Jump to content

Past Member

Banned
  • Posts

    851
  • Joined

  • Last visited

2 Followers

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

Past Member's Achievements

Gold Contributor

Gold Contributor (5/6)

940

Reputation

  1. I mainly water hunt and targets are generally fresh drops that are few and far between. A larger coil seems like the correct choice to get the extra coverage, but in practice things are different. With the larger coils, the water resistance forces me to swing slow, and in an inefficient figure 8 pattern. Like glacialgold said, the LG24 coil cuts through the water much better. So much so, that not only can I use a much more efficient left to right swing, but I can swing faster. Both of those characteristics means that I'm actually getting more coverage compared to using the larger coils.
  2. If I had the LG30 and wanted a second coil, I would most definitely choose the LG24 over the LG35. You're obviously not going to get the same amount of coverage with the LG24, and there's not a huge depth difference between the LG24 and the larger coils on ring / dime / penny sized targets...especially when those aren't lying flat. In many beach / water hunting scenarios these days, depth isn't even a concern because all that is left is fresh drops The LG24 has much better separation/unmasking performance than the larger coils, is less sensitive to EMI, and is far more comfortable to swing.
  3. Given the wording Garrett uses in their video for the Vortex, as well as the recovery speed / separation test in the video, it's quite clear that you're 100% correct about what I quoted 🙂
  4. At 8:43 the detector is giving a nonferrous tone and a nonferrous ID. In my iron infested sites, I most certainly would have dug that.
  5. Air tests are definitive as a reference point. Iffy also does in ground tests and also collaborates with the manufacturers. He has mentioned that the manufacturers use elevated nail tests. He does occasionally receive some flak for the air tests. For example, here's a snippet from one of the comments in the video: johnjomp: Not even close to a realistic comparison. It's a good start. Do a comparison with targets buried in the ground. IffySignals: Thx for the feedback John. This is a best case scenario of unmasking and iron filter performance. If it cannot do it here (removing soil conditions) its not going to do it in the ground. Even our top companies use baseline tests exactly like this.
  6. Fair enough, but Iffy is very influential and many depend on his tests. He also does in ground tests as well. In addition, Iffy, Calabash, etc have found "issues" with detectors via air tests that may not have been noticeable in the wild. Reason being, we don't know what the detector didn't hit in the wild 🙂
  7. Sure a proper ground balance is very important for separating the ground signal from the target. I'll put it another way: If that test was repeated in the ground and a proper ground balance was done, then I'd bet the ID would be the same or lower on all three of the detectors tested.
  8. Sure, I could have been more exact. I assumed people understood that I wasn't referring to PI's 🙂
  9. There are instances in which a coinshooter wants to use ID when hunting in iron. For example, a site that has both iron trash and trash such as foil and tabs. In that scenario if a hunter wanted high conductor coins, then by using the ID the Triple and Elite have a much better chance than the D2 of distinguishing between the high conductor coins and that aluminum trash, when those are co-located with iron.
  10. Palzynski, The test isn't about the 540 (an SMF detector with only a high/low iron bias setting). Nor is it about the SF of the Deus I. The test is just comparing 3 detectors with similar SMF technology and fully adjustable iron bias controls. Let's keep in mind that if a detector can't do it in the air then it can't do it the ground. I think what the test really shows, is that when hunting in iron, rely on tone and not ID. That is what I do but many prefer not to.
  11. Monte's nail board test used to be a standard for testing iron unmasking / separation performance. That test is much too easy for modern SMF detectors. The standard has become the much more difficult elevated nail test coupled with the coin being down the barrel. In the following YT video from Iffy Signals, Iffy shows how the Elite and Triple Score "do better" (his words) in his most difficult iron unmasking/ separation tests. If you don't want to watch the video then I'll give you the low down: In the hardest tests the X-Terra Elite (Equinox hardware) and Triple Score (Legend hardware) give a nonferrous tone and a good nonferrous ID on the coin. The Deus II gives a nonferrous tone, but a ferrous ID of 7, 8, or 9 on the coin. As Iffy put it: "If I dig the 7,8, and 9's then I would be digging nails". Take it as you will. I'm sure some will comment that "It's only an air test". However, if a detector can't do it in the air, then it also means it can't do it in the ground.
  12. I'm in no way trying to find fault at all. In fact, right from the start I mentioned that the "Pay for more features" is a great idea for the reasons you just mentioned. I fail to see how me suggesting that Garrett could expand their current "Pay for more features" with additional features is finding fault. I see it as making a great idea even better.
  13. I'm not sure what that has to do with my point Noah 🙂 I can totally see something like a V10, V11, V12 with various optional purchased updates. For example, a V12 would be fully loaded with features like the D2, Legend, and Manticore. Full cost for the fully loaded V12 would be around $1000.
  14. What do you mean by not their style? They're doing that "style" right now with the Vortex 🙂
×
×
  • Create New...