Iffy Tests Manticore Vs Deus 2 On Gold With Iron

[PSPR]

10 minutes ago, Digalicious said:

Sorry, but that's not the way it works.

You haven't seen the improvements in the ground radar devices lately.

[Digalicious]

1 hour ago, PSPR said:

You haven't seen the improvements in the ground radar devices lately.

How does "improvements in ground radar" refute what I said?

Is there ground penetrating radar that will blow away induction balance metal detectors, and do so at a price people can afford? If so, that company would release it, put everyone else out of business, and rake in the millions. That's "Basic Business Practices" 101.

[Chase Goldman]

2 hours ago, PSPR said:

You haven't seen the improvements in the ground radar devices lately.

GPR can ID large targets at extreme depth but still can't resolve small, closely spaced discrete targets like an induction balance detector can and certainly cannot be obtained at the same price point as IB detectors.  But like others have said, from a depth standpoint, IB detectors have basically hit the wall as dictated by the physics of the detection principle being used.  Now it's about user interface improvements (ID, Audio, Graphics) and increasing reliable IDs at depth and fast signal processing to improve unmasking, iron discrimation, and to reduce large iron falsing.  However, the holy grail is unlikely to happen using IB - being able to reliably differentiate gold from aluminum.

[phrunt]

56 minutes ago, Digalicious said:

Sorry, but that's not the way it works.

If any metal detecting company had breakthrough technology, they would release it, put all the other metal detecting companies out of business, then have the whole market to themselves.
 

The GPZ is a perfect example of this, using coils that are not controlled by Minelab gives it a quite dramatic performance boost, doing anything official and sanctioned doesn't give the same boost.  They are clearly holding it back, only by cutting the end off a coil to bypass the security chip can you realise the benefits. 

[Digalicious]

15 minutes ago, phrunt said:

The GPZ is a perfect example of this, using coils that are not controlled by Minelab gives it a quite dramatic performance boost, doing anything official and sanctioned doesn't give the same boost.  They are clearly holding it back, only by cutting the end off a coil to bypass the security chip can you realise the benefits. 

Hi Phrunt.

I don't know anything about Minelab's market share at that time, but I can see a company doing that if they had the majority of the market share. The more of a monopoly a company has, the more they can get away with such tactics.

With that said, my point was referring to breakthrough technology that would put all the competition out of business. For example, if a metal detecting company had technology that could distinguish between gold jewelry and trash, it would be profoundly asinine for them not to release it.

[Digalicious]

59 minutes ago, Chase Goldman said:

  However, the holy grail is unlikely to happen using IB - being able to reliably differentiate gold from aluminum.

I've said almost the exact same thing many times. I say "almost" because I didn't say it was unlikely to happen with IB, but rather, I said it can't happen with IB🙂

With new technology, either that will be the next breakthrough, or a true imaging detector with enough resolution to show the shape difference between for example, a pull tab and a ring.

[Jeff McClendon]

3 hours ago, Digalicious said:

What would be impressive, is if the Manti and 900 were directly compared to a Legend or original Nox (or a working D2 lol), and seeing the Manti or 900 unmasking and separating significantly better.
 

The premise behind Iffy’s recent low conductor/iron separation videos featuring Manticore/Deus 2 and Nox 900/Deus 2, was to show how these three detectors perform on the same scenario. Using Deus 2 was not done to show it’s well known and thoroughly documented target ID issue in that scenario. It was used because it is the standard by which other detectors are measured by anyone that has owned and learned how to use a Deus 1 or Deus 2. They really are currently considered to be the best detectors for audibly picking out non-ferrous in co-mingled iron trash. Obviously Deus 2 has some room for improvement as far as its VDIs as illustrated in those videos using the 14K ring on edge and the very thin ingot, whereas the Manticore and Nox 900 did extremely well both in tone IDs and numerical IDs. Deus 2 did extremely well with the ring laying flat.

I have done this kind of testing recently using a scenario very much like Iffy’s with two nails, a similar VDI 14K ring and an 1853 USA one dollar gold coin using Deus 2, Equinox 800 and the Legend. For numerical ID and tone ID using 2 tones, on the 14K ring laying flat, Deus 2 was the clear winner, followed by the Legend and Nox 800. Using the 1853 one dollar gold coin, Deus 2 was the clear winner as far as tone ID. It's numerical IDs were just like Iffy’s video results. The Legend again was a distant second as far as tone ID and its numerical IDs mirrored Deus 2. The Equinox 800 came in third again. All three let me know there was probably a non-ferrous target surrounded by iron. Deus 2 let me know the best in both scenarios I used.

The target trace feature on the Manticore worked very well in that video.

I will have a Nox 900 very soon and will redo those tests using the same targets.

[Digalicious]

Thanks for that Jeff.

How did you determine the settings were the same on each detector? For example, iron bias, recovery speed, and frequency weighting? Then of course, with such a test, the coil height and angle to the targets has to be identical as well.

Even if the settings were identical, one detector might up or down average more so than another detector. So, in one scenario detector "A" gives a better ID, but detector "B" gives a better ID under a different scenario.

[Jeff McClendon]

7 minutes ago, Digalicious said:

Thanks for that Jeff.

How did you determine the settings were the same on each detector? For example, iron bias, recovery speed, and frequency weighting? Then of course, with such a test, the coil height and angle to the targets has to be identical as well.

Even if the settings were identical, one detector might up or down average more so than another detector. So, in one scenario detector "A" gives a better ID, but detector "B" gives a better ID under a different scenario.

It’s not hard to set these detectors up with settings and frequency weighting that are really close. Swinging the coils with flat swings is also very easy so, not sure what you are getting at…………

What can’t be setup the same is the “starting point” engineered into these detectors for their built in recovery speed and target separation. Deus 2’s are obviously different from the Legend and Equinox.

 

[Digalicious]

43 minutes ago, Jeff McClendon said:

It’s not hard to set these detectors up with settings and frequency weighting that are really close. Swinging the coils with flat swings is also very easy so, not sure what you are getting at…………

What can’t be setup the same is the “starting point” engineered into these detectors for their built in recovery speed and target separation. Deus 2’s are obviously different from the Legend and Equinox.

 

What I'm getting at, is how even just a slight difference in certain settings can affect the ID when it comes to unmasking / separation. For example, let's take frequency weighting. You know that the Legend's Park M1 is weighted differently than the Nox's Park 1, and as such, the TID is often very different between those two when it comes to unmasking in nonferrous trash. But, so many do unmasking comparisons with those two modes, and erroneously declare one a winner.

The other issue is so many assuming that one detector’s default mid range iron bias setting, or mid range recovery speed setting is the same. Thing is, they are not the same, so the TID will be different.

My main point in this regard, is that the technology in detectors like the Nox, Manti, Legend, D2, etc, is fundamentally the same. More so, if all settings are accurately reproduced in these detectors, then the performance will be similar. If all the settings are truly matched with each detector, and one detector stands out from the others in an unmasking scenario, then it is most likely due to aggressive up averaging...which of course is detrimental in other scenarios.