Axiom 13x11 GPX 4000 14x9 Coiltek Depth Test Deus 2 Also

[palzynski]

2 hours ago, phrunt said:

I hear this all the time, yet I don't agree especially when people state they are equal, as someone that tinkers a bit with mild soil situations all I see is PI goes deeper in very mild soils, noticeably deeper especially on larger targets like coins, on tiny gold PI and VLF are similar in depth but the bigger the target gets and using a coin as an example the PI wins, a coin on edge the VLF may catch up again a bit.  Some VLF's like the Manticore and CTX and gaining ground a bit but they are still not at PI / Mild soil depths.

Chase wanted probably to say that the difference between a VLF and a PI is at a minimum in mild soils .Knowing that this "minimum" difference is still 30-40%  , which is significant 

And if I understand well this difference is greater than 30-40% in high mineralized soils where in a few extreme situations a VLF cant even see a target at the ground surface ..

 

[Chase Goldman]

6 hours ago, phrunt said:

hear this all the time, yet I don't agree especially when people state they are equal, as someone that tinkers a bit with mild soil situations all I see is PI goes deeper in very mild soils, noticeably deeper especially on larger targets like coins, on tiny gold PI and VLF are similar in depth but the bigger the target gets and using a coin as an example the PI wins, a coin on edge the VLF may catch up again a bit.  Some VLF's like the Manticore and CTX and gaining ground a bit but they are still not at PI / Mild soil depths.

Not sure why you disagree with my actual statement, "This PI depth advantage wanes as soil becomes more neutral..."   I never said they were equivalent and I never said the PI doesn't "win", as if that really matters.

3 hours ago, palzynski said:

Chase wanted probably to say that the difference between a VLF and a PI is at a minimum in mild soils .Knowing that this "minimum" difference is still 30-40%  , which is significant 

No, I wanted to say what I did say.  You are simply restating what I said, not making it any more or less correct.  No need to change my words.  

I personally do not agree it is "significant", but why debate that?  There are too many variables involved to make absolute and broad reaching statements to percentages or significance etc.  

I point to what @Steve Herschbach has posted regarding PI depth vs. VLFs in Mild Soils. 

Yes, this is TDI to MXT comparison, but the principles are the same and Steve has reiterated this principle in other posts.  He typically summarizes it as VLF when you can, PI when you must.  The GPX and Axiom do put more power into the ground than the TDI so there will likely be some level of depth gain vs. any deep VLF with an appropriate sized coil.  Therefore, while I acknowledge some depth advantage likely exists with the Axiom or GPX to a VLF, the "significance" of that depth advantage is worthy of debate, but I personally find that a waste of time.  Yes, you can't dig a target you can't hear or see, miss it by a millimeter in depth or coil coverage you miss might as well miss it by mile.  When I detect in hot ground, the PI does come out.  But in mild and sandy soils, I find I am getting all the depth I need from my VLF detectors and have no motivation, other than simple curiosity, to swing my Axiom over the same ground despite the prospect of more incremental (my term) depth.  Separation, discrimination, and soil features such as clay layers that limit overall target depth, etc. are all things that factor into the PI vs. VLF use calculus for mild soil detecting.  Right tool for the job.

Perhaps I get too grumpy with the continuing obsession with absolute detector depth or other performance parameter comparisons and the fallacy that there are absolutes that can be broadly generalized across all situations based on specific tests.  But that's just me.  When I have the rare opportunity to get my detector in the field, I just swing away listen, recover, and learn.  I reserve my testing for simple go, no-go operational checks and checks of various features and filters.  Nothing more, nothing less.  But I'm glad there are intrepid folks here like Jeff, El Nino, palzynski, phrunt and many others who have the wherewithal and patience to do these complex comparison tests and share the results with us - I know many who find this information to be useful.  I do as well, to an extent.  I interpret them for what they are, a specific finding under specific circumstances.  I'm a pragmatist.  The quest for absolute truth, as far as these machines are concerned, eludes me.  

 

[Steve Herschbach]

Well without getting much into this it's both. My TDI vs MXT was comparing a low power PI to a good VLF. Even with high power PI it is a generally known fact that PI compares poorly to VLF in air tests because it is the ground that accentuates the difference between the two. But target size is also very important, and as the targets get larger a PI will pull ahead of a VLF even in the mildest soils. There is also the wild card of the GPZ 7000 to consider. Some might be considering it a PI, and if so it does beat VLF across the board easily even in mild soil on all but the tiniest targets. But it's not actually a PI per se but a whole different beast, Zero Voltage technology.

This is one area where air tests are applicable as being the same as the mildest of mildest soils. Test a GPX 6000 on a dime size target against a Manticore and see what you get.

