Another Reason Why New Detector Models Act The Way They Do

[Steve Herschbach]

So what sells metal detectors these days? A lot of the market now is driven by “influencers” on YouTube and other social media. There is no requirement that the person involved have any genuine knowledge about what they are talking about. All that matters, and I mean all that matters, is how big their viewership is. That’s the way the media works these days. Truth, accuracy, etc. are completely secondary to how many eyeballs you can draw. In fact you can have a show or channel about complete BS and as long as you can draw viewers in large numbers, you are golden.

Metal detector video by nature tends to rely on contrived tests. The most widely seen is perhaps the Monte Nail Board test. But there are endless variations of tests using wood blocks and styrofoam blocks, you name it. These all remove the most important thing about a detector - how well does it separate the target from the ground? Ground conditions (wet, dry, salty, 3D trash density) and magnetic mineralization rule everything from depth to target id accuracy.

But that does not matter. What is important is it is popular and people believe it. So the manufacturers do now pay attention to producing detectors that perform well in these videos, and if performing well in the videos means maybe not so well in the ground at the end of the day you do what you need to do to sell metal detectors. Thats job one - sell metal detectors.

This reliance on these types of tests and the people who do them go a long way to explaining why recent detectors do well with the YouTubers but not so well with the people that really use them. This forum tends to downplay contrived tests in favor of actual in field use on actual found targets, by expert users. The answers often are nuanced and lack the clear quick black and white the marketers need to sell the product. Finding the truth on the Manticore means reading 100 posts or more on the subject by a wide number of different real world users in different locations. The truth emerges over time, not in a five minute video shot by a guy who has had the detector for three days, if that.

To sum up though it all comes back to how important it has become to do well in air tests and the Monte test, with actual stable performance in the ground being a secondary factor. And unfortunately a detector jacked up to do well in the air does not often do all that well in the ground.

I relayed this story before. I was at my Moore Creek Mine in Alaska, and a visitor arrived with a Fisher 71 kHz Gold Bug 2. I was swinging a Fisher 13 kHz F75 at the time. He thought I was an idiot as he knew for a fact his Gold Bug 2 did better on gold than the F75. Now mind you, the goal at Moore Creek was 1/4 ounce and larger nuggets. Those were daily finds with 1-3 ounce nuggets common. He was pretty adamant so I said “here, let me show you something.” We took a 1/4 ounce nugget and air tested both machines. The Gold Bug 2 easily trounced the F75 and I could see the smirk on his face from the result. Then we buried the nugget in the ground. The F75 easily hit the nugget beyond the point where the Gold Bug 2 would even signal at all, and not by a thin margin. The guy was astounded. But he simply did not know that high frequencies air test well but fall on their face for penetration in bad ground on larger targets compared to lower frequency detectors.

The same error is made repeatedly with PI detectors, either testing them against VLF detectors in the air or in low mineral ground. PI basically exists as a solution for extreme conditions, and testing them outside those extreme conditions is not only inaccurate but highly misleading. The same can be said of any this versus that VLF tests that remove the ground from the equation. It’s just not as dramatic as with PI versus VLF, but it is real all the same. When you are spitting hairs like so many people do these days taking ground out of the equation is ridiculous.

[Digalicious]

Said "splitting hairs", coupled with misleading, and most often poor methodology, easily sways the newbies.

The good thing for the manufacturers? Litte to no advertising cost.

 

[Bill (S. CA)]

A very interesting topic, Steve, and I agree with your assessment of the various YouTubers and air testers.

I wrote field tests for Western and Eastern Treasures for well over a decade.  I also did field tests for Lost Treasure and even Kellyco when Stu was alive.  I never did the irrelevant air tests that have now become an unfortunate standard.  The only air testing that I ever made us of was to learn target response.  Monte's nail board test interested me but I never paid much mind to it in terms of the real world.  To me, a "field" test means to actually test it out in the field.  Though the era of published field tests is pretty much over, I still apply that same standard to any new detector that I try out.

Let me share a very short story from several years ago that was sort of a precursor to all of the woodblock nonsense tests that we see today.  I was working under an NDA for a detector manufacturer and was asked to evaluate a new model.  According to the company, it had been signed off on by all of their testers but they still wanted me try it out to see if they missed anything.

Well I did.  It had one major problem.  It didn't work.  Inland it could not handle trash.  On the beach it would false like a microwave timer on crack.  You couldn't identify good targets from bad at all.   When I told them this they were shocked and asked for a few days to look into the problem.  A  week later they got back to me and this was their confused response (and I quote): "We are very confused.  It worked perfectly in the lab."

Fast forwarding today, I would highly recommend paying attention to all of the YouTube air tests the next time you hunt a vast expanse of Styrofoam or wood blocks. 

