Jump to content

Challenge Completed And Missed Nuggets Found


jasong

Recommended Posts


1 hour ago, geof_junk said:

The old rule you need 64 times the power to double the depth so a little power reductions will not reduce the depth much at all, but will get rid of the noise.

Complete agree. I can't recall a single time where a target that I heard at gain 18 would not be heard at gain 12 or even 10. In particular with HY/normal/ smoothing off. I hardly ever use smoothing.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, geof_junk said:

The old rule you need 64 times the power to double the depth so a little power reductions will not reduce the depth much at all, but will get rid of the noise.

Thanks for that info as I'd never heard of it before...where does it come from? 

strick 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Have never used audio smoothing as long as I've had the GPZ. Are there conditions where I should? (apologies for slightly off-topic).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, strick said:

Thanks for that info as I'd never heard of it before...where does it come from? 

strick 

Here is a good explanation about the depth/signal strength relationship:

"an increase in depth of 12% will result in the signal halving in strength, and an increase of 47%, that is say 40cm to 59cm, results in the signal being 10 times smaller."

It's in Bruce Candy's "holy bible". I recommend memorizing the whole document like a poem.

?????‍??‍?

 

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Jonathan Porter said:

I think we’ve discussed this before about Audio Smoothing Off. Why not just lower the Sensitivity and the Volume a few points to compensate rather than filter out edge of detection signals by raising the noise floor? I’ve experimented with this technique a fair bit even in quite variable soils and it works pretty well. I remember your not a fan of a twitchy threshold, so lowering the Threshold a touch will help too.

By lowering Sensitivity and Volume theoretically there should be a point where the threshold feedback noise should reach equivalency with the low smoothing and high sensitivity method.

Just my two cents. 

I've also experimented with this a good bit. In the areas I detect I can lower my sensitivity from 18 to 10, take off low smoothing, and still have a bunch of spurious signals clogging my brain up and slowing things down so much that my head gets out of the game after a few hours. The amount of nuggets I miss by going slower and not having 100% focus is way more than the amount of nuggets I miss by jacking the sensitivity back up and then smoothing the mess out with low smoothing.

Low smoothing also lets me run my threshold higher (still lower than most people) than I would normally, so I get a little bit back from that too.

That said, I do take smoothing off when I'm cleaning a patch. And I hate every minute of it. ?

2 hours ago, Gold Catcher said:

Complete agree. I can't recall a single time where a target that I heard at gain 18 would not be heard at gain 12 or even 10. In particular with HY/normal/ smoothing off. I hardly ever use smoothing.

Completely disagree. In fact, somewhere at home I have a video showing this isn't the case on an undug/undisturbed 7 grammer that was a great signal at 20, and almost nothing at 10 sensitivity.

Pretty sure I also tested threshold levels and smoothing on or off on that one too. I will look for it when I get back.

I've tested my settings extensively in the areas I work, I am confident that for my area, my brain, and the type of ground and gold I find, I am running as near as efficiently as I can. If I thought differently, I would change the way I run.

  • Like 7
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, jasong said:

Completely disagree. In fact, somewhere at home I have a video showing this isn't the case on an undug/undisturbed 7 grammer that was a great signal at 20, and almost nothing at 10 sensitivity.

Pretty sure I also tested threshold levels and smoothing on or off on that one too. I will look for it when I get back.

I've tested my settings extensively in the areas I work, I am confident that for my area, my brain, and the type of ground and gold I find, I am running as near as efficiently as I can. If I thought differently, I would change the way I run.

That's the beauty of metal detecting. Every operator does it slightly differently but with some general rules that should be adhered to. Where I hunt I need to include small gold as well, 7 g's nuggets are rare. Hence, I focus on balancing different ground conditions mostly by adjusting sensitivity and volume/threshold settings without touching smoothing at all. Sometimes, switching to normal and also to difficult (if needed) helps as well. By the end of the day though the results matter the most, so I found this strategy works best for me where I usually hunt. That being said, in your grounds the way you run your machine delivers best results for you. That's great. You can't argue with having gold in the scoop! ? 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...