Other than that seems like a tempest in a tea pot. PI people usually like PI and VLF people like VLF and whatever floats your boat I say. In general, for most people my old saying does work pretty well "Use a VLF when you can and a PI when you have to." Thanks for the plug Chase. 

[Jeff McClendon]

Okay....as I wipe my brow from exasperation.........

I did this little 2-Part comparison of these two PIs mostly for me. The GPX 4000, 4500, 4800 and 5000 are detectors that I am familiar with. The Garrett Axiom is fairly new for me. However, I have already seen in person what it can do on smaller sub gram gold nuggets after finding some on my last trip to Arizona. I did not know what else it might be capable of so I did these tests.

I also thought maybe some others on this forum might be interested in what the Axiom was reasonably capable of too.  So I figured I would post these comparisons on here just as a public service.

I immediately got comments about which one is the winner....etc, which was the farthest thing from my mind.

Now this has even sparked a how deep can a VLF go and even a VLF versus PI depth debate. OK.

Like Chase said, these two tests showed one thing only. They showed what these detectors could do on a hand picked set of targets, at hand picked depths at a hand picked moderately mineralized site that was semi frozen, meaning there was substantial moisture in that erosion cut.  Maybe the results would be different at the same spot on a dry soil day and at temperatures well above freezing. Who knows.

The second test does show basically a two to one (plus or minus an inch or so) depth ratio between the PIs used and the VLF used. Cool.

What I wanted to find out for myself was basically......is the Axiom a competitive PI detector on sub gram and multi gram targets compared to a GPX 4000 with the 4000 using timings and settings that are currently still available on the GPX 4500 and 5000. Like I said repeatedly, Deus 2 was just along for the ride.

Y'all can keep going with whatever you want to prove or not.

[Lead Detector]

16 minutes ago, Jeff McClendon said:

So I figured I would post these comparisons on here just as a public service

I personally appreciate when people posts tests like this. It's one more piece of information we can throw in the pool of variables, so we can come to our own conclusion.  Thank you

[Chase Goldman]

Jeff/Steve and everyone else,

Agree, tempest in a teapot. 

Like I said, I appreciate these controlled tests and discussions for what they are and do not discourage them.  I, for one, was interested in the PI performance comparison of Axiom vs. GPX because it was tangible apples to apples comparison.  But also appreciated the VLF comparative data Jeff provided.  So don't hesitate to continue to do provide the information, and call it as you see it (based on the data you collected) Jeff.

Folks just need to be careful about making and stating definitive general conclusions based on extrapolation of specific results to other situations beyond what the tester intended, that's all.   There are too many variables and too many competing effects.

 

 

[phrunt]

3 hours ago, Steve Herschbach said:

This is one area where air tests are applicable as being the same as the mildest of mildest soils. Test a GPX 6000 on a dime size target against a Manticore and see what you get.

Very true, the 6000 is one of those machines you can get your pick amazingly close to, as is the Algoforce and I suspect the SDC2300, all the machines geared more towards smaller gold, the earlier GPX series on the other hand, keep that pick well away! 

Put the GPX 5000 with an 11" mono into Coin and Relic timing and put it up against the Manticore with 11" stock coil on a coin and see the results!  Unfortunately Jeff you won't benefit from this Coin and Relic timing, it only works in mild soil environments, it's only on the 4800 and 5000 too.

[EL NINO77]

Jeff I think you did well to post your in depth tests of *AXIOM, and GPX and Deus2/Manticore...

I believe that all the participants of the discussion would get the same results of the test...if they were done in your field conditions....

Different terrains bring different deep results and that's a fact... that cannot be refuted...

on the contrary, even in easy terrain, you can come across a place of old settlement, civilization .... where a lot of ceramics, coal, and remnants of iron corrosion can extremely,, change and greatly reduce the detection conditions... for VLF detectors...

this is an area that I am very interested in..., because there detectors can still find targets that are masked by such mineralization of the terrain....

I think that a significant feature of PI detectors is the ability to work effectively even on ethereally mineralized terrain, where VLf detectors lose strength and advantages as well as stability of detection...

there are simply situations where the PI detector will always be the best....

comparing PI detectors and VLF detectors is like comparing apples and pears...it's never the same....

as the owner of a PI ATX in which I see a strong detection potential... I'm very glad... that Garret made an Axiom that performed very well in tests... and competes with PI Minelab detectors... and in my opinion it can be even better than slightly larger coils will be available for him.../14-18"/..

And VLF detectors? ...of course it doesn't matter, they are constantly improving "so that they work well even in more demanding mineralization conditions...and that is also a good thing..

A good thing for all of us...who like detection...

as for the range of the detectors for a 5-gram coin... in the near future, I will be able to make some comparisons on such targets on different mineralized terrains... since we now have several different mineralized...test fields...