General Difference Between Machines In Same Price Range

[RobNC]

15 hours ago, Valens Legacy said:

 

The tech has almost run out of things to improve on and almost any good machine is just like the next one on the market.

Enough said from me as I have had to much moonshine and the screen is getting hard to see. I hope everyone can understand what I am saying. My 800 is better than your's.

There are 2 areas where tech could still do some good with metal detectors. Discrimination and EMI/RFI resistance.

I believe after all this time there could be some gainful changes in how metal detectors discriminate. It appears most of them look at conductivity primarily.  Wouldn't it be nice if the machine could do multiple checks on a target beyond conductivity alone? Why have we not yet seen more detail of a target's composition before we dig it? I find it hard to believe it can't be improved upon and refined some more. For instance, why not put in a secondary function that can be activated while pinpointing to get an approximate probability of the target's components? It could be as simple as a readout of resistance, conductivity, and probable composition. Put it into a special mode to further analyze it that goes beyond the typical scanning mode. Just food for thought. But knowing how things are if they did come up with something like that it would cost way more than most would or could pay.

EMI/RFI is an increasing problem that has not been totally remedied by anyone yet. Why is this? Because they don't see it as something to tackle. They'd rather keep making new model after new model instead to keep the coffers full. Put an EMI/RFI resistance design upgrade in place. If you already have a solid build, why not go ahead and perfect i further. Call it "City Edition" or something if it makes your marketing people feel better! But why can't we work on these annoyances and at least alleviate it more. The frequencies normally seen used in metal detectors are too crowded, too much is interfering with that now. Why not go about trying some new frequencies? FCC ankle biters are the cause? If we are restricted in frequencies that can be used strengthen the boards, the coils, the shielding, whatever it takes to make at least a 50-75% reduction in EMI/RFI noise splatter. Encapsulate the boards in material once soldered that is another layer of protection. Cover your coil windings in a new more EMI/RFI resistant material. Work on those shoddy wires used for coil cables. Networking cable keeps progressing to handle faster speeds and have less cross-talk. Why have they not evolved coil cables in a similar fashion yet? Cost? Please.. Coils are essentially the same they have been for a long time. We really could do with a different approach, something to change the playing field.

I think we still have some room for refinement. But not on this or that new fangled feature like a LED light or pretty logo. Let's go back to the drawing board on what is really important- better ID, smarter discrim, and more robust filtering/shielding. Who knows, there is yet a better material out there for it than what is currently being used.

I realize there are some smart people here that know way more than me, but I'm telling you, there is a more efficient more effective route to go that no one has done yet vs what we see in use now. How long it will take to materialize remains to be seen, but one day it will become very clear what is in the ground you hear beeping. You will  be able to "see it" from a composition probability percentage of its base materials. Aluminum, Copper, Au-Gold, Silver, etc. Sounds cheesy? Just how cheesy would it have sounded back in the 70's to someone if you would have told them "One day we will see how deep something is in the ground, and a number showing what it might be" ? We have that today. We have lighter machines than way back. But the sad news for us is that when we are gone the really awesome stuff will be here!

I sure hope there are still some people around then to get all the stuff we couldn't find. And that hopefully they are still allowed to metal detect without being thrown into jail.

[geof_junk]

whoops.

 

[geof_junk]

7 hours ago, RobNC said:

You will  be able to "see it" from a composition probability percentage of its base materials. Aluminum, Copper, Au-Gold, Silver, etc. Sounds cheesy? Just how cheesy would it have sounded back in the 70's to someone if you would have told them "One day we will see how deep something is in the ground, and a number showing what it might be" ? We have that today.

 The only 100% guarantee discrimination is a divining rod in one hand and a target sample in the other. 😜

I think you are on the right track. The size of the target, the depth of the target, the response to the frequency of the target, the height of the ground of the coil, all tell a different story. Some people are better than others of reading them, but it is time for AI to catch up with us Experience Operators. 😇 Lets hope that we get most of the good targets before AI allows any first timer get that advantage.   

[EL NINO77]

1. First of all, I never evaluate the quality of a detector based on its price, but based on its detection capabilities, as well as the ability to reliably detect in difficult or challenging, for example, iron-contaminated terrain...

2. another important attribute of the detector is the quality of discrimination, proportional audio information about the size of the target, as well as the scale of the VDI target - which allows me, for example, to selectively select targets from the field, for example, from a certain VDI range... and thereby increase the effectiveness of detection even when searching very small hammered coins... and at the same time significantly limit, even eliminate, for example, the digging of various large aluminum, foil, lead shot, as well as other very small waste...

Here we can assign, for example, a good identification of medium and larger iron... which often confuses many detectors... and considers it a good target...

3...the third important element is the technical parameters of the detector in the area of sensitivity and range of the detector, for example, to very small targets..., as well as the ability to unmask targets between iron,, or in a mineralized or conductive field or a field that contains ceramics, which it can strongly limit the deep detection of good targets in such a terrain,,,and this is another important detection factor.

4 ..an important factor in the detector is the assortment of different sized coils... because standard coils have their detection limits... in, say, more difficult detection situations... either in the maximum depth of detection or in better unmasking of targets...

5. Since I am also from Europe, and I detect in old places from 1000-3000 years old history... I condition my detection style to such demanding conditions... I have a really sufficient number of detectors in my portfolio and I have the possibility to publish in their detection detection capabilities as well as their good features as well as shortcomings... in a given type of detection... or type of terrain...

6.. for me, the important thing is to test my detectors for a specific detection situation.. which I have encountered, for example, in detection.. and digging a target and simulating the same conditions for the test... these are separation or tests in heavily mineralized terrain.. where I check the ability of detectors as well as various large coils to deal with such a detection situation..
It should be said here that I also focus on testing detectors to find the so-called universal setting of the detector - which can cope with different types of terrain as well as enable effective unmasking of targets without excessive loss of detection depth for the given detector.

7.. Finally.. the ability of the operator to correctly set the detector for the given terrain is often a decisive factor in the success of the detection.. because only very few detectors can correctly and universally detect on one program setting... - and here the hours spent with the given detector in terrain..