New Update The Legend

[Jeff McClendon]

15 minutes ago, Flavius Titus said:

Thank you Jeff for the explanation, very kind of you.

In many of my soils, as explained many times, I face really deep signals, good coins sounded like iron, and only after removing those 20 centimetres of soil is the signal finally clear.

I will therefore have to figure out whether it is by holding the iron filter at half, or directly at 1, that I will get better results or whether it is the new Audio Gain setting that will give me more satisfaction.

I get similar “iron halos” around most deep targets in much of the mineralized dirt I detect in using the Equinox, Legend and Deus 2 if the coin sized or so target is 6” deep or deeper. Using little or no iron bias, finding the best recovery speed setting and getting a very exact ground balance (if possible) are some ways that seem to help. So does using a higher weighted frequency program like the 2 programs on the Equinox and the Sensitive program on Deus 2. I haven’t done much with the Legend yet to try and help this issue since I knew these updates were coming. Hopefully the new M3 frequency weighted option will help too.

[Chase Goldman]

1 hour ago, Jeff McClendon said:

Not sure what your question is there at the end of your post……..but as I have said before, I am fairly slow when it comes to thinking quickly and clearly. 

Re read my revised post and I think you will get the gist of my question (sorry trying to revise/edit on the fly and by the time I’m done three people have responded to the original).  

The fundamental purpose of Iron Bias/Filtering is to suppress ferrous falsing and instead give a more definitive ferrous signal.  The trade off is that you could inadvertently mask actual non ferrous targets that are in the proximity of the ferrous target whose falsing is being suppressed if you apply “too much” IB/IF. 

The way you described Iffy’s demo, the ferrous target never falsed even at minimum IB/IF so IB/IF was providing no apparent benefit while only introducing down side at higher IF settings since it tended to mask the non ferrous target.  So my question really was, does IB/IF actually do what it’s supposed to do and suppress falsing?  We know it was apparently introducing masking per Iffy’s video.  

I postulated a test scenario above (wasn’t in the original version of my post) on how one would go about demonstrating the “optimal” setting where falsing was suppressed in common falsing objects at a given site without masking adjacent non-ferrous.  

My other point is why would a designer  think that it would ever make sense to set a non-adjustable filter to the “max” of the corresponding  adjustable version of that same filter (i.e., why was IB/IF internally set at a level corresponding to 8 for the adjustable filter for all these months?).  Rhetorical question.  It is what it is.   Just as long as you can now adjust and optimize it to be effective at suppressing falsing with minimal masking risk is all that matters now.

HTH

[Tometusns]

3 hours ago, Chase Goldman said:

To be clear, Simon, they weren’t saying IB wasn’t needed they were saying an IB adjustment setting wasn’t needed because the IB default was optimal. They did incorporate an Iron Bias filter from the get go, you just couldn’t fine tune it. And, yes, no one should have taken you to task for pointing that out to them. 

But here’s the more concerning thing…

The discussion of the update by Dilek and the Iffy Signals testing described by Jeff above clearly shows the illogic in Nokta’s original stance that no IB/IF adjustment was necessary.  Namely, they apparently hard coded the Iron Bias/Iron Filter default to a MAXIMUM level!  Not a split the difference/middle of the road value as you would have expected.  The default IB/IF setting is 8 (and Dilek clearly stated in the FB update video that this corresponds to the IB/IF filter strength hard coded default setting in in all pre 1.08 firmware versions).  That’s really incredible and concerning all at once.

As you can see from the Iffy Signals testing, this setting introduces some really unnecessary non-ferrous masking.

So OF COURSE the user should be able to dial back IB/IF to trade masking for falsing and vice versa.

Jeff, any idea whether Iffy varied the IF stability (ST) parameter setting  and if so how varying it affected the masking/falsing  at IF levels less than 7.

Haven’t seen the Iffy Signals video, but if I just read your written account of the IF testing, and I’m struggling to understand the purpose of setting IF >1 at all if the end user was not experiencing any falsing whatsoever on the nail.  Why take the risk of masking any target by setting IB > 1?

