Full Tones And Negative Disc -6.4

[Skull diver]

1 hour ago, raziel900 said:

In the picture I tried to "eliminate" the tone breaks to have a harmonic scale without breaks, more linear and clean tones but if those breaks refer only to the volume then nothing changes

I can't think of a better way to explain the concept, but if I have to define the use of full tones that I found myself in, this is it:

Trying to isolate the middle tones, I expanded from 30 to 60 first and from 30 to 45 later.

Although it would be simpler to use 3 or 4 tones extended up to 99 and giving a specific pitch to each, using full tones better distinguishes a valid tone from one that jumps around and is hardly a target worthy of excavation.

However, the original tone breaks were more effective before I modified them.

The reason may be that somehow you are going to break up the progressiveness and modularity of the sound.

All of this should be tested by sampling objects and varying the tone breaks as best suits one's hearing, using the offset to vary the peaks.

[Chase Goldman]

2 hours ago, raziel900 said:

In the picture I tried to "eliminate" the tone breaks to have a harmonic scale without breaks, more linear and clean tones but if those breaks refer only to the volume then nothing changes

 

57 minutes ago, Skull diver said:

I can't think of a better way to explain the concept, but if I have to define the use of full tones that I found myself in, this is it:

Trying to isolate the middle tones, I expanded from 30 to 60 first and from 30 to 45 later.

Although it would be simpler to use 3 or 4 tones extended up to 99 and giving a specific pitch to each, using full tones better distinguishes a valid tone from one that jumps around and is hardly a target worthy of excavation.

However, the original tone breaks were more effective before I modified them.

The reason may be that somehow you are going to break up the progressiveness and modularity of the sound.

All of this should be tested by sampling objects and varying the tone breaks as best suits one's hearing, using the offset to vary the peaks.

Like I said, I’ve never messed with the FT tone breaks because the concept of doing that seemed counterintuitive to the concept of full tones in the first place, a set of semi continuous ID tones steadily increasing in pitch based on target ID.  In fact I only did a deep dive into this tone break menu after raziel900 posted his screen shot.  If what Skull Diver says is true (and I have no reason to doubt him) regarding the breaks actually affecting the continuous tonality, then I wholeheartedly agree that it is best to leave the breaks as is if you want that continuous, linear audio tone and to simply adjust volume of the existing breaks as desired.  I may play around with this a little for fun, though.

[Lodge Scent]

I'll use -6.4 Disc with Full Tones or Multi Tones in certain conditions. I have a lot of sites that I've worn out over the years and I find that using some "extreme" or nonconventional settings will help sniff out some goodies from these tired sites. I am a fan of setting tone bins in Full Tones and adjusting the volume. At iron laden sites I'll often set up a bin to bracket the iron falsing VDIs and then set the volume to zero. Sometimes extreme conditions require extreme settings.

[raziel900]

9 hours ago, Lodge Scent said:

I'll use -6.4 Disc with Full Tones or Multi Tones in certain conditions. I have a lot of sites that I've worn out over the years and I find that using some "extreme" or nonconventional settings will help sniff out some goodies from these tired sites. I am a fan of setting tone bins in Full Tones and adjusting the volume. At iron laden sites I'll often set up a bin to bracket the iron falsing VDIs and then set the volume to zero. Sometimes extreme conditions require extreme settings.

Can you tell us more about how negative discrimination can help? in unmasking or in deep targets?

[Lodge Scent]

Raziel, I will sometimes use negative disc when I am after very deep targets or really what I mean is when I am after good targets with very weak signals. At the edge of detection, nonferrous targets can begin to sound like iron. I don’t want to disc out those very weak signals. I suppose setting disc to “0” would serve my purposes, but with my very mild soils, I can drop it down to -6.4 with no additional negative consequences that I can notice.

So yes, in some circumstances I find that negative disc can both get me more relative depth and prevent masking.  

Lodge 

[UKD2User]

On 1/22/2024 at 5:05 PM, Lodge Scent said:

Raziel, I will sometimes use negative disc when I am after very deep targets or really what I mean is when I am after good targets with very weak signals. At the edge of detection, nonferrous targets can begin to sound like iron. I don’t want to disc out those very weak signals. I suppose setting disc to “0” would serve my purposes, but with my very mild soils, I can drop it down to -6.4 with no additional negative consequences that I can notice.

So yes, in some circumstances I find that negative disc can both get me more relative depth and prevent masking.  

Lodge 

Completely agree.  What is less obvious is that lower recovery speeds can tend to make a good target sound more like iron than higher recovery speeds - all other things being equal - especially in mineralized ground. Of course, the trade-off with a higher recovery speed is a loss of depth (which is less marked in mineralized ground than in clean ground).  Based on the above, you may benefit from a lower disc setting if using a lower reactivity in the hope of more depth.

[raziel900]

Totally agree with all of you, even if there is no news about it at least not in the videos on youtube, now I understand the meaning of negative discrimination even if in practice I can't imagine how a borderline target could sound better with negative discrimination. Surely we Europeans have different terrains and targets from those who live in the United States for example

[midalake]

16 hours ago, UKD2User said:

What is less obvious is that lower recovery speeds can tend to make a good target sound more like iron than higher recovery speeds - all other things being equal - especially in mineralized ground.

Interesting.......More opinions???? 

[UKD2User]

4 hours ago, midalake said:

Interesting.......More opinions???? 

Newsflash - every post on the internet = opinion 😉😁

To be fair to me (whoever I am!) I have some supporting logic/evidence for my 'opinion':

1) Paystreak's video below (in what I think is quite strongly mineralized ground).

2) From first principles -

a) If you keep swing speed (and all other things) the same, a higher recovery speed means that the machine is analysing a smaller volume of ground - to come up with a determination - than it is at a lower recovery speed.  This stands to reason (!) and is consistent with the diagrams/descriptions in XP (and Minelab, and no doubt others) manuals - although these show a discrete (e.g. nail), rather than diffuse (e.g. black sand) iron 'masker'.

b) All detectors have to work very hard to see a non-ferrous 'needle' in a ground 'haystack'.  The return from even benign, un-polluted, soil is very large compared to the return from a deep and/or masked non-ferrous target.  Searching a smaller volume of soil (using a smaller coil, for example, or as in this case, using a higher reactivity) improves the chances of finding a non-ferrous target in that 'swept volume'.

 

[raziel900]

In Paystreak's video it is the highly mineralized soil that allows it to be drilled better with high reactivity.... Could you use negative discrimination in that context? It would only lead to confusion without any advantage