Detector Depth do you have to Pay for it?

[undertaker]

My brother and I have ace 250s which we picked up new for around $200.00 each. We have found alot of clad coins, tokens and some silver also musketballs, buttons and tons of junk. My brother is talking about upgrading to a whites so he can get more depth. We have hit some very old sites where we have been skunked and we walk away with the feeling what have we missed? Are the coins there and are detectors arn't reaching them. Will a $800.00 whites detect deeper that a $200.00 ace? I know they will discriminate better.

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Agony and Death on a Gold Rush Steamer: The Disastrous Sinking of the Side-Wheeler Yankee Blade - Grab it through Amazon!

[rwsnc]

I agree with many here that are saying .... you don't need to spend $$$$ to get depth. In my opinion, depth is a factor of your coil size, the object size and your sensitivity setting.

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Cry Of The Eagle: History And Legends Of The Cherokee Indians And Their Buried Treasure - Grab it through Amazon!

[steve from ohio]

IF the inexpensive machines were that good as all their proponents say, they would be the ones everyone would be buying because they would do the job just fine.

Every in the field test I have seen has shown that the high end Minelabs, Fishers and Whites are the best in depth and ability.

To say that a $200 detector will perform as well as a $1500 detector is like saying a mini bike will beat a Suzuki Hyabusta motorcycle.

I will put my $1500 E-trac against a Garrett Ace 250 and I will beat it every time. Not to say the ace is a bad machine. Far from it. The Ace has its place and is a fine machine. I love mine. The Ace is great for finding recently lost change at parks and fairs. It is great for clad and down to about 5 or 6 inches it does the job. The E-trac can and does go deeper because it has the horsepower and the technology to make the finds that the Ace can never do.

I hear the argument from time to time that this less expensive machine is as good as.......I say it all comes down to first knowing your machine and secondly the ability of the machine to perform in a given situation. The more expensive machines have the ability to adapt to bad ground, trash and EMI to make detecting far easier than with a less expensive machine with less options. Luck does have a small part of it all, but knowledge and technology will win every time.

The big guns in metal detecting always go to the best technology and then make the technology part of them. They learn their machines and adjust them to changing conditions. When someone learns their machines to the point of it becoming part of them, the high end machines will always beat the lesser machines.

The high end machines are definitely an edge and will make better and deeper finds.

 

[rwsnc]

IF the inexpensive machines were that good as all their proponents say, they would be the ones everyone would be buying because they would do the job just fine.

Every in the field test I have seen has shown that the high end Minelabs, Fishers and Whites are the best in depth and ability.

To say that a $200 detector will perform as well as a $1500 detector is like saying a mini bike will beat a Suzuki Hyabusta motorcycle.

I will put my $1500 E-trac against a Garrett Ace 250 and I will beat it every time. Not to say the ace is a bad machine. Far from it. The Ace has its place and is a fine machine. I love mine. The Ace is great for finding recently lost change at parks and fairs. It is great for clad and down to about 5 or 6 inches it does the job. The E-trac can and does go deeper because it has the horsepower and the technology to make the finds that the Ace can never do.

I hear the argument from time to time that this less expensive machine is as good as.......I say it all comes down to first knowing your machine and secondly the ability of the machine to perform in a given situation. The more expensive machines have the ability to adapt to bad ground, trash and EMI to make detecting far easier than with a less expensive machine with less options. Luck does have a small part of it all, but knowledge and technology will win every time.

The big guns in metal detecting always go to the best technology and then make the technology part of them. They learn their machines and adjust them to changing conditions. When someone learns their machines to the point of it becoming part of them, the high end machines will always beat the lesser machines.

The high end machines are definitely an edge and will make better and deeper finds.

Well... I guess there's not much since in discussing this any further. You are obviously the expert here.

 

[steve from ohio]

Well... I guess there's not much since in discussing this any further. You are obviously the expert here.

NOT an expert but I do have over 25 years of metal detecting under my belt and I have owned over 35 detectors in my career. I have had the advantage of learning from some of the better MD'ers of the past and as I like to say, I would much rather learn from those who do than those who only teach.