Again, I haven’t viewed the video, but a more effective and informative test would be to find an iron target that readily falses at minimum IB/IF settings, then increase IB/IF until the target stops falsing.  Then run a test where you introduce an adjacent non-ferrous target and then see how far you can run up IB/IF until the 

Hey Chase,  just a thought. The iron filter being set at eight may not be the max they could have made it but where they thought would be optimal in most hunting scenarios. Basically, the update was a you can cut it back(iron filter) and fine tune it(stability) but you can’t make it more update. I don’t think anyone was wanting more anyway. I’m glad we can adjust it but I’m very happy with the finds I’m getting now. 
 Watching the testers videos will give me a good starting point to go from if I get into some heavy iron patches. 
 I’m just trying to figure out why I haven’t bought another one for a backup. I’ve sold both my other machines. lol 
  

[Jeff McClendon]

4 hours ago, Chase Goldman said:

Re read my revised post and I think you will get the gist of my question (sorry trying to revise/edit on the fly and by the time I’m done three people have responded to the original).  

The fundamental purpose of Iron Bias/Filtering is to suppress ferrous falsing and instead give a more definitive ferrous signal.  The trade off is that you could inadvertently mask actual non ferrous targets that are in the proximity of the ferrous target whose falsing is being suppressed if you apply “too much” IB/IF. 

The way you described Iffy’s demo, the ferrous target never falsed even at minimum IB/IF so IB/IF was providing no apparent benefit while only introducing down side at higher IF settings since it tended to mask the non ferrous target.  So my question really was, does IB/IF actually do what it’s supposed to do and suppress falsing?  We know it was apparently introducing masking per Iffy’s video.  

I postulated a test scenario above (wasn’t in the original version of my post) on how one would go about demonstrating the “optimal” setting where falsing was suppressed in common falsing objects at a given site without masking adjacent non-ferrous.  

My other point is why would a designer  think that it would ever make sense to set a non-adjustable filter to the “max” of the corresponding  adjustable version of that same filter (i.e., why was IB/IF internally set at a level corresponding to 8 for the adjustable filter for all these months?).  Rhetorical question.  It is what it is.   Just as long as you can now adjust and optimize it to be effective at suppressing falsing with minimal masking risk is all that matters now.

HTH

Iffy did a very short preliminary basic iron filter video using a 2” long Colonial nail positioned horizontally 1” higher and 2” away from a Mercury dime. Setting 8 nothing but iron with the dime totally masked and both targets sounded like one target. Setting 4 nail gave good ferrous response, dime gave good non-ferrous response with no audible falsing. At setting 1 the nail was just starting to chirp when Iffy moved the dime out of the way. So personally, I think Nokta Makro need to add a couple of more increments to the low end in order to get that nail chirping a little more.

I already answered what I think some at Nokta Makro were thinking back in January…..just my opinion.

[JCR]

Histryrevisited put up several short Youtube videos on the new update. One covered the new Iron filter AND the stability adjustment. Both appear to be of noticeable effect.

One question I thought of that I posted already hoping NM would respond is If the adjustable Iron filter & related Stability adjustment have any effect on the FerroCheck response.

[kac]

On 6/26/2022 at 7:22 PM, Chase Goldman said:

Thanks but is there a written summary version of the highlights of the latest about the forthcoming update somewhere?  Love the personal touch by Dilek, but I really need the bottom line up front bullet points version.  Just really don't have the patience for watching 26 minutes of talking about something I can easily read in 1 minute and spend the other 25 minutes swinging my Legend.  Lol.

People read?

[Nokta Detectors]

3 hours ago, kac said:

People read?

https://www.detectorprospector.com/forums/topic/19228-legend-update/

[George Kinsey]

What about the bottlecap issue?

[Chase Goldman]

8 hours ago, Jeff McClendon said:

So personally, I think Nokta Makro need to add a couple of more increments to the low end in order to get that nail chirping a little more.

I guess that's my real question.  Did Iffy have a true chirping nail or does NM potentially have the IB/IF too high even at the minimal setting.  In other words, is it like the Nox where you really can never turn IB off (even when set to "zero") unless you go to single frequency, in which case IB is non functional on the Nox (because it requires multifrequency in order to do its thing).  

Which leads me to another question I can't answer without the 1.08 update in hand.  Is NM's IF functional even when the Legend is in single frequency? (If yes, that would make Nokta's Iron Filter implementation fundamentally different than Minelab's Iron Bias implementation). 

Can't wait to get my hands on the Legend 1.08 update and try out the new features, might actually make me put down my other detector for a whole outing.  ?