Old Technology Versus New.

[Capphd]

1991 VS 2023

[Digalicious]

Thanks for the comparison video Capp.

Much of benefit of the newer detectors, are things like weight, better shafts, waterproofing, rechargeable internal batteries, wireless features, etc. However, the modern SMF detectors are also packed full of settings and features to optimize performance for ground conditions, EMI, and specific targets. Another advantage I find with the modern SMF detectors, is superior target identification on all types of targets. So much so, that I would only go back to SF if I absolutely had to. Plus, I notice that superior target identification, even though my hunting grounds are low mineralization. In mid to high mineralization, the superiority of SMF for depth and target identification, would be even more noticeable.

Some observations about your comparisons:

It would have been helpful if you showed your modes and settings. Yes, you mentioned that the Legend was using presets, but presets on the modern SMF detectors may not be ideal for all types of tests. For example, the preset iron bias (iron filter on the Legend) is set very high. No hunter trying to unmask in iron, would ever use that high of an IB, because iron unmasking performance would be terrible. I, and everyone else I know that uses a modern SMF detector to unmask in iron, uses a very low iron bias, and a high weighted SMF mode. I could be wrong, but when you were doing the iron unmasking test, I'm thinking you were probably in a preset (default) lower weighted SMF mode, and using the very high default iron bias.

For your recovery speed test, did you have the Legend at the default of around 5? If so, it was separating very fast, but the Legend and other modern SMF can separate even faster than their default recovery speed setting, and can do so with a "normal" swing speed.

In your depth test, you called 13 1/2" using the Whites Silver Eagle. Maybe it's my ears, but calling that at 13 1/2" seems like quite a stretch. 

In depth testing a ferrous object, the IB will cause a depth difference on the deep ferrous objects if the IB is set high (which I think you have it set high). Other depth factors would include the SMF mode being used, as well as what the audio gain was set at. The recovery speed has a huge impact on depth, as of course does the sensitivity level. Was the sensitivity at 25 on your Legend? I mean, it could very well be, but for that size of coil, while being in a residential area with EMI, the Legend seemed too quiet if the sensitivity was at 25.

I also find that where SMF really shines, is when testing is done with targets in the ground, along with the appropriate SMF mode and other settings. More specifically, even in my very mild ground, I get a little more depth using SMF, but a heck of a lot better target ID accuracy, when compared to SF.

Considering all of the above, I would prefer not to use a SF detector again, let alone an older SF detector. Granted I did purchase two older SF detectors to satisfy my nostalgic thirst, but the nostalgic thirst quenching was short lived, and both those detectors went into the closet 🙂





 

[Capphd]

I understand everything you say. I’ve owned and used them all including the Manticore and D2. My contention is that, in real world hunting, 32 years of technology has produced few additional finds. In fact in uncontaminated ground, I know that old Silver Eagle will find deeper targets than the D2, Legend, or Manticore. I know because I’ve hunted extensively with all 3 in uncontaminated ground. 
 

Also, I didn’t tweak the settings on either machine. I know both can be improved with tweaks. Next, if you didn’t hear the minie ball sound off at 13 1/2, turn up your volume. I don’t stretch. 
 

Please understand, if the Legend didn’t have advantages over the other two, I wouldn’t own it. I especially like that it’s waterproof. 
 

My main point is that, when it comes to actual targets recovered, the technological advancement in metal detectors is unimpressive. 
 

I’m not telling anybody what to use. That’s an issue of personal preference. I’ve chased the technology for over three decades only to discover that I’ve spent tens of thousands of dollars for little actual performance advancement. 
 

Use the machine you prefer. That’s what makes it fun. 
 

 

[Digalicious]

Thanks for the thorough reply Capp.

In my mild ground when I compared the depth of the Tesoro Silver uMax, a Fisher 1266x, a Legend, and Vanquish 540 (Nox technology), the actual depth difference wasn't anywhere near "Oh wow!' It was more like "meh" lol. However, on the deep targets I did get notably better target ID accuracy on the Legend and 540.

Again, I only have experience in mild ground. From what I've read from  experienced hunters, that hunt in mid to highly mineralized ground, SMF detects "Oh Wow!" deeper than SF 🙂