A Few Observations On The Manticore, After About 50 Hours (and A Few Recent Nice Finds)...

[abenson]

1 hour ago, steveg said:

It seems that while abenson is keeping things "close to the vest" for understandable reasons, he seems to imply in his post that he also feels that this "recovery speed" thing has merit as well, in his dirt/in his experience.  This is some great information, and provides an avenue for me to go down, in terms of testing that is obviously in order at this point...

It's more than just recovery speed. I hesitate to say much because some are running the new software and some the old. Some have mineralized dirt and some mild so what works in one scenario, might not work in another. And if Minelab does another update things could change again.

I started to realize about 2 weeks ago with all this testing between the 2 software versions (I've been back and forth between the 2 probably 6 times now), that I was trying to run the Manticore like I did my Equinox 800. What I really needed to do is look at the Manticore as a totally different machine, which it is.

Lets just take recovery speed as an example. Like UT Dave, I for the most part set my recovery at 3 or 4 on the Equinox 800 and it did great at the majority of the locations I hunt. Recovery at 3 on the Manticore (most recent update) causes some real issues in my dirt. Recovery at 6 is much better.

I'll just say this. Once you have the Manticore dialed in on the right mode, with the right sensitivity, recovery, ferrous limits, swing speed, etc. It's a totally different Machine and I can with confidence say it's deeper that the Equinox and just as stable once you set it up right. For example I have a 7" clad dime buried in my yard that has 4 bar dirt and I can not only get that dime with clear audio, but I can also get the ID to within 2 or 3 numbers consistently.

But like I said, what works for me might not work for someone else.

 

[fishersari]

10 hours ago, RSmith said:

We need to find a way to know how to adjust this quickly at each site. A mineralization meter on the Manticore would help a lot. 

I concur 😁 

[Gold Catcher]

Just got mine, did the upgrade and did some testing in my yard with test nuggets and small iron trash. I have to say I am impressed. VLF has come a long way since the GB2 and gold monster days, and this detector will suit my needs well for shallow gold in trashy areas. I reckon the sweet spot will be down to about 2 inch in mineralized soil. Also, really well built. Will do more field testing soon but will likely stick with Goldfield mode with prospecting audio theme and threshold on with all metal. I am glad I bought the Manticore and it will even be better with a smaller coil. The depth indicator is pretty much useless though for small nuggets (not that I would have expected any different). What a great addition to my fleet.

GC

[fishersari]

1 hour ago, Gold Catcher said:

VLF has come a long way since the GB2 and gold monster days, and this detector will suit my needs well for shallow gold in trashy areas

Can you explain how its different than GB2 and Gold monster.. I know nothing about prospecting stuff but would like to know how much the technology has improved over time

[Gold Catcher]

1 hour ago, fishersari said:

Can you explain how its different that GB2 and Gold monster.. I know nothing about prospecting stuff but would like to know how much the technology has improved over time

The gold monster is a single frequency gold detector with an iron probability meter that only works more or less when the target is literally right under your coil. In particular with the small 5 inch coil, it can be very useful for certain situations, i.e. bedrock crevices. It is also very sensitive for small gold (coming pretty close to the GB2). The Manticore is a much more advanced multi-frequency detector (but with optional single frequency operation mode) with a pretty sophisticated target ID system on a 2D screen that shows a target trace on a ferrous and conductive coordinate system. But there are tons of additional and customizable features that the GM does not have, and it can be used for relic and gold prospecting. Please check out Steve's detector data base and the many threads on this forum. 

Hope this helps.

GC

[Dug D]

Some might find this helpful or want to give it a try. Another 3+ hr this morning old park, original software. I had hoped to just learn by trial and error of what worked best, but its time to take a more serious approach. One good outcome today was, while digging iron worried it might be a good target I didn't find any good targets. Flip side was I was fooled  more than a couple times and came out with bolt(s), steel ring, and square nail(s) all at the edge of detection depth. 

Most "possible good" targets tested in each AT search mode with adjusting GB and recover speed to get best result.  Yes that is a huge pain ground balancing (generally the whole site is less than 8, finding clean ground and shifting it up and down to see if it helped with IDs) over and over while you change settings. Noise canceling was easier not much EMI and I was only pushing sens to 25 or so. 

