Deus II VS X-Terra Elite VS Triple Score In Elevated Nail Test

[Prymek]

A few months ago I tested Versa 2.44 and Nox 900, the same as Iffy and Nox won, but when I turned it on, the detectors worked the same in my ground. For me it's an air test, the ground changes everything. I know that engineers can design the detector's software to handle tests on wooden blocks, refine the software to make people believe that their detector is better, but it doesn't work like that (or it only works on YouTube where people only think with their eyes and not their brains). It's quite possible that manufacturers started using a system of wooden blocks to support detectors. Finally, I appeal to XP not to go in this direction, d2 works perfectly in places littered with iron.

[Jeff McClendon]

Iffy Signals recently joined this forum. He may still be a member. It makes me a bit uncomfortable to criticize him or his video since he did not post it here. 
 

The OP claims that Monte Berry’s nail board test was the “standard test” and now it’s Iffy type of testing. That seems like an exaggeration to me. 
 

“Down the barrel” testing where a nail is being detected with the nail perpendicular to the center spine of a DD coil and a non ferrous target nearby is definitely a difficult situation. More recently produced SMF detectors have a decent shot at succeeding in that kind of situation even in high iron mineralization due to the way their SMF tech processes iron in general. 
 

I enjoy watching Iffy’s testing videos. He usually just lets the detectors do the talking and keeps his comments to a minimum. 
 

I agree with some other posters that I would not take the results of one test video showing three different detectors and their success or failure using the settings chosen at that time on the test scenario as anything more than one instance. 
 

I trust my Deus 2 to do really well in iron trashed areas and I know its tendencies. My Nokta Legend does really too. 

[Steve Herschbach]

7 hours ago, Jeff McClendon said:

Iffy Signals recently joined this forum. He may still be a member. It makes me a bit uncomfortable to criticize him or his video since he did not post it here. 

I for one am not criticizing him or his video. I am criticizing the idea that air tests are definitive. Like I said in my first post the video is interesting, it’s a data point, a place to start. Perhaps a truth is being revealed that needs more follow up. One thing I can say is a fact though is that in all my years of metal detecting testing for various companies I have never once tried to tell any of them that their detector was failing based on any air test. I’m not going to lose my credibility by insulting their intelligence. For me to compare detectors I also have to do more than go finding stuff with one or the other. I have to compare both machines on the same "found targets". If I am doing serious testing there is only one way I do it. For two detectors:

1. Take detector number one, go find a target. Play with settings to get best signal on this found target. This insures you are tuned up properly for this ground.

2. Check same target with second detector. Again adjust settings for best results on this ground.

3. Make notes on responses, dig the target, make notes on what it was, settings, depth, etc.

4. Swap detectors, and go find target with the second detector.

5. Cross check with first detector.

6. Continue swapping the two detectors and repeating this process for as long and as many targets as it takes to reach reasonable conclusions. 100 targets is a start, at 1000 targets you can start to think you might know what you are talking about. The goal in constantly swapping detectors is to see if one detector can find something the other can not. Maybe for ten one goes first, the next ten the other goes first, whatever. But both have to have an equal shot at finding something the other cannot. This is far harder to do than you might think.

7. Always realize results are only valid for the particular ground and on the particular types of targets found. A totally different location with different mineralization, and types of targets (gold nuggets for instance vary greatly in different places), may yield different results.

This process can take many days if not months and can't be rushed. The only thing we want detectors to do is find targets in the ground that usually have been buried a long time, often in a complex 3D matrix. Air tests, test gardens, buried targets etc. all provide some additional information, but in my opinion never substitute for extensive cross testing on "found targets". Even that works best only with multiple locations and multiple operators over time and is why any company will come up short. It will take the first generation of real world users a year to do the final testing and by comparing notes come to genuine conclusions that can finally be trusted. That’s the reason why we have updates after release, more use reveals things missed by the prototype testers. They will miss things because the sheer hours needed at different locations around the world on different ground and targets is impossible for any handful of testers to undertake with 100% success.

