Bbs / Fbs / Recovery Speed Questions

[Digalicious]

Hello.

It's my understanding that BBS and FBS have slow recovery, and therefore are not ideal in trashy sites compared to the newer detectors. As such, I have a couple of questions regarding that.

1) Does FBS and BBS have slow recovery due to the more robust frequency transmitting and receiving, or is it because they have slow processors compared to modern detectors? Or is it a combination of both?

2) With BBS or FBS, could a user match the separation performance of modern detectors by slowing their swing speed to a crawl? 

Thanks for reading this. I'm looking forward to the replies 🙂

[EL NINO77]

At Etrac, for good separation, you have to set it to Fast, and the response to Long or Smooth, then it separates well...

in the mode response Normal and Pitch hold ... the separation worsens significantly..

[Tometusns]

Digalicious,

 I remember hunting with my son while he was still using his Etrac. I was using the Equinox. We both had six inch coils on while hunting a lot where an old house had been. It was pretty trashy and he had located a target and asked if the Equinox could find it. I walked over and it was an easy target. He said "I had to really work to find that target". It was shortly after he had an Equinox. So, yes going slow and really working  you can find targets hiding with bbs, fbs but it's a slower process for sure. The target was just a copper penny and they both found it but one was a lot easier to do so with. 
  I only hunt and other than knowing the recovery speed is slower I'm not the person to give explanations on the hows and whys. That particular hunt came to mind when I read your post. Tom

[Digalicious]

Thank you for the replies so far.

Tom,

When you said "going slow and really working  you can find targets hiding with bbs, fbs but it's a slower process for sure", by "working" do you mean having to circle the target(s)?

[phrunt]

With slower recovery speeds often comes more depth, the CTX is certainly a deep machine.  I've been able to get more depth out of the CTX and 6" coil than I can get out of the Deus and 11" coil.

Probably not the best for trashy areas but comes into its own looking for deep good targets in clean soils.

[Digalicious]

If a site was pounded with a CTX and/or Etrac, then due to their low recovery speeds, could you not use one of the newer SMF detectors and find a lot more coins due to the superior unmasking performance?

[phrunt]

No one detector does it all perfectly.

[midalake]

1 hour ago, phrunt said:

With slower recovery speeds often comes more depth,

There was more than ONE mode on a Sovereign. The All-Metal Pinpoint Mode on the Sovereign was VERY fast on target response. If there was ever one detector that you could not over swing it was the sovereign in all metal PP mode. 
The BBS system was very PI like in that mode and there were no issues seeing close targets. 

[Geotech]

There is nothing inherent in BBS/FBS that prevents it from having fast recovery. There are 3 major elements to recovery speed: hardware filters, DSP, and how audio is processed. Hardware filters are easy to change (or eliminate, as the new designs do), DSP depends on the processor speed and what kind of filters you implement, and audio is just a matter of choice in how you generate it.

Back when the Sovereign, Explorer etc were designed there was not the emphasis on recovery speed that there is now, most of the emphasis was on depth. And they used much slower processors, so fast recovery may not have been a realistic goal. But it could be done now.

[Chase Goldman]

15 minutes ago, Geotech said:

There is nothing inherent in BBS/FBS that prevents it from having fast recovery. There are 3 major elements to recovery speed: hardware filters, DSP, and how audio is processed. Hardware filters are easy to change (or eliminate, as the new designs do), DSP depends on the processor speed and what kind of filters you implement, and audio is just a matter of choice in how you generate it.

Back when the Sovereign, Explorer etc were designed there was not the emphasis on recovery speed that there is now, most of the emphasis was on depth. And they used much slower processors, so fast recovery may not have been a realistic goal. But it could be done now.

Carl - Since fast recovery with FBS could be achieved with today's state of the art DSPs, what advantages does Multi-IQ bring to the table vs. FBS that in your opinion motivated ML to move away from that SMF platform starting with Equinox?