I was not trying to stop discussion but to point out that technology does give you a decided edge. Weather you choose to learn how to use that edge is up to you. That edge along with knowledge is the way to better finds.

I just wanted to put my two cents in here with my experiences and the experiences of the folks who I have known and give some advice to the original poster.

IN the last 25 years, every time a new technology or machine comes out, I usually get it and use it. That has helped me with my finds and has made detecting a lot more fun. And that is what detecting is all about. FUN.

 

[rwsnc]

I can certainly understand your passion on this subject. Back in the late 70's when I started detecting, the TR detectors were standard. I bought a Compass Relic Magnum 7 (VLF/TR discriminator) and shortly after bought a Compass Coin Magnum (VLF/VLF discriminator). Both had 8" coils and depth was pretty much limited to around 8". In my opinion this whole depth issue today is mostly effected by the size of the coils. I believe that if all else was equal, wider coils will find things deeper in the ground. Of course, experience and the ability to pick out a faint signal is important too.

I currently use the XT70 and admittedly am NOT an expert with that machine (no sarcasm intended). Have had it for over a year and still learning it's fine little nuances.

It's good to see passion over our hobby. Keep it up.

 

[steve from ohio]

In this one thing size does definitely matter. The size of the coil vs the size of the target. very little else matters except for Operator experience.

With all respect, I do differ on just that point. Everything else I agree with.

Metal detectors are like people. Some people can sing, others should be shot for trying. Some can dance, others have no legs. Sorry, I just sometimes get a little (or a lot) goofy.

IF that was the case, the Ace 250 with a big coils would be all that would be seen in the field looking for relics. All the old machines would still be used and the market for new machines would be far less than it is today. I agree with a previous post that detectors are nothing more than tools. The higher the quality of tool, the better the end result IF the user learns how to use it.

The Minelab FBS and BBS technology has an advantage in many instances. So much so that White's started seeing the handwriting on the wall and started using dual frequencies in their top end machines. The ability of the Minelabs to ignore ground conditions makes them more able to find the good deep stuff than a detector at a certain frequency that cannot adapt to the ground conditions. That is one thing you are paying for when spending the big bucks.

The you have the ability of the higher end machines to tailor the machine to your style of hunting. Audio is a very important feature that can be overlooked with the less technically advanced machines. I know some people who cannot even use certain detectors because they cannot hear what the detector is telling them. Then there is the screen and all the adjustments that can be made to allow for a more accurate appraisal of the target. And don't forget that with the new technology, discrimination is now not a dirty word in MD'ing. With today's technology, especially with the E-trac, it is better to run with some discrimination.

Yes there are some people who can take a stick and two wires and find stuff with that. But for the vast majority of people out in the field, they really do need the help of technology. Not everyone can or will get as good as you may possibly be with your set up. I have no doubt that there are people who are so good with their older technology because they know their machines strengths and weaknesses.

I know that everyone has their opinion on this. Some good points on each side.

To answer the question depth and cost, there is a correlation. The more advanced machines will go deeper. Ask a Fisher F75 user. Ask a Minelab E-trac or Explorer user. Most who have gravitated to the higher end machines did so for a reason. Not because they are ignorant and don't know what they are doing as the supposition seems to be made by those who say that a cheap machine is just as good. Not because of a sales pitch. Most bought their high end machines because they are better. The technology is better.

The good news is that as time passes, the technology gets cheaper and all new machines get better for it. After all, who would of thought 30 years ago that an Ace 250 with its abilities at around 200 bucks would even be possible. Imagine what an Ace 250 would have cost back then and the historic impact it would have had for all of technology.