Park has a lot of nails so as expected ATHC had some issues, but I would note that most all targets had comparatively higher IDs With ATHC than with other modes. the biggest issue is it "stops" you every other swing and then you don't end up digging. 

ATLC was the "easy" mode to use, easy and effective, but it didn't "stop" me the way fast was working.

To my surprise AT Fast, had the most consistent IDs and provided IDs where the other modes left the screen blank.  I realized this late in the hunt when I had some really faint targets, deep wheats (hitting from 40s to 80) and a small button at about 8 inches (60 to 90s) only AT fast was giving me IDs recovery speed 3.  I am really going to work at testing fast mode more, I presumed that it would not be as deep, for todays hunt it seemed to be the best. 

AT general and AT trash reject seemed to not do as well as Fast and Low Conductors. 

I would note also similar to the Nox high recover speed will trigger EMI (which might be different depending the the source)  issues forcing less sensitivity and hurting depth in two ways.  

[Johnnysalami1957]

I hated my V3i until I learned how to use the adjustments. Then I hated it more! I spent more time playing and analyzing things than finding treasures. I finally come to terms that the MXT was a better fit for me. Now I need something like 3 lbs. Soooo. Decisions decisions. Patients really is a virtue, I ran out of both. Getting a xterra pro and enjoying my cigar and bourbon.

[canslawhero]

8 hours ago, abenson said:

It's more than just recovery speed. I hesitate to say much because some are running the new software and some the old. Some have mineralized dirt and some mild so what works in one scenario, might not work in another. And if Minelab does another update things could change again.

I started to realize about 2 weeks ago with all this testing between the 2 software versions (I've been back and forth between the 2 probably 6 times now), that I was trying to run the Manticore like I did my Equinox 800. What I really needed to do is look at the Manticore as a totally different machine, which it is.

Lets just take recovery speed as an example. Like UT Dave, I for the most part set my recovery at 3 or 4 on the Equinox 800 and it did great at the majority of the locations I hunt. Recovery at 3 on the Manticore (most recent update) causes some real issues in my dirt. Recovery at 6 is much better.

I'll just say this. Once you have the Manticore dialed in on the right mode, with the right sensitivity, recovery, ferrous limits, swing speed, etc. It's a totally different Machine and I can with confidence say it's deeper that the Equinox and just as stable once you set it up right. For example I have a 7" clad dime buried in my yard that has 4 bar dirt and I can not only get that dime with clear audio, but I can also get the ID to within 2 or 3 numbers consistently.

But like I said, what works for me might not work for someone else.

 

curious what settings you settled on for a clear signal on your 7" clad dime

[TampaBayBrad]

6 hours ago, Dug D said:

Yes that is a huge pain ground balancing (generally the whole site is less than 8, finding clean ground and shifting it up and down to see if it helped with IDs) over and over while you change settings.

Did you try with GB tracking on? I don't use it, but I would consider trying it if the hunting ground mineralisation changed a bunch. 

[steveg]

19 hours ago, JCR said:

What I mean by Signal balance is matching the available adjustments a detector offers to the specific site conditions, day to day and even during the same hunt. The more challenging the conditions, the more important is is to run the detector in an optimized configuration.   Signal balance is the combination of frequency choice,  sensitivity/gain of the RX,  Tx power level,  recovery/reactivity, filtering,  disc level,  ground balance/suppression,  iron bias,  threshold level/ISAT,  coil size/type......... all the wonderful, adjustable controls we have in our modern detectors effect the performance of the unit. The only way I know to learn is to have a basic understanding of what each adjustment does, in theory and in my real world. Thoughtful time in the test garden & in the field. The goal is to use all of these factors in harmony to get the most out of the detector for the site you are hunting right now.  None of this applies to easy sites with easy targets. Factory default settings are a good starting point.  It is more about understanding what the detector is reporting and why and what you can do to improve performance to be more successful.

In practice, I am usually running a bit too hot, but I can listen thru a little noise.

 

JCR --

GOT IT.  Makes complete sense!  I have never heard the term, but TOTALLY agree that having a basic understanding of what each setting does, and how adjusting one setting can affect others...and then using this to your advantage, is KEY with your unit, when trying to dig tough targets (which, in many cases, are all that are left).

I am not at a place where I can effectively employ all that the MC has to offer, adjustments-wise; the EQX was certainly a more simple machine to utilize in that regard.  Lots still to learn, for me to begin to "tame the beast..."

Steve