Where are the Testbed Reviews?

[John n Washington]

I'm only half surprised that it is not possible to find but a few semi-scientific evaluation comparing depth detection of varioius modern detectors. One would think designing a comparitive test in different soils, at differing depths, on differing metalic objects with all major detectors would put an end to the discussion "which detector is best". But then, which major detector company would sanction any test that would reveal the TRUTH.

My point, I just can't stand the hype. Can you trust the detector reviews done by someone being paid by the manufacture? Have you ever read a review stating the detector stinks? No, and you won't -- every review ends by highly recommending Brand X detector. It's all hype to sell you. The same magazine that loved Brand XX as a 'deep' seeking detector also allows advertising for junk like dowsers -- pleeze -- no itegrity!

It is only rational to discuss which detector is best objectively. You must argue with FACTS. Facts are king not anecdotal stories. Misleading statements are made, like, "My detector found a dime at 8" but no other detector could find it" or "I dug a half dollar out in a 'hunted out' area" so Brand XX detector must be superior or "Brand XX detector is the best and I've tried them all". Arrrgh! I am frustrated because these assements pass for meaningful evaluations and more frustrated that someone with access to many popular detectors hasn't posted a true evaluation.

You know, detectors do not work by magic. They obey the laws of physics. Therefore they can be logically evaluated under controlled conditions. It is actually possible to know which detector is best by category (deepest detection being of primary importance). It can be done. So? Who has access to a variety of detectors and would be willling to setup a testbed, performan an evaluation, and write a non-partial report?

john

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

A History of Mining on the Kenai Peninsula, Alaska - Grab it through Amazon!

[Mirage]

John,

The problem is there is a lot of subjectivity involved in reviews. You cannot declare a detector "better" because it will id properly 10 out of 12 targets at such and such depths in such and such soil conditions. I do agree with you that I am surprised that no one has come up with more of a table that compares detectors and what depths they will achieve under what conditions.

I do have a DFX, Quattro, Explorer II and White's Classic III. I also had a Fisher Coinstrike which I recently sold. I also have at least 5 months experience with each of these and feel I became proficient at using each one. So when I do a "review" of a metal detector it is only in reference to those with which I am familiar with( I am still writing up my reviews of each and will post in the different sections here). I have done "objective" tests with each of these detectors in my coin garden(only about 9 months old). This is only one data point but seems accurate of what others report in the field. However, field conditions do effect the performance of each unit(some more than others). My recent trip to New York was very educational. I was also very surprised at the test results in my coin garden with the DFX. Field results are much better than what the test garden results show.

Each Metal Detector is a tool and certain people are more skillful with certain tools. Also the right application of the tool is necessary to get the best results.

Mirage

 

[John n Washington]

Mirage,

I understand your position on 'test beds' and the problem that operater experience can have on the results. I've seen 'tests' where the detector was set to factory presets -- not a good way to test the capability of any detector.

I would like to hear experienced detectorists who have evaluated their own detectors side-by-side and see if we can determine the relative strengths of each. For instance, if a new Minelab has better depth in all metal than the White's detector used previously, based on unbiased testing with samples -- that tells something about the detectors ability in one area. Enough test results should paint a fairly reliable picture of the top selling models. It just seems to be taboo to make substantiated and quantitative statements about detectors weaknesses. One would think the hobby would be abuzz with tests and counter-tests. But, apparently it is mostly rhetoric and horse stories.

john

 

[Jeffro]

there was a link posted a few days ago to a site with side by side tests done in controlled conditions with several of the brand names, different models by each. Turns out most of the biggies were comparable with each other, which tells me there is nothing new under the sun, at least as far as a controlled study can do. Was pleasantly surprised to see my model within an inch of one costing several times as much though.

But that doesn't mean anything if I put mine up against theirs in the soil conditions theirs was designed for. Just for giggles, I run a Fisher cz-5 and it performed quite well against a minelab. But if I went to Australia, well, that may not be the case.

Also, this particular site was hawking their PI model, and compared it to all VLF models. So apples to oranges again.....