 

[Willy]

I'll have to chip in here.. the FBS/BBS detectors don't 'ignore' ground conditions. Not even their top-of-the-line ($5000) PI's ignore ground conditions. If the FBS/BBS detectors 'ignored' ground conditions, nobody would be forking out $5000 for a PI that doesn't do so. If they 'ignored' ground conditions, they could be run at maximum sensitivity all the time.. I don't tink so. as for depth.. how many relic hunters are using Nautilus detectors? How often do they come out with new models? Depthwise, I'd put a Compass X-100 up against anything made today, especially in bad ground. Do I own one? Nope.. not because their bad detectors, but the company went belly up and repairs become problematic.
It's been posted before (not by me) and I generally believe it, that metal detecting technology has been basically stagnant for the last decade (VLF). Basically, all that we're getting is refinements and 'sleight of hand'. For example, has anyone noticed stock coil sizes increasing over the years? This goes hand-in-hand with increased depth claims. About the last major advance in VLF (read new & innovative) was the Garrett imaging system, and that's getting pretty long in the tooth. If you REALLY want a knowledgeable answer from people who actually tear apart and build detectors, check out the Geotech forum. Those guys are hardcore and pretty quick to cut through B.S. ..Willy.

 

[Keppy]

In this one thing size does definitely matter. The size of the coil vs the size of the target. very little else matters except for Operator experience.

With all respect, I do differ on just that point. Everything else I agree with.

Metal detectors are like people. Some people can sing, others should be shot for trying. Some can dance, others have no legs. Sorry, I just sometimes get a little (or a lot) goofy.

IF that was the case, the Ace 250 with a big coils would be all that would be seen in the field looking for relics. All the old machines would still be used and the market for new machines would be far less than it is today. I agree with a previous post that detectors are nothing more than tools. The higher the quality of tool, the better the end result IF the user learns how to use it.

The Minelab FBS and BBS technology has an advantage in many instances. So much so that White's started seeing the handwriting on the wall and started using dual frequencies in their top end machines. The ability of the Minelabs to ignore ground conditions makes them more able to find the good deep stuff than a detector at a certain frequency that cannot adapt to the ground conditions. That is one thing you are paying for when spending the big bucks.

The you have the ability of the higher end machines to tailor the machine to your style of hunting. Audio is a very important feature that can be overlooked with the less technically advanced machines. I know some people who cannot even use certain detectors because they cannot hear what the detector is telling them. Then there is the screen and all the adjustments that can be made to allow for a more accurate appraisal of the target. And don't forget that with the new technology, discrimination is now not a dirty word in MD'ing. With today's technology, especially with the E-trac, it is better to run with some discrimination.

Yes there are some people who can take a stick and two wires and find stuff with that. But for the vast majority of people out in the field, they really do need the help of technology. Not everyone can or will get as good as you may possibly be with your set up. I have no doubt that there are people who are so good with their older technology because they know their machines strengths and weaknesses.

I know that everyone has their opinion on this. Some good points on each side.

To answer the question depth and cost, there is a correlation. The more advanced machines will go deeper. Ask a Fisher F75 user. Ask a Minelab E-trac or Explorer user. Most who have gravitated to the higher end machines did so for a reason. Not because they are --deleted-- and don't know what they are doing as the supposition seems to be made by those who say that a cheap machine is just as good. Not because of a sales pitch. Most bought their high end machines because they are better. The technology is better.

The good news is that as time passes, the technology gets cheaper and all new machines get better for it. After all, who would of thought 30 years ago that an Ace 250 with its abilities at around 200 bucks would even be possible. Imagine what an Ace 250 would have cost back then and the historic impact it would have had for all of technology.

Steve.. I have to go along with ..Ernest T bass ..&.. willy.. they are right VLF is VLF no matter what you pay for your detector and if you could get a 12 inch or 15 inch coil for a Ace 250 it would go as deep as you $1000.00 or $1500.00 detectors...Your BBS and FBS Multi Frequencies will not go any deeper than a single one will .and a single Freq will find any thing your Multi Freq. will find . The reason Whites went to Dual Freq's was to get more sales not because it was better than single. It is all in your Dreams or minds if you think a $1500.00 VLF will go deeper than a $200.00 VLF detector.. I use the Sovereign BBS detector and i what BBS stands for is ..Bunch of Bull Sh__ and what FBS stands for is... Full of Bull Sh__.................................Jim

 

[kando]

All i can say about this whole thing is that Ernest t Bass and Willy And Jim_K are right they don't live in a dream world...............