Bill

[BigSkyGuy]

In the ground testing in your area means everything. Several years ago I purchased a Blisstool v.6 which was supposed to have superior depth to anything out there. But, in my ground in Montana it was fairly average on depth. One year I took it to Ohio on a visit to my family and I finally was able to see what everyone was talking about. I found a tiny German 1 Pfenning coin at 10 inches, but at home it was nothing special on depth. The Equinox easily gets an extra inch of depth by comparison. I attribute this partly to the 7-8 kHz frequency of the Blisstool vs the higher range of the multifrequency of the Equinox. @Jeff McClendon has stated on this forum that ~20 kHz detectors work well in his ground, which is magnetite-based mineralization (I used to live in Golden, CO). I think that is the case here as well.

I think Monte's nail board test has its uses, especially in the west where nails and non ferrous items tend to sit on or near the surface. This was the situation that led Monte to create the test in the first place. However, even here the test should be done on top of the ground and not in a garage or someplace where the influence of the ground cannot be taken into account.

YouTube influencers completely blew out of proportion the whole issue with the Manticore and nail falsing. I used to own a V3i and several older White's models (Spectrum etc.) that allowed transmit power to be turned up separately from the sensitivity/gain. If I remember right there was a knob on the front of the box that was called "transmit boost" or something like that. When turned on, transmit boost would make the detector prone to falsing on nails, especially when the ground was wet. I think the Manticore is similar to a White's model with boost on in some ways. It goes with the territory. I definitely dig more iron with the Manticore than I did with the Equinox, but only because I am going for the tougher colocated signals. If I was to limit the signals that I dig to perfect tones/Target Trace, then my iron count would go way down, but so would my good finds. I also tend not to use AT-HC which is weighted more to lower frequencies which does not work well in my ground anyway.

[Steve Herschbach]

There are plenty of things one can learn from contrived tests including air tests. I do them myself. They are not without value…. if viewed by people who understand what they are seeing, and who understand the limitations. What I find objectionable are the elevation of these types of tests as being the final word on things when they are not.

There have been a lot of detectors that did great in the lab but ended up not seeing the light of day because they failed in real world situations, way more than people know about.

[Jeff McClendon]

There has been some experimenting by a YouTuber using Deus 2, the Manticore and even the Legend using a lot of notching lately in an attempt to get these detectors to pass small coin next to a down the barrel of a nail type situation. I think someone even linked the original Bird Dog test video on this site. It was hailed as a major breakthrough and since Deus 2 really did well with these settings sitting on styrofoam and any off the ground surface even using a big nail and a half dime obviously, Deus 2 is hailed as the best detector on the planet again. I was contacted to do some Deus 2 Bird Dog testing. Yeah it did exactly what it was reputed to do as long as I did the testing on a non-mineralized surface. As soon as I transferred the test to even a container of moderately iron mineralized dirt........unbelievable iron falsing and next to no depth.  

I have always tried to do Monte's (rest in peace Monte) nail board test with the paper or foam test board that Monte sent me resting on target free ground or on a container of mineralized dirt. I rarely hunt on dirt that isn't mineralized. I am not sure I would know what to do in a situation like that with these latest detectors. I guess I could actually use 4 kHz for the first time.

I like YouTube for a lot of things. Yes, I do sometimes let myself get attracted to metal detectors that do well in tests. But my favorite and most educational YouTube metal detecting videos to watch are in the ground testing head to head or just a good hunt video done by guys like Gary B, Andy B, Nenad, Bill S., Rob A, and others that are master hunters and don't have any reason to push one detector over another. Some of Gary Blackwell's pre XP videos where he reviews a hole bunch of different detectors are really fun. He never says anything resembling "This is the best detector in the world"  or just the opposite etc. 

I have to commend Calabash Digger for changing his hole approach and his development of a generally neutral tone in his videos of the big three SMF VLFs. Deus 2 is obviously his favorite because it suits his hunting styles the best. But he seems to have made up with Nokta and Minelab......I wonder if that was a financial decision?

The Manticore, Deus 2, Legend and Equinox 800 models are fantastic detectors. The more I use them the more I like them no matter what any this vs that YouTube detector influencer says. 

[ghound]

Tests like the bird dog that TNSS is showing i see as useful information rather than a setting to be used.

I've a well hunted medieval site that I'd gladly dig 100 nails on to maybe hit a gold hammered coin, so if i can use TNSS info to build myself a setting for that scenario I'd be well pleased.

Think about the % of ring pulls and balls of foil etc that are dug at a park to find a gold ring, if information came from a similar TNSS test that might help someone build themself a program to lower this % then I'd say that's useful info

 

[EL NINO77]

...Steve is right about something... a lot of .. "like .. testers" ... start testing a new detector... and at the same time they have not yet understood well how the detector works... and a detector tested in this way may or may not give good results in such testing ..

or on the contrary, the given new detector provides excellent results in such a test ... but it does not work in another type of test ... and it also does not work in the field where you are detecting ...

because it is important for detection not only how the detector signals the target... but also if the detector signals iron .. or other waste... and the terrain itself also strongly influences such detection..
I'm talking about the ratio of good signals ... to waste, for example...