 

[stoney56]

IMO soil conditions are more important than various models. I remember one gentleman that was having problems getting any depth, sent his detector in twice for calibration, and nothing changed. Finally the factory asked for some soil samples of his area. He sent it in and their final conclusion was to tell him he was better off moving somewhere else. I guess he changed manufacturers and found it was cheaper than moving.

 

[John n Washington]

Yes, difficult soils limit detector depth. But it should limit depth of all detectors more or less the same. As was stated "there is nothing new under the sun". That is, unless someone invented a new law of physics.

But when testing side-by-side, though the max depth is not comparable to another test in different soils it is relatively comparable to the detectors being tested. Given enough data points from a variety of individuals filling in the matrix for their soil types and detector -- it would soon be possible to give a semi-scientific evaluation of which detector has the superior depth detection, either by soil type or in general.

The more people who would pony up test results on common targets (coins are standardized targets that work well as rings vary by alloy and would not compare well from test to test) the greater the confidence factor.

john

 

[Jeffro]

It'd be nice to have a site where a standard form was ready and waiting for each individual to fill in the blanks, at least as much as he or she could. But then again, not scientific. So the results could be skewed. And under scientific, controlled conditions, the soil factor comes in again.

"Yes, difficult soils limit detector depth. But it should limit depth of all detectors more or less the same."

And with every statement like this comes the hype. "well our detector has 128 different operating frequencies which helps peer through the soil better than a single frequency"

Who knows if it does or doesn't?

Anyways, I doubt if any one detctor will ever be proven to be "better" than another. It is all just a matter of preference.

If there is anything reliable at all to go by, I would go by the brand that has the least complaints, most user friendly, with the best reports of customer service in case of glitches and emergencies. And stick with name brands that have a solid reputation when you're sorting them out.

I run a Whites and a Fisher and this is how I chose both. I am completely satisfied with each. Although it remains to be seen how Fisher's lifetime warranty will hold up now that BH has bought them out. So far, I haven't heard much good.

My CZ has taken a licking and it's still ticking, so I guess I won't worry about it too much. But if the time comes and they try charging me more than a new detector will cost to fix it, well then, I'll demand it back and go elsewhere.

Anyways, my two cents.

 

[John n Washington]

Anyways, I doubt if any one detector will ever be proven to be "better" than another. It is all just a matter of preference.

I'm afraid that preference in lieu of facts is mostly the case of better marketing hype. People buy based on motivations that they are not usually fully aware - such as how something looks, its reputation, cost alone, name identity, or peer recommendations. Basically the reasons are subjective -- the actual performance is not known by anyone because there has never been a controlled test performed. Group-think, peer pressure, fear of being different, undying loyalty to a company will keep most buyers coming back.

It appears that cleaver marketing, the common practice of buying reviews, lots of advertising money is a substitute for cold hard facts. Take a look at the detectors you have. What do you really know about their performance capabilities. Should you buy Tesoro, Whites, Minelab, Compass, Garrett, or a dozen other detectors? In the end you buy not knowing if you could have done better.

I agree that there should be a fill-in matrix for private test results of standardized targets. You can be sure each detector manufacture extensively studies their competion and tests their competions capabilities thoroughly. It is the consumer that is left chiefly in the dark.

Now, is there a way on this board to make available a table that members can log their own test results? It probably has never been done amongst the detectorist community. But why not? Anyone know how?

john

 

[stoney56]

I'm afraid that preference in lieu of facts is mostly the case of better marketing hype. People buy based on motivations that they are not usually fully aware - such as how something looks, its reputation, cost alone, name identity, or peer recommendations. Basically the reasons are subjective -- the actual performance is not known by anyone because there has never been a controlled test performed. Group-think, peer pressure, fear of being different, undying loyalty to a company will keep most buyers coming back.

