Manticore Complaints?

[Steve Herschbach]

18 minutes ago, TerryinHawaii said:

Last night I kept doing a factory reset using the power on button until it really did a factory reset. I now can do a long noise cancel again!  I used to be an IBM electronics' technician.  And sometimes, you just got to keep doing what is needed to fix the problem until the electronic say you win.

I read your post and was thinking that if a factory reset was not fixing it then there was an issue, but I also thought that a factory reset not fixing that was very, very odd. So now it makes sense. However, between you and Chase, I’m seeing hints of an issue with the buttons either not working, or being very difficult to work. Something to watch.

Good to see you post Terry, always good at our age to hear from people. 

[TerryinHawaii]

Steve, I agree that the side buttons are difficult to work.  I think that I am a lot older than you.  I will turn 87 this weekend.

[Ringtail]

10 minutes ago, TerryinHawaii said:

Steve, I agree that the side buttons are difficult to work.  I think that I am a lot older than you.  I will turn 87 this weekend.

HAPPY BIRTHDAY TERRY!!! 

[steveg]

On 1/9/2023 at 4:07 AM, strick said:

Maybe a little sensitive to emi like the Nox...some may find the lower shaft a bit flimsy. Larger vid to have to memorize...Otherwise I love the machine. It’s a cherry picker in a park. 

Strick

Strick,

Can you elaborate a bit on "lower shaft a bit flimsy?"  I'm surprised to hear this, given that it's a carbon-fiber shaft.  By "flimsy," do you mean it has "flex" to it?  The only way this would be the case, is if Minelab chose to spec a VERY "thin" wall for the tube.  Otherwise, with a more "standard" tube wall thickness for such an application (usually in the vicinity of 1mm wall thickness) there should not be any noticeable flex, at all.  That short of a tube, with 1mm wall thickness, would be a very stout/stiff tube.  IF there's "flex," making it feel "flimsy," then a very thin-walled tube must be the reason for that...

Steve

[steveg]

1 hour ago, Steve Herschbach said:

I bought it as a used cherry condition model a couple years ago, as a match for my Bigfoot coil. I went back and forth between which was better for the coil, DFX or V3i, and finally settled on the DFX. I’ve owned several DFX, and so I just looked in the database myself to see it was first produced in 2001 and discontinued in 2012, an 11 year run.

Which is all beside the point. I try to help people understand that metal detectors have remarkably little information to work with. And the reality is that due to the mix with the ground and other targets, good targets can read bad, and bad targets read good. The problem is not the detector, it’s the target and the physics involved. The alternator theory based devices we use can only see things the way they do, and no amount of engineering can change that, short of changing the physics involved by using a different technology. So if a bad target mimics a good target, you can show it to the end user, or you can hide it. But if you hide it, you hide some genuine good targets also. What’s not going to happen is something magical that makes only bad targets read bad, and all good targets read good.

I do think people want the detectors to perform magic they can’t perform. The magic comes in the context, in other words, the location you are hunting, and then in you, the operator, deciding what to dig or not to dig. You can only do that if you know you have a target. That is why I very rarely completely reject or notch out any targets, but rely on wide open full tone detecting. I hear each target, then I decide, based on my experience, how likely it is that the detector is lying to me or not. And they do lie, all the time. The biggest lie is the ferrous target. Vast numbers of non-ferrous targets get called ferrous. All detectors do it. People who notch out ferrous targets pass over them and never know they were even there. I hear them, and depending on the situation, I may very well dig them. People would be shocked at how many ferrous targets I have dug over the years that turned out non-ferrous.

My main point here is Manticore is new but it’s not. It’s still just the same old game, different package. Some tweaks and twiddles, but all this talk of multi generational leaps and game changing? Give me a break. If it was that, early users would be posting ONG OMG OMG and everyone would be in a rush to sell what we have to jump on this Huge, HUGE advance in metal detecting technology.

Or, people will get it, and it will just be a top performing detector competitive with several other options on the market. Some will like it, some will prefer the others. I’m betting that is how it shakes out, and that in itself denies all the talk of multi generational leaps and game changing technology. We have hit the wall folks, better get used to it, and not expect any new machine is going to change the reality in the ground. Which is that you’d better get out there and find some better locations, and put in those hours, if you really want your finds to increase.

Steve,

Interesting post.  You and I run our machines identically, and YET -- my experience is the OPPOSITE of yours.  In other words, for me the biggest lie is the CONDUCTIVE target.  For me, there are too many ferrous targets that get called (or at least hinted at being) non-ferrous targets.

Of course, most of this has to do with where the two of us focus much of our detecting -- you, on small gold that can CERTAINLY ID as iron, and me on silver coins -- such that "high-toning" iron (especially square nails) is my nemesis. 

