 10 khz and 15khz. More specifically, in my high EMI sites, 5, 10, and 15 khz is a huge frequency spread, yet the EMI noise is similar in that frequency spread. It isn't until around 20 khz that I get a notable drop in EMI noise, with it being totally gone at 40 khz. For EMI noise reduction to work effectively, either the source or the receiver has to be narrowband. I've never seen it work effectively when both the source EMI is broadband, and the receiver is broadband (SMF).

Sweet potatoes? Yuck!

I drove 90 minutes to a swim area that had the water completely drained out. I get there all giddy, then realized I forgot my detector! The stupidest thing about it, is I had it sitting near my front door to make sure I wouldn't forget it! I was just so excited about that hunt, that my head was in la la land as I practically ran out the front door. Since then, I always make a list for my long drive hunts. Especially for my in water hunts that require a lot more gear than dirt hunting. Even for short drive hunts, I go through a mental checklist now.

For that request, you'll probably have better luck posting on the Geotech forum: Forums - Geotech Forums (geotech1.com)

It's a good question, and we all start somewhere 🙂 Note that most SMF detectors have more than one SMF mode. Despite each mode transmitting and receiving multiple frequencies, each mode has a primary frequency. The primary frequency for each SMF mode, is the frequency that is mainly used to identify the target. The other frequencies are mainly used to balance out various types of ground mineralization. It's also why in the manuals, you'll see that a particular SMF mode is used for sensitivity to high conductors (a low primary frequency), with the opposite being true for lower conductor targets. For example, the primary frequency of M1 on the Legend, is around 15 khz, M2 is around 40 khz, and M3 is around 7 khz. In general, lower frequencies penetrate the ground deeper, and are more sensitive to high conductors like copper and silver, and less sensitive to lower conductors. That's why I'm suspecting the new boost mode of M4 on the Legend will be weighted (primary frequency), at around 2 khz.

Forget about my last post! I just found this: Amazon.com : DR.ÖTEK Metal Detector, Waterproof Gold Detector, Pinpoint & Terrain Modes, Professional Metal Detector for Adults, One-Click Quick Matching, High Accuracy, 6 Modes, Super Easy to Operate, Lightweight : Patio, Lawn & Garden

This will get you started on the cheap! Bounty Hunter Tracker 4, Fiskars hand trowel, and a pinpointer. All for about $120. Amazon.com : Bounty Hunter TK4 Tracker IV Metal Detector with 8-inch Waterproof Coil : Hobbyist Metal Detectors : Patio, Lawn & Garden Amazon.com: Fiskars Ergo Trowel - Heavy Duty Gardening Hand Tool with Hang Hole - Lawn and Yard Tools - Black/Orange : Everything Else Amazon.com : RVGIVE Metal Detector Pinpointer, Waterproof Handheld Convenient Pin Pointer Wand with Battery and Holster, 360°Scanning Locating Gold Coin Silver Jewelry - Orange : Patio, Lawn & Garden

Let me guess...the Legend? There was nothing broken on the original firmware Legend. Almost all the updates were a result of user requests for even more features and settings. The closest thing to "fixes" would be the addition of the iron bias control, and the salt stability control. Before the release of the Legend, Nokta already had an iron bias control ready to go, but there was debate (for good reasons), whether or not they should include it at release. On second thought, the only actual "fix" I can think of, was that the original Legend was chirpy in very heavy salt conditions, hence the addition of the salt stability control. That salt issue should have been caught by testers.

Ya, a lot of fluff in the video, and little to nothing on metal detecting aspects. Ditto for the video's comments section. Speaking of the comments, I skimmed through it, and didn't see anyone mention that appalling coil control 😁 Well, back to the topic. It's obvious to me that she's a Garrett rep of sort, and she did say that Garret is "definitely" introducing a new detector in 2024. I'm looking forward to it, and I sure hope they keep the landscape orientation screen.

That's the first thing I noticed when I watched some of the video yesterday. Trying to give the benefit of the doubt, I grasped at straws and thought maybe it was some sort of unusual camera lens or weird angle, etc. Then I saw the 45 degree coil! Anyway, when I first heard of the new detector by Garrett, my first thought was, "It's going to have be something really remarkable to compete with the tough and thorough competition. Then again, I see a lot of American hunters, posting that they will buy a new Garrett, just due to the fact that it will (probably?) be made in America.

Hi Byrd. The Score models have the same hardware as the Legend. They have a little bit of a different look, and less features / settings. They were introduced due to the demand for a simplified Legend.

To answer your three questions: No, imaginary metal, and no. Dowsing rods fall into the same silly category of psychics, astrology, flat earthers, etc.

That's because the size of the object (signal strength), not just conductivity, affects the ID. For example, a tiny gold ring can ID at 11 (like small foil), and a large gold ring can ID in the higher conductor coin range.

On a noisy beach, be it people, waves, or wind, headphones or earbuds are a must. Regarding gold jewelry: The trash to treasure ratio in the water, is far better than on the beach. Also, there is no such thing as listening to sound nuance when it comes to gold jewelry. Gold jewelry can sound just as crappy, or just as good as foil, pulltabs, and aluminum bottle caps. It's pretty much "dig all nonferrous tones" when hunting for gold jewelry. Are you hunting salt or freshwater beaches? Also, is the sand more like fine gravel, or more like hourglass sand?

Gil, When hunting for jewelry, it's inevitable to have to dig a hell of a lot of trash for every gold piece of jewelry. That's as true for a $200 detector, as it is for a $2000 detector. Hunting for coins only is a different story though. You can use discrimination to mainly find coins, without digging much trash.

Above ground unmasking / separation tests just make it easier for the tester, and more transparent for the viewer. In such above ground comparison tests, if a detector can't hit a coin sitting beside a nail, it isn't going to be able to hit in the ground.

Started about 30 years ago in my late teens, with a cheap radio shack detector. I then found and read (about 5 times!) Charles Garret's book titled "Modern Metal Detectors". I tried a few more detectors and settled on a Fisher 1266X and a Tesoro Silver uMax. I found a lot of great stuff with those detectors over the next few years. I dropped the hobby because I let wine, women, and song get in the way😬 Fast forward 30 years, and the bug hit harder than ever. I devoured massive amounts of information about the new detectors. I thought I'd be good to go with a Simplex and a Vanquish 540, but I quickly grew out of both those detectors. I then bought a Legend and have been using that for the last 2 years. I won't be buying another detector unless it can distinguish between aluminum and gold.

I found a post I made from about 1 year ago, showing a depth / sensitivity test on the Legend. The results were also nonlinear. For the sensitivity test, I used the 6” coil, a silver dime, M3, and the default of 5 for the recovery speed. Note the 1" difference from 24 to the maximum of 30, yet there is a 3" difference from 16 to 24. 30-10” 29-9.5” 28-9.5” 27-9.5” 26-9” 25-9” 24-9” 23-8.5” 22-8” 21-7.5” 20-7” 19-7” 18-6.5” 17=6.5” 16-6”

Thanks. I'm heading out for the day, so I'll check that out later. On my Legend, there is a 4" depth difference between 16 and the maximum setting of 30. I could be completely wrong, but I suspect that a similar sensitivity depth reduction would result in a similar depth reduction on the 900.