Yes, loyalty does play a big part because if a person has had good success with that particular brand in the past, they'll usually return to that brand in the future but a lot will also keep an open mind on others since they may want certain features that may not always be available when newer models come out.
Again as stated above, soil conditions vary so much that one model or brand's frequency may not be optimal for that particular area. If it didn't matter then there'd only be one detector out there on the market that could do it all.
IMO if a detector is sensitive to gold, be it small jewelry or tiny nuggets then it will also have a sensitivity to iron since they're both lower down on the scale. At the same time, it will also probably behave erratically on a beach setting with mineral salts and black sand. Mine happens to have a non-ferrus mode to eliminate iron but still has a time with larger nails that are either surface or sub-surface especially if they've been leaching into the soil for years and they still sound off in a higher disc.

 

[ParkHunter61]

John,
You do have a point.
Maybe you can do it. ( compare md's side by side )
See a need - fill it.
Bill

 

[lms7652]

Have you ever read a review stating the detector stinks? No, and you won't -- every review ends by highly recommending Brand X detector. It's all hype to sell you.

I often wondered the same thing. Most reviews you see only seem to hype the detector. One thing I have noticed is that sometimes when a person tries to post a bad review they are blasted by a lot of people claiming its operator error, etc. Sometimes the post is even removed by moderators. This makes people leary of even giving their opinion.

For example I think the newer Fisher F series are way over priced and poorly constructed. They just have a cheap plastic feel to them. The older CZ models are tanks. But if you were to go by some peoples reviews they are the latest greatest thing going. That may be the case if they have never owned a quality built metal detector.

 

[SaginawIan]

If you want to really know how a detector performs (depth or quality etc.) - I have had success in PM - ing people that have and use that detector. People love to talk about their detectors - good or bad. I know I do. People are more likely to give honest and blunt opinions(less brand loyalty) in private - rather than on a brand named board. For instance, If I had only read reviews of the F series detectors posted all over the net - about build problems etc. . . I wouldn't have bought the F75. However, I contacted several T-net members - got the good and bad about the F75 - and bought it. My best move in a while.



Ian

 

[Willy]

I just picked up a used F75 and, so far, am impressed. It has it's warts, but what detector doesn't? When it comes to testbed reviews there are a few problems that arise. First, how does a person know if each detector reviewed is operating at the same sensitivity, disc, GB setting, threshold, and such? Just looking at the settings doesn't mean squat. The sensitivity setting of 5 on one detector might be the equivalent to a 9 on another. Same goes for disc.; what are the cutoffs? Another thing to consider is owner experience/preference. I run my detectors hot.. really hot. This gives me fabulous depth but a person has to know the difference between chatter and a target and have a detector with certain features. Some detectors won't tolerate being run that way and others do just fine. This could also skew results insofar as most people are not willing to run their machines in such a manner.
Personally, when it comes to posting stuff vs. PM's, I prefer posting in the open forum. If somebody doesn't like what I have to say, well TOUGH.. go cry to mommy. When they cannot refute something intelligently and resort to the equivalent of name calling and baseless deriding, they show to the world in general what fools they are. It then becomes an amusing demonstration of 'virtual' flexibility; just how far can buddy insert that foot into his mouth.. and can he get the other one in? ..Willy.

 

[Coin Digger]

Wow - I posted the same idea (more or less) for comparing detectors sometime ago and was blasted by the experts for such an idea.

http://forum.treasurenet.com/index.php/topic,197956.0.html

 

[Monty]

I posted a review some time ago that was not 100% favorable about a popular product and the manufacturer contacted me and told me how wrong I was! I still am not crazy about the product but I will not post another review. Monty

 

[ParkHunter61]

That really sucks Monty'

All the people who fought and died
for are right to speak freely.
It makes me sad.

When a respected member on these forums says something
bad about some company's product it CAN effect there sales.

Thats what everthing seem to be about ( $$$$$ ) and there bottom line
not the freedom to give your opinion and giving people info
they are looking for.

I like when people argue - it makes the best threads and I seem to get
more info in those thread and there fun ( maybe i'm just sick in the head).

