Nox Continues To Sniff Out Oldies From Heavily Hunted Parks

[schoolofhardNox]

1 minute ago, Raphis said:

There was a saying here about old parks being detected....they may have been White’d out, but have they been Explorer’d? 😹🤣

I remember even though I had a new White's, probably every 2nd new model that came out, we were still pestered by those Compass guys in the parks. They seemed to match or exceed the White's depth limits sometimes. So Dan, once the parks have be Explorer'd out, does that mean you going to Nox the socks off of them guys? 😱

[Tom_in_CA]

25 minutes ago, Raphis said:

.... Actually, every time we flagged/located a deep target for the other hunter to hear, that last thing on our minds was that we were gonna end up wanting a new machine at the end of our hunt...🤣.  No way, shape, or form!  ....

 

 

Dan, excellent post.

 

The only thing I would add is, to the above quote :  It would be the FIRST thing on-my-mind, to switch machines, if my buddy was showing me signals that I had to admit I couldn't hear.  🤪   As opposed to you and your Etrac buddy :  It appears to be about a draw.     WHICH ISN'T A BAD THING.   Since :  The Nox is lighter, and can do things on the beach that the Exp and Etrac can't do (micro-jewelry, if so-desired).  And is a better ghost-townsy iron-see-through machine (with the right control adjustments).  

[geof_junk]

The trouble with flagged signals is, hearing it when you know it is there, is only half of the story. It is finding it when you don't know it there that counts. On the gold fields the ground condition, the rate that you are swinging and how long you can swing it. It means little, if you know it is there and can adjust the detector till it gets the signal than walking over the target with the the speed, tune of the spot before you hit it. If my wife grids an area I would not waste time going over it, however one of my deepest VLF Nugget with 5 ounces of gold in a specimen that was 19 inches deep in one of the hottest ground in Victoria Aus was tested by three other detector brands. Only the wife got a response and she said it would not of stopped her. So what does this mean, testing depth on a known/tagged target is only one of many factors that have to be taken into consideration when testing detectors.

[Joe D.]

    I think that all points here are valid! And the experience brought to bear here is formidable! Thanks!!😁

    My humble takeaway; and correct me if I'm wrong, is this is a great teaching, and diagnostic tool, if one is lucky enough to have someone take the time to show them! And it can be used to show someone the advantages, or shortcomings of a particular detector/coil, in a somewhat "controlled" situation! 

    I will further add, that it's obviously not for everybody, or the types of hunting we all use detectors for! But has it's place in the tool belt for those interested!🍀  👍👍

 

 

[Tom_in_CA]

3 hours ago, geof_junk said:

The trouble with flagged signals is, hearing it when you know it is there, is only half of the story. It is finding it when you don't know it there that counts....

The way my buddies and I solve this "subconscious bias" effect , is two systems :  A) to purposefully flag poor targets (eg.:  suspected nail, corroded zinc, etc...) and say "what do you get here ?, and  B)  to show them an area that's several feet square (that might have multiple signals), and say : "do you hear a potential deepie/oldie from somewhere around here ?" But not show them the exact spot.

 

Otherwise, you are right :  People will tend to "hear" something (and say "yes, no problem"), if it is pointed out to them.  EVEN if they are trying to be totally honest with asking themselves : "Would I have heard it on my own".   It's an easy self-conscious bias lull to fall for.  

 

I saw this happen when a dealer in CA had just gotten a newly introduced machine.  We agreed to meet up at a certain zone of a certain park, where there was still some deep silver for those-in-the-know.   The idea was, that we'd flag signals, to see how this new machine stacked up against known-machines .  And each time I'd finally find an iffy deep "potential deepie silver/wheatie" type signal, I'd call him over .  And sure enough, each time, he'd regale me with positive assessments.   Of how he most definitely hears it, and would have chased it, etc....

 

But after an hour or so, of 3 or 4 such flags, I noticed that he had not yet called me over to check any suspected oldies from his perspective.  Or if he HAD called me to check a flag, I might have said "shallow clad that I'd pass", or whatever .  In other words, the flagging only seemed to work one-direction.  So my suspicions were immediately aroused.

 

So I flagged a purposeful pulltab or nail false, and other such things.   And without revealing my TID-call, I called him over and asked "what do you hear here ?".  He naturally assumed I was showing him yet-more deepie silver/wheatie signals.  And so, one by one, he regaled me with assessments of how he thought they could be deep silver/wheaties.    My trap was sprung , and I told him "I was just testing you" (and we'd proceed to dig junk from the test spots).    BUSTED !  haha

 

Anyhow, there IS ways to overcome the test-bias, and gain valuable information.  So too is there ways to overcome the factor of "experience level".  Or "settings levels".   Ie.:  To just immediately toss out results because "one person has more years experience md'ing".  Or settings levels where : "Shucks, I guess that person didn't have his settings down right".   I think there are ways to factor in and correct for these as well.