And on the other side there are "Field testers" of the detector manufacturer who test the detectors from the prototype.. and you can really trust them.. because in such testing.. they know what they are doing... and they try to improve the tested detector as much as possible..

from my point of view, one of the best possibilities for testing the properties of the detector is various test fields... which contain both deep-seated targets and iron-masked targets... and which also contain civilized pollution with rusts, ceramics, coal and ash... because they really simulate the real detection conditions..

If there are more of these test fields... then you can really evaluate quite accurately how the detector works...

Minelab Manticore field tester... Mike on his test field...

Finally, the work of field testers directly in detection in the field...can further evaluate the test properties of the new detector in detection

First of all, I want to say... well done synthetically... specific separation tests should show which detector setting will be best done in a given detection situation...

But here it can be shown that a certain detector or even the type of coil used do not really have the best detection results in which type of separation... or it can be the opposite... it can show the correct combination of detector and coil + correct setting... I can provide the best separation results.. in the test..

one more thing... the given detection situation should have really well simulated real detection conditions in a certain terrain... and then such testing can provide excellent results in practical detection as well

Now something about the Monte performance nailboard test.... this separation test simulates really well the 2D separation of a good target in iron - the so-called shallow separation. - because this type can separate targets well, let's say to a depth of 8-10 cm.max

In ...Monte's 2D separation test, find out really well which coil or detector program setting can give you the best results in the given "2D separation" test..
I fully trust this test...and I have very good experience with it in detection...where a good detector with an optimal coil for 2D separation...can comfortably unmask the last ... good shallow targets between iron....

 

The 12 cm concentric coil on this detector provides the best separation results in the Monte performance nailboard test. at the optimal setting. on 1 frequency but also in multi-frequency...

 

the detector on such a setting .. was able to detect and pull out in iron .. 2 really good targets ... both signals gave correct VDI and signal graph of the target in the cross  signal control.. in multyfrequency program

... the number of unsolicited waste... to detect 2 good targets... for me it is an important parameter in detection... in 3.5 hours detection

The optimal  coil on the detector ..really delivered... excellent results in the Monte Performance Nailboard Test separation test...but it also managed to find another 2 good targets in 3.5 hours of detection... !!!

 

Finally, I want to say that if you need to search for deeply buried targets... you will need a detector and a coil that can pass the 3D deep separation test... /10-30 cm deph / and that is quite different testing compared to the Monte Performance Separation test...

3D depth separation test - a small 16.5mm  nickel coin in a depth of 11 cm...

 

[kac]

Don't forget many manufacturers give the machines to these you tubers to play with and keep so expecting an unbiased review is unlikely.

Tests I do is target for target in the field which proves much more to me. When hunting with buddies I make sure I am not using the same setup as they are. You would be surprised how similar the machines really are in depth and performance.

Often people get snubbed for using older or less expensive machines and you will notice that posts often have Name Brand finds Gold or Deep Silver when in reality more often than not just about any machine can find those targets.

I almost didn't buy a D2 because of the outrageous claims that were made. I stopped posting my finds because people more interested in the settings and machine used than the finds themselves.

[Jeff McClendon]

One thing I rarely see an influencer video demonstration show or even read very much about is how important it is to really get these hot DD coils centered over the target before making a full judgement about the accuracy of the target IDs when using many of the latest detectors especially the SMFs. 

I know that Steve has mentioned it in several posts in the past even way back in relation to the Whites V3i (I could be wrong) and so have others. I have complained about the instability of the Nox 700/900 compared to the 600/800 and there were plenty of non Equinox 600/800 users and new users that complained about the 600/800 too.

Getting the coil centered over the target with the high gain Manticore, Equinox models, Legend and Deus 2 is super important. For shallower targets it can be less important if the user is using good coil control. I use the onboard pinpoint function a lot on tougher targets and make sure that I am taking the final target ID with the most sensitive part of the coil directly (hopefully) over the target.

Maybe these infuencers don't mention it because they don't want to tell the truth, don't know how to handle the situation since they just got the detector, don't consider it important or who knows. 

Most of what I see are target ID air tests with perfect IDs and tones.

Depending on soil conditions, partial masking and depth, orientation, target makeup, target condition and several other factors, those perfect IDs can be drastically different depending on where the target is in relation to the undersurface of the coil. 

Nokta actually did a really good write-up about the Legend's target ID situation in the Target ID section of their manual. It is almost an apology!!!! What they failed to do was to give suggestions about how to improve the target IDs when detecting.

The trend is for faster VLF detectors that can ID accurately and deeper, detect well on a wide range of ground/beach conditions, detect a wide range of targets with different conductivities and a wide range of target sizes. They also need to be SMFs for the most part, lightweight, wireless audio capable, easy to collapse and pack up and waterproof.

Today's simultaneous multi frequency operation tech can result in some amazing results. Those simultaneous multi frequencies can also detect and give corresponding target IDs for say a US zinc penny and its copper coating or what's left of it, its corroding and oxidizing zinc interior and it malformed condition with bumps, chips and holes included and they can do this all on one swing of the coil. They can also audibly detect the threads on a screw or bolt, etc. Really amazing and really accurately honest information for an experienced detector user. For a beginner-OMG.