Bill

 

[TimC (North Alabama)]

Hey John, I've thought alot about this topic and have decided to insert my two cents for what ever my be worth, after all you get what you pay for. I have 18 detectors, every thing from the Garrett ADS III from the 80's to the new Minelab Etrac and the thing I can definitely confirm is that what may me good, deep and accurate here in my home town is not just 30 or 40 mile away. All I can give are the facts as they are for me here in North Alabama because of the vast differences in soil in just a few miles and it is that, the soil and the users familiarity with the said detector that truly determines the detectors usefulness and comparability with the others. When I go detecting in new territory is to more like a science experiment than a hunting trip at first because I will take 4 or 5 detectors into unfamiliar territory for the compatibility test to see which one is more stable and suited to the task at hand and in my surroundings those tend to the the Tesoros that ground balance, the multi-frequency Minelabs and the Nautilus IIb that also manually ground balances, the preset, auto tracking (excluding BBS and FFS Minelabs and xterra 70) ground balancing machines tend not to be as deep and accurate for me around here. The coils one uses also has to be taken into account in matching the detector to the scene to be hunted, the DD coils are just better in the soil around here because you don't know when your going to run into a patch of iron or red clay enriched soil, and are better in North/Central Alabama because of the iron and clay content while the concentric is better to the south with milder mineralization, but all regions has different soil pocket which is the reason for several detectors and different coils on a first hunt. When all is tested I stick with the best for that particular site and have fun.
In my region the ones that work better for me is
1. Nautilus and Manual GB Tesoro's (simple and easy to use)
2. Minlab Sov. GT, Explorer/Etrac, Xterra 70
3. Whites DFX and MXT ( a bit chattery sometimes, depends on soil content)
4. Fisher F75 (extremely sensitive and as deep as the others except the Nautilus, but is finicky sometimes as far as having to twiddle with the setting sometimes.

These are my favorites to use most of the time that tend to give me the best results in the field for my particular surrounding area, but can and will be different everyone, because no two people interprets a detect the same all the time and of course the soil conditions in your area contributes much to the detectors effectiveness and remember choose the right bullets for the weapon (coil for detector) many folks, ads and reviews forgets about that little important fact.

Well that's my two cents, thanks for letting me chat!

Tim

 

[Willy]

Hey Tim! I notice that you have the MXT, DFX, and F75. I just picked up a used F75 and my buddy is thinking about picking up a detector that he'll want to use for deeeep targets in tough ground, and possibly some prospecting. Well, he has the MXT (with the 2 White's Eclipse DD's) and has to decide between the DFX or F75.. IF either of them can get better depth than the MXT. So far, in my (indoor, 'cause it's cold & snowing) tests, I've seen the F75 w. stock DD exhibit a bit better sensitivity to small gold (less than 1/3 grain) than the MXT did with either DD, but that's about it till it warms up. Given that you've used all three detectors, what's your take? ..Willy.

 

[TimC (North Alabama)]

Hey Willy, I sat done this morning and wrote an email to answer you question with a lot of thought and the ole computer locked up and lost it. so here it is again in a nutshell. The F75 is my choice for deep digging second only to the Nautilus, but if Gold prospecting is involved the MXT gets my nod, but for me the F75 has been my detector of choice for general detecting especially in the woods away from any electical interference, because it drives it nuts, the Nauty would be my fave but is sometimes difficult to balnace the loop, but when it is watch out nothin can touch it.
Tim

 

[Willy]

I got your PM Tim. Didn't have time to reply 'cause it was Christmas shopping time and I'm Toby boy. It's good to hear about the exceptional depth of the F75, since my buddy Cliff is going to be hunting some really deep coins/artifacts. He has a habit of buying a detector and finding out, once we meet up again, that it's totally inappropriate for his intended use. Last time it was a Fisher Gold Bug II for coins (??) and gold . Even for nuggethunting, it wasn't the best choice 'cause of the truly nasty ground here. In fact, doing side by side tests on buried gold (down to abt 1/4 grain) the GB 2 was beaten by an MXT and XTerra 70. Before that, it was a Minelab GP 4000. That's why I told him to hold off and let me test out some detectors and then he can buy what I recommend. I know, sounds like a god complex, but he's made some really bad choices and lost a lot of money. I usually end up having to sell them for him since he knows next to nothing about computers or the internet. On top of that, he quite often buys from local dealers and pays MSRP! OUCH!!. ..Willy.