[Chase Goldman]

15 hours ago, Raphis said:

Tom, there will be no “evolution-bending”, “eye-opening” results between similar, VLF style, state of the art machines within the same company...What you witnessed over 15 years ago between your trusty/loyal Whites machine and a new Minelab Explorer hunting deepies in a trashy, old park is not gonna happen between any of the Minelab FBS/multi-IQ machines with regards to turf hunting.  

Could not have said it better.  It is kind of unfortunate because I'm sure it was exciting to see an actual game changer like the Explorer show up and make an impact 15 years back. Garrett made a similar splash (pun intended) with the AT series which introduced affordable water and all-weather hunting to the masses opening up more detecting opportunities (if not a step change in performance).

Now the performance improvements are just incremental and are centered around recovery speed and signal processing to attain ID stability at depth (especially in mineralized soil) and more sophisticated iron filtering (less wraparound falsing).  High conductive targets (i.e., silver and clad) are easy and I think we have reached the limits of what induction balance technology and multi frequency VLF can bring to the table wrt those targets. Until something comes along that can actually differentiate aluminum from gold (and that likely isn't going to be anything using an induction balance principle for detection) there are not going to be any Explorer-like evolution bending revelations in detectors.

In fact, less effort is being invested into performance improvements by detector manufacturers and is instead focused on value (reduced cost for the same level of performance) and improving ergonomics (weight, balance, user interface) and battery and environmental resilience. 

Equinox's popularity was driven by the promise of "affordable and fast multifrequency" combined with improved ergonomics and it became a monster hit with detectorists. But was it a performance game changer?  Perhaps in regards to speed (though Deus was already there) and hot ground/iron handling and boosted mid-conductor performance vs. the CTX but not necessarily revolutionary performance-wise compared to previous designs.

[Chase Goldman]

2 hours ago, Tom_in_CA said:

Anyhow, there IS ways to overcome the test-bias, and gain valuable information.

What valuable information is being gained at this point, at least as far as detector performance is concerned since as far as deep silver in groomed, non-mineralized parks, the playing field is effectively leveled?  Again, the Equinox brings speed not [significantly improved] depth to the table.  So as mentioned previously, the ability to detect the signal be it deep or shallow in the presence of trash is its greatest asset in the park scenario.

[strick]

14 hours ago, Tom_in_CA said:

 

Dan, excellent post.

 

The only thing I would add is, to the above quote :  It would be the FIRST thing on-my-mind, to switch machines, if my buddy was showing me signals that I had to admit I couldn't hear.  🤪   As opposed to you and your Etrac buddy :  It appears to be about a draw.     WHICH ISN'T A BAD THING.   Since :  The Nox is lighter, and can do things on the beach that the Exp and Etrac can't do (micro-jewelry, if so-desired).  And is a better ghost-townsy iron-see-through machine (with the right control adjustments).  

The difference between the Etrac and the Nox is so much more then you seen to be aware of Tom...You owned one for what two days? then ditched it? It's gold modes can be exploited into other types of hunting as well... have you hunted for gold nuggets? Listening for deep faint signals with a PI or working a VLF for the tiniest of pieces weighing a grain... in in highly mineralized ground ? It can be very challenging...Listening to you guys talk about detecting coins in a groomed park  and guessing if its a this or a that has been very entertaining for me. The humility expressed in this thred by some of you self proclaimed experts has been a real eye opener as well. Good luck on you next deep silver fellas. 

strick

[Joe D.]

😬

[Tom_in_CA]

3 hours ago, Chase Goldman said:

What valuable information is being gained at this point, at least as far as detector performance is concerned since as far as deep silver in groomed, non-mineralized parks, the playing field is effectively leveled? 

Chase, I saw Raphis' post regarding the "diminishing returns" we're seeing in the last decade or two.  Versus, yes, the advancements of 20 to 30 yrs. ago.   There is no dispute that as time goes on :   We hit a point of diminishing returns in depth and performance.    Because, yes:  There is only so much signal you can pump into the ground, and there is only so much information you can get-back-out of that signal.   Agreed !   And :  No amount of better/faster/smaller computerization changes this fact.  Ie.:  No amount of "faster and smaller" changes the laws of physics.    

 

So I'm totally on-board with what you and Raphis are saying.  It's a given.  Ok ?

 

However, when someone comes on to a forum, and says they're experiencing 2x the silver results of detector X over detector Y (in this current decade), then.... it's to be expected that there'll be some curiosity floating.  As to how X & Y stack up to each other.   Ok ?  😬