Too High Gold ID Problem

[Chase Goldman]

On 2/11/2024 at 12:58 PM, Skull diver said:

The problem is that it is a mass the size of a washing machine.

I have no words.

I understand the frustration regarding TID scaling in general, and the specifics of the Deus/Deus 2 scaling which indeed compresses the high end of the TID scale (high conductors) while giving a huge range on mid-conductive targets from 20 through 80.  However, this example, which is valid, is also a great reminder that a detectorist should not rely solely on TID to make a decision.  Large steel targets do indeed ring up high, as well as large aluminum targets.  As far as these large targets are concerned, pitch audio or pinpoint help to readily unmask their true nature through elongated audio or huge pinpoint mode footprints so they can be readily bypassed if looking for jewelry or coin-sized targets.  Furthermore, as Jeff McClendon pointed out, target audio quality or purity is also a great "discriminator" between round or symmetric targets vs. junk, irregular targets that sound more distorted.  Of course, damaged jewelry and coins, and non-continuous precious metal loops such as broken rings or earrings can also affect this outcome in both audio and target ID indications.   

It all comes down to the fact that no TID scaling option is necessarily going to be universally acceptable to all detectorists because target objectives vary.  Enabling some end-user customization of TID scaling, as JCR suggested, in certain "regions" of the scale depending on the detectorists needs would be a welcome feature addition.

In the absence of such a feature, and to be frank, no TID scaling scheme is going to be "perfect" regardless how much customization is allowed, then the detectorist who has neither the luxury nor will to "dig it all" will have to "play the odds" as they have had to do forever.  They will need weigh for themselves whether that 80 TID is worth chasing based on the classic risk/reward assessment that accounts for the likelihood of occurrence and the return on "investment" should you chose to chase the targets at either TID extreme.  Is the occasional honker that rings up 80 WORTH digging up thousands of junk or low value coin targets, or is your time best spent simply recovering the bulk of the valuable targets that fall in a narrow range of TIDs, than wasting time on digging potential "white whales".  The math is really not all that hard once you have a sufficient data to understand how valued targets are distributed across the range.  As a "professional" it makes sense to do this kind of data assessment in addition to the hard physical work of dive recovery to make your recovery efforts as efficient and lucrative as possible.

 

[Skull diver]

@JCR @EL NINO77

This is what happened today.

I started the session with D2 in a promising area.

About two hours and two medium-sized rings (both under 5 grams).

Tool change and back in the water with the Excalibur.

After two minutes I dig out the third snake-shaped ring, perhaps the thinnest and lightest of the three.

This is overwhelming evidence that a screen and an ID, can make a difference if they respond correctly to the object, but as long as you dig outside the range of interest, you lose useful time for other targets.

I fear I will soon have to fall back on yet another detector and the choice is really narrow.

[Chase Goldman]

Have you 

Just now, Skull diver said:

@JCR @EL NINO77

This is what happened today.

I started the session with D2 in a promising area.

About two hours and two medium-sized rings (both under 5 grams).

Tool change and back in the water with the Excalibur.

After two minutes I dig out the third snake-shaped ring, perhaps the thinnest and lightest of the three.

This is overwhelming evidence that a screen and an ID, can make a difference if they respond correctly to the object, but as long as you dig outside the range of interest, you lose useful time for other targets.

I fear I will soon have to fall back on yet another detector and the choice is really narrow.

Have you tried the X-Y display on Deus or the possibly the 2-D display on Manticore?

[Skull diver]

8 minutes ago, Chase Goldman said:

Have you tried the X-Y display on Deus or the possibly the 2-D display on Manticore?

Xy screen remains for me as a last option.

Poor visibility does not allow me to check the screen effectively.

I have been used to discriminating based on audio alone since 2005.

I have tried 4 square tones, pitch tone, full tones with minimal offset to keep signal peaks low, but it remains difficult not to dig high tones without thinking of losing gold.

I hope the graphic representation can give me at least an idea of the shape.

Regarding the Manticore, I am still strongly accustomed to the Ctx with which I really did record numbers in the past.
The dividing line of the nonferrous really echoes the discrimination pattern of the Ctx, and for now I would rule out buying it because of the limited depth at which to dive it.

[EL NINO77]

With CTX, it is worthwhile to use channel 10-11 for greater CTX sensitivity to smaller or finer targets...

the difference in detection is visible,,,

 

[EL NINO77]

53 minutes ago, Skull diver said:

@JCR @EL NINO77

This is what happened today.

I started the session with D2 in a promising area.

About two hours and two medium-sized rings (both under 5 grams).

Tool change and back in the water with the Excalibur.

After two minutes I dig out the third snake-shaped ring, perhaps the thinnest and lightest of the three.

This is overwhelming evidence that a screen and an ID, can make a difference if they respond correctly to the object, but as long as you dig outside the range of interest, you lose useful time for other targets.

I fear I will soon have to fall back on yet another detector and the choice is really narrow.

If you are in the right place, a digital detector with a good range can very easily beat ... an analog or digital detector without VDI display...

I have been dealing with this topic for several years, also because I prefer to use digital detectors from VDI Identifications.

First of all.. it is a very selective detection where we want to detect the correct targets in one place... and at the same time dig up a minimal amount of non-ferrous waste...

I always take this feature into consideration with every detector I use...

  Skull Diver,,congratulations too on finding 3 nice rings...

 

 

 

 

[Chase Goldman]

2 hours ago, Skull diver said:

Regarding the Manticore, I am still strongly accustomed to the Ctx with which I really did record numbers in the past.
The dividing line of the nonferrous really echoes the discrimination pattern of the Ctx, and for now I would rule out buying it because of the limited depth at which to dive it.

Well, the Manticore is rated to 5 meters vs. 3 meters for the CTX.  But neither of those is 20 meters like the Deus 2 or 60+ meters like the Excalibur II.

[Skull diver]

6 hours ago, Chase Goldman said:

Manticore is rated to 5 meters vs. 3 meters for the CTX.

Although ID allocation is more suitable for me, I am highly skeptical about the hardware's resistance to pressure.

Years ago, in just over three meters below the surface, the Ctx screen had a red dot in the middle of the screen due to pressure.

Needless to say, I came out with a fracture line in the crystals.

Another damaged component was the speaker, first less effective, then corroded and mute.

For goodness sake, I never used any detector without headphones, which is why I did not care at all.

To conclude, the batteries at the tail end of the armrest, are only related to the protection of an o ring a few tenths thicker...

Never used lithium again, after every flooding I just cleaned and applied grease to the contacts of the alkaline box.

[Skull diver]

8 hours ago, EL NINO77 said:

dig up a minimal amount of non-ferrous waste...

Exactly ?.

Everyone talks about iron and masking, but the serious issue is shortening the time to dig on unneeded or unwanted targets.

For me, with discrimination at or near zero, a tone that declares iron is more than fine.

No need for filters of any kind except to reduce saline hypersensitivity noise, otherwise immersed in water with zero EMI and away from other divers everything is ok.

This flaw of such a large scale on low conductors is giving me serious problems.

This pulls down all the advantage of detection depth that I got with a 9" coil?