My experience with modern top performing VLF detectors, is that it is very hard to find genuine targets where one detector really shines compared to the other. With most targets both units will fare just as well. I therefore pay particular attention to fringe targets and "iffy signals"  trying to get a situation where one detector has a clear edge over the other. Most machines are so good now it takes a lot of time to find the edge, one over the other, if it exists at all. More often I just decide I like one or the other more for other reasons doing more with ergonomics, tones, etc. than anything else. In general almost all good detectors have a small edge in some way if you take the time to find it, with no one detector being best at all things. It's also easy to find a "gotcha" for most detectors if you try, but think about it, if a detector is not quite so good at separation but goes twice as deep as one that does, does that mean it's a bad detector? What excels for one person on their targets and ground will be different for another person and their targets and ground. A single setting change might shift the conclusion of any YouTube test. Beware declarations of absolutes, winners and losers, one detector that rules them all.

I understand that people like bumper sticker answers. Something that fits in a few minutes of video. To draw large conclusions from minimal data. People don’t want to buy two detectors to test… they want somebody else to do it for them. They don’t want to take the time and effort to test properly as I have described. Some even enjoy the sport of it by making air tests into some kind of thing in and of themself. Metal detectors as gladiators in the ring. I understand all that and that’s fine. Just don’t try and tell me that any few minutes of quick YouTube air tests is some sort a real substitute for doing the hard work, because it’s not. It’s just not. The real world and real answers rarely fit on a bumper sticker.

[JCR]

What Steve H said so succinctly above.

Welcome to a very passionate & informed Forum @Prymek. Your input here will be welcomed, I am sure.

[Past Member]

2 hours ago, Steve Herschbach said:

I for one am not criticizing him or his video. I am criticizing the idea that air tests are definitive. Like I said in my first post the video is interesting, it’s a data point, a place to start. Perhaps a truth is being revealed that needs more follow up. One thing I can say is a fact is that in all my years of metal detecting testing for various companies I have never once tried to tell any of them that their detector was failing based on any air test.

Air tests are definitive as a reference point. Iffy also does in ground tests and also collaborates with the manufacturers. He has mentioned that the manufacturers use elevated nail tests. 

He does occasionally receive some flak for the air tests. For example, here's a snippet from one of the comments in the video:

 

johnjomp:

Not even close to a realistic comparison. It's a good start. Do a comparison with targets buried in the ground.

IffySignals:

Thx for the feedback John. This is a best case scenario of unmasking and iron filter performance. If it cannot do it here (removing soil conditions) its not going to do it in the ground. Even our top companies use baseline tests exactly like this.

 

[Prymek]

the same can be said about air depth tests, " this is the best case scenario " " If it cannot do it here (removing soil conditions) its not going to do it in the ground " However, what is important is everything that the detector has inside it, not the fragments of possibilities tested in a non-real environment . There are detectors that have great range in the air, but they have huge drops in the ground and that's why no one does such tests anymore . the world around us is infinite, an infinite number of possibilities reduced to wooden blocks and the detector's evaluation is better or worse. Bad method = bad conclusions. Only fieldwork provides any meaningful answers

[palzynski]

4 hours ago, Digalicious said:

Air tests are definitive as a reference point. ...

Look at the video at 08:43 with the Nokta , at the "pretty crazy" sentence moment . Well if I had to dig such scratchy signals I would end my day with tons of ferrous targets ... 🙂

The pb with such tests is they are biased because the tester knows there is a target there. Then he will always tend to say that yes the detector has located the target even if he would have never dug it in the field . .

Field tests are statistically much more valid because they are blind tests where the tester has no idea about the target's location , then no bias at all .   The true reality ... 🙂

 

[Past Member]

3 minutes ago, palzynski said:

Look at the video at 08:43 , at the "pretty crazy" sentence . Well if I had to dig such signals I would spend my whole day digging ferrous targets .

The pb with such tests is they are biased bec ause the tester knows that the t

At 8:43 the detector is giving a nonferrous tone and a nonferrous ID. In my iron infested sites, I most certainly would have dug that.

 

[palzynski]

3 hours ago, Digalicious said:

At 8:43 the detector is giving a nonferrous tone and a nonferrous ID. In my iron infested sites, I most certainly would have dug that.

 

Personnaly I just hear a single scratchy signal at 08:43 and nothing else ... I know that the audio is a personal feeling and I have probably missed something ... 🙂