 

[Keppy]

IF the inexpensive machines were that good as all their proponents say, they would be the ones everyone would be buying because they would do the job just fine.

Every in the field test I have seen has shown that the high end Minelabs, Fishers and Whites are the best in depth and ability.

To say that a $200 detector will perform as well as a $1500 detector is like saying a mini bike will beat a Suzuki Hyabusta motorcycle.

I will put my $1500 E-trac against a Garrett Ace 250 and I will beat it every time. Not to say the ace is a bad machine. Far from it. The Ace has its place and is a fine machine. I love mine. The Ace is great for finding recently lost change at parks and fairs. It is great for clad and down to about 5 or 6 inches it does the job. The E-trac can and does go deeper because it has the horsepower and the technology to make the finds that the Ace can never do.

I hear the argument from time to time that this less expensive machine is as good as.......I say it all comes down to first knowing your machine and secondly the ability of the machine to perform in a given situation. The more expensive machines have the ability to adapt to bad ground, trash and EMI to make detecting far easier than with a less expensive machine with less options. Luck does have a small part of it all, but knowledge and technology will win every time.

The big guns in metal detecting always go to the best technology and then make the technology part of them. They learn their machines and adjust them to changing conditions. When someone learns their machines to the point of it becoming part of them, the high end machines will always beat the lesser machines.

The high end machines are definitely an edge and will make better and deeper finds.

Steve , The reason why every buys the most expensive detector is...EGO.. and always wanting the most expensive so they can say look what i got and i can take a Ace 250 or Tesoro and find any thing you can find . Then you would still not believe for it would cause your dream world to fall apart and kill your Ego..........

 

[steve from ohio]

I'll have to chip in here.. the FBS/BBS detectors don't 'ignore' ground conditions. Not even their top-of-the-line ($5000) PI's ignore ground conditions.

According to the noted expert on Minelabs and many other detectors, Andy Sabisch, on page 10 of his book "The Minelab Explorer and E-trac Handbook", I will quote: "Minelab found that by transmitting multiple frequencies simultaneously, they were able to maximize overall detection depth on the full spectrum of targets. In essence, ignoring the ground the detector saw beneath the search coil." End quote.

I have also been reading some of the documents by a couple of engineers that state that the Minelab FBS and BBS machines are closer to a PI wave than a VLF wave. That also sets the Minelabs apart from other machines. PI machines offer more depth. The Minelabs are a hybrid type machine according to what I have been reading.

The technology that Minelab has is used by the Mel Fisher group for a very good reason. It is in most cases they feel is far superior to whatever else is out there. I've been out in the field and have seen Explorers and E-tracs finding stuff that many other detectors missed. I would ask that if you feel that your machine is the machine to have, great! To each his own. I won't argue that your machine is obsolete. It isn't. I just like an edge.

I won't get into an argument about ego and all that. Lets keep the discussion on a more technical level.

 

[Willy]

The statement "ignoring the ground the detector saw beneath the search coil" is really misleading. It really says nothing. The same thing can be said about any ground tracking or manually ground balanced detector. As for "a couple of engineers that state that the Minelab FBS and BBS machines are closer to a PI wave than a VLF wave".. sorry to burst your bubble, but PI's don't utilize a 'wave'. They transmit a very short pulse and then shut off the transmit circuitry. Then, after a short delay, which allows the ground signal to decay (decrease in intensity), the receive circuit turns on. The BBS/FBS detectors, from what I've read, do NOT exhibit this characteristic; they're always transmitting. That's the basis of a modern (and not so modern) VLF detector. The only detector that I know of (actually there might be another made by Allen Westerman) that can be considered a hybrid is Dave Emery's Pulse Devil. Using a square wave type of signal doesn't automatically make for a PI detector. ..Willy.

 

[Keppy]

I'll have to chip in here.. the FBS/BBS detectors don't 'ignore' ground conditions. Not even their top-of-the-line ($5000) PI's ignore ground conditions.