BUT, your broader point applies in both cases -- our machines LIE to us; they try to do their best, but their "best" is limited, by the physics.  So, just as you said, allowing yourself to "hear everything," and then using your ears as the ultimate "discriminator" is definitely the right approach, from my view...

One last thing I'll say, is that one "generational leap" referred to with the Manticore is SPECIFICALLY the noise-cancelling aspect of the unit, and ESPECIALLY the "long press" feature.  Apparently, this is truly a unique, technological leap, and so to an engineer, this is a BIG deal.  BUT -- how much that "leap" translates into better detecting remains to be seen, but I'm pretty sure that it will amount only to an "incremental" change, not a "leap" in terms of finds.  I guess my point is, BECAUSE we have largely "hit the wall" as you put it, with VLF-IB technology, then any "breakthrough" that arises, after years of engineering work, would be seen differently by an engineer, vs. a detectorist.  I used the example in another post of the invention of fuel injection, which is a bit analogous in that it was a decades-old technology (internal combustion engine) that had largely been tweaked/improved/perfected to near its limit.  Then, fuel injection was developed, to replace carburetion.  To the engineers that designed fuel injection, I'm sure they saw it as a "generational leap" in technology.  And, if looking SPECIFICALLY at ONLY the aspect of the engine that involves how an air/gas mixture is created, and sent to the cylinder, then YES -- it WAS a "leap" in technology.  BUT -- to the average driver, was it?  A car with carburetion can very effectively take you to the grocery store, take you on a road trip, etc., and now, this new-fangled fuel-injected car can ALSO take you to the grocery store, or on a road trip, without being so much "different" or "improved" that the average driver would have been "wowed."  But, does that mean that the development, and inclusion, of fuel injection was NOT a "generational leap in technology?"  My point is, to an engineer, or motorhead, YES -- it was.  To your average car owner, not so much...

So, to me, it's more a case of our EXPECTATIONS, which you rightly point out must be TEMPERED significantly.  Because, even LARGE engineering advances in the technology surrounding VLF-IB will have only small/incremental effects in terms of any given detectorist's ability to locate and identify targets.  We simply have to set our expectations accordingly.  There ARE NO huge advances in VLF-IB technology left to make, in my opinion, that will be obvious/earth-shattering to an average detectorist.  Incremental improvements...that's all that I think can be achieved at this point, and even those improvements take dedicated, top-notch engineering wizardry to achieve...

Steve

[Steve Herschbach]

27 minutes ago, steveg said:

Interesting post.  You and I run our machines identically, and YET -- my experience is the OPPOSITE of yours.  In other words, for me the biggest lie is the CONDUCTIVE target.  For me, there are too many ferrous targets that get called (or at least hinted at being) non-ferrous targets.

That’s because you dig those and not the other. An error in your sampling methodology.  False positives are not actually a problem, just an annoyance. Trust me, there are huge numbers of good targets left to dig between being called ferrous when they are not, and masking. People think they take a Deus 2 or whatever to the dense ferrous and have cleaned it out? Really? You are just scratching the surface.

Seriously, a detector should be giving you false positives and making you dig some ferrous when it said it was not. If you never dig any ferrous, you are leaving lots of good finds in the ground, for the reason I have stated. Which are the false negatives.

My idea of leaps is a higher bar. It was a leap when we went from no ground balance, to having ground balance. It was a leap when we went from having no discrimination, to having discrimination. It was a leap when we went from no tones, to having tones. It was a leap when we went from one knob variable disc, to notch disc capability. Even getting fast multi in Equinox I would say was a genuine advance.

EMI cancel working a little better? Not so much. But having lived and seen those other things actually happen, I suppose my perspective is different.

 

[Chesroy]

Faster processors ? Must mean something when considering  advancements in a detectors ability to perform better than machines with older processors ? Not that I am an expert on the subject.

[Steve Herschbach]

21 minutes ago, Chesroy said:

Faster processors ? Must mean something when considering  advancements in a detectors ability to perform better than machines with older processors ? Not that I am an expert on the subject.

Does not change the underlying physics. Processing a lack of information faster does not make the information better. I talk to genuine honest to god real detector engineers all the time guys. We are not lacking for technology.

Is it that hard to accept that what we have now is fantastic, light years beyond what I started with 50 years ago when this stuff was in its infancy? It's like your cell phone though. Chances are the next new one will have some new thing, but at the end of the day won't make phone calls any better than the last one.

Ah well, people want to live the dream rather than live the actually really great reality we have, and I'm raining on the dream, are I not? So go on dreaming guys, you gotta dream. This grumpy old codger will just go detecting. 

[Chesroy]

I like to be educated by those who know better, if you don't ask you don't get ?. I've never been to proud to ask and happy to take on board what knowledge people are generous enough to give me, we learn something new every day hopefully.