According to the noted expert on Minelabs and many other detectors, Andy Sabisch, on page 10 of his book "The Minelab Explorer and E-trac Handbook", I will quote: "Minelab found that by transmitting multiple frequencies simultaneously, they were able to maximize overall detection depth on the full spectrum of targets. In essence, ignoring the ground the detector saw beneath the search coil." End quote.

I have also been reading some of the documents by a couple of engineers that state that the Minelab FBS and BBS machines are closer to a PI wave than a VLF wave. That also sets the Minelabs apart from other machines. PI machines offer more depth. The Minelabs are a hybrid type machine according to what I have been reading.

The technology that Minelab has is used by the Mel Fisher group for a very good reason. It is in most cases they feel is far superior to whatever else is out there. I've been out in the field and have seen Explorers and E-tracs finding stuff that many other detectors missed. I would ask that if you feel that your machine is the machine to have, great! To each his own. I won't argue that your machine is obsolete. It isn't. I just like an edge.

I won't get into an argument about ego and all that. Lets keep the discussion on a more technical level.

Now with Andy and these other people you quote sort of make Money off Minelab so you have to take what they say with a grain of salt...... Just like you have to take the field test's in the treasure magazine's with a grain of salt..No matter what detector they test they find all kind of wonderfull things and those detectors are just great . You don't even know if they went out of their own back yards to do the test..............

 

[Keppy]

The statement "ignoring the ground the detector saw beneath the search coil" is really misleading. It really says nothing. The same thing can be said about any ground tracking or manually ground balanced detector. As for "a couple of engineers that state that the Minelab FBS and BBS machines are closer to a PI wave than a VLF wave".. sorry to burst your bubble, but PI's don't utilize a 'wave'. They transmit a very short pulse and then shut off the transmit circuitry. Then, after a short delay, which allows the ground signal to decay (decrease in intensity), the receive circuit turns on. The BBS/FBS detectors, from what I've read, do NOT exhibit this characteristic; they're always transmitting. That's the basis of a modern (and not so modern) VLF detector. The only detector that I know of (actually there might be another made by Allen Westerman) that can be considered a hybrid is Dave Emery's Pulse Devil. Using a square wave type of signal doesn't automatically make for a PI detector. ..Willy.

Willy... very good loved it you know your stuff...........Well you wanted to keep it on a technical level and ..Willy.. did that for you and made a lot more sense than the puppets and yes men that work for the detector companys.....

 

[steve from ohio]

The statement "ignoring the ground the detector saw beneath the search coil" is really misleading. It really says nothing. The same thing can be said about any ground tracking or manually ground balanced detector. As for "a couple of engineers that state that the Minelab FBS and BBS machines are closer to a PI wave than a VLF wave".. sorry to burst your bubble, but PI's don't utilize a 'wave'. They transmit a very short pulse and then shut off the transmit circuitry. Then, after a short delay, which allows the ground signal to decay (decrease in intensity), the receive circuit turns on. The BBS/FBS detectors, from what I've read, do NOT exhibit this characteristic; they're always transmitting. That's the basis of a modern (and not so modern) VLF detector. The only detector that I know of (actually there might be another made by Allen Westerman) that can be considered a hybrid is Dave Emery's Pulse Devil. Using a square wave type of signal doesn't automatically make for a PI detector. ..Willy.

Your argument is with the Minelab engineers and not me. I would tend to believe them seeing how they invented the technology.
Ive seen a video of a PI machine on a scope. Almost like a square wave but with a very very short time constant. I am somewhat familiar with PI detectors and know they work well. They put out pulses of magnetic waves.

PI technology sends powerful, short bursts (pulses) of current through a coil of wire. Each pulse generates a brief magnetic field. When the pulse ends, the magnetic field reverses polarity and collapses very suddenly, resulting in a sharp electrical spike. This spike lasts a few microseconds and causes another current to run through the coil. The magnetic wave induces a current in the coil and this current is called the reflected pulse and is extremely short. Another pulse is then sent and the process repeats.

The Minelab is like a PI machine may or may not be accurate. There is a big discussion going on in another site and the proponents of the notion (who are electronic engineers) that Minelab Equipment is closer to a PI machine has some merit. From the video I have seen, the Minelabs have a square wave that acts like a pulse in order to utilize the 28 frequencies being used. I don't want to get into a big discussion on that because I just want to go out and find stuff. I like to know how things work but it is not essential that I know. Better minds than I know more and I tend to learn what I can as best I can. I'm not set in my ways and if I can learn, then great. But to hear that just because I paid $1500 for a machine makes me a bad guy and dumber than a box of rocks, well that just is not the case.

As I have said, I used almost all of the top of the line machines and I found the E-trac to be the most stable, deepest detector I have seen so far. My guess is that the guys with detector envy never owned a top of the line machine and act like democrats with class envy. Tax the rich. Don't buy that expensive detector because I can't have one and so neither should you.

The main question on this thread was about an Ace 250. I say it is a great machine. Not the best as some say and not the worst as others say. I will end my comments here with this link to a possible technology we will eventually see in our metal detectors of the future. http://maic.jmu.edu/JOURNAL/5.2/features/quantum.htm

For those of us who can afford it that is.

 

[steve from ohio]

The statement "ignoring the ground the detector saw beneath the search coil" is really misleading. It really says nothing. The same thing can be said about any ground tracking or manually ground balanced detector. As for "a couple of engineers that state that the Minelab FBS and BBS machines are closer to a PI wave than a VLF wave".. sorry to burst your bubble, but PI's don't utilize a 'wave'. They transmit a very short pulse and then shut off the transmit circuitry. Then, after a short delay, which allows the ground signal to decay (decrease in intensity), the receive circuit turns on. The BBS/FBS detectors, from what I've read, do NOT exhibit this characteristic; they're always transmitting. That's the basis of a modern (and not so modern) VLF detector. The only detector that I know of (actually there might be another made by Allen Westerman) that can be considered a hybrid is Dave Emery's Pulse Devil. Using a square wave type of signal doesn't automatically make for a PI detector. ..Willy.

I have to add this from a UK site: Detectors run at various frequencies - typically from 3 to 20 kHz - with the generally agreed principal that lower frequencies penetrate deeper into the ground, but are less sensitive to small objects; and that higher frequencies penetrate less deeply but are more sensitive to small objects, particularly gold and silver. Some machines, notably the Minelab BBS and FBS machines use pulsed, multiple- frequencies. (emphasis mine)

And from Arizona Outbacks: FBS technology can be thought of as a pseudo PI operation, not real PI and not a VLF.
John Tomlinson,CET (emphasis mine)

And finally this link: http://www.ncmd.co.uk/docs/how a detector works.pdf (See section 2.9) It will explain the technology which it seems you are not familiar with.

Oh and finally, I do not work for MInelab and could not care less if anyone buys one. I hope they don't. More finds for me !!!!!!

 

[Keppy]

well if we are done with this.I will tell you all one thing i have had the most expensive detectors and the lowest priced ones. So if the argument is over then i will let you all know " I just don't care " what you use what he uses what is best for him or any one.. just what i want to use is all i care about... What i think is best is best for me.... What you think is best is best for you..... Every one has there own ideas and that is how the world works,...Every one can not like the same thing or think the same if they did this world would be a hell hole to live in ...Enjoyed the argument..... So every one have a good night........... Jim_K..

 

[kando]

Jim_K... I got your number you like to argue just for the fun of it . kando

 

[Keppy]

Jim_K... I got your number you like to argue just for the fun of it . kando

 

[Willy]

I actually posted a link to that same Bruce Candy treatise about a month and a holf ago.. so, yeah, I'm kinda familiar with the technology (http://goldprospecting.invisionplus.net/?mforum=goldprospecting&showtopic=2683). In the interests of not recycling old garbage, and wearing my two typing fingers out, I'll leave a link that makes for interesting reading: http://www.findmall.com/read.php?10,286896,289706 There are a few more I could dig up, but this is hardly one of the burning issues of our time. ..Willy.