Does visual display screens make us lazy?

[Newfiehunter]

Many years ago when I began detecting, the detectors I used were without any visual id. The finds were usually more interesting and found many gold rings because I kept discrimination lower and dug every good signal. However, in later years since using different units with visual id, my interesting finds and gold ring count seem to drop. Even though detectors with visual id are useful with indicating depth and provides more information than units without VID, perhaps we (or at least me) have a tendency to avoid digging targets that are indicated as trash according to the visual display. Have to admit when a target is shown as foil on my detector, I usually pass it up more often which I know I shouldn't do. Perhaps I should use my Vaquero more often which is my backup to my CZ5. Maybe if I just rely on the audio responses of the Vaquero with lower discrimination settings perhaps I will find more gold again. While the CZ5 is a great machine with many great finds to its credit, I think I'm passing up more gold rings because of the tendency to rely on the meter (another mistake on my part). It seems like we should listen more to our ears than what we see on the screen. What do you think?

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

A Handbook of Civil War Bullets and Cartridges - Grab it through Amazon!

[CSA2K]

Re: Does Visual Idenfication make us lazy?

12 years ago I switched to a Milelab Explorer and went through the same growing pains as most old schoolers in regards to visual vs audio output. For me it boiled down to learning the machine and using the two in tandem. I collect artillery pieces and for that I rely mostly on tone. The screen will indicate iron but the tone determines size and density.. a nail for instance vs a shell or frag. For lead, brass and precious metals I suppose I rely more on the visual aid. Obviously I'm not seeking gold like you are so I can't address that specifically.

 

[Charlie P. (NY)]

Re: Does Visual Idenfication make us lazy?

Mine shows a number 0 to 99. Also has bars at the top for coin ranges that I pay no attention to. The ID numbers give conductivity relative to the soil it is balanced to. So, knowing a detector only tells you how conductive an object is when it enters the coil's generated field, those that define the object are either guessing or assuming based on pre-programmed algorithims of what the field should react line when passing over a coin or bit of jewelry. I still dig most, but when I am getting a lot of bottlecaps at "45" that tend to have a "clicky" tone and the magnetite scale jumps I likely will chose to not dig the signals that match those clues. I learned on an audio only machine and I still rely heavily on the tone "shape" and "punctuation". Smooth "vowel" sounds are invariably better than the clicks and pauses of "consonents".

 

[Smudge]

In a word, yes. At least, I know I was guilty of that.

I finally dumped the screen and my finds have improved again.

Guess I'm not ready for the TID at this point.

 

[U.K. Brian]

I used a prototype detector a few years back that attempted to turn "possibility" meters into "probability" meters by shifting the visual readout to allow for the amount of mineralisation in the soil.

It did work to an extent but they could not get round the basic laws of the universe of detecting which are that detectors read conductivity not composition of an item, size of target skews results making them meaningless and to tie them together, which every detector does, means every good target has one or even several unwanted items that will give exactly the same reading.

 

[TerryC]

It is the SOUND. The sound is everything. Learn the sound. Displays on MDs are like adding "new car spray" to the machine. Nice, but only meant to sell it! TTC

 

[deepskyal]

I'd say yes and no, depending on my mood and how many body aches I have when I get out or on whatever site I choose.

I too started out with a basic detector with manual GB and no meter. It was monotone so you just had to interprete what the nature of the beep meant. 30 years later and I have a Vision and still use the monotone function. I really can't stand all the squeeling of various tones and trust my judgement on the single tone.

The metered machines I've used, ie: White's 6000DiPro, DFX and the White's Vision, etc...I liked the analog meter because it added a good discrimination tool to the sound. I still dug most targets but the obvious trash was nice to pass over, but it was also confirmed by the tone and the experience of using the machine over years. I KNEW that machine.

The vision has an awesome visual array of tools..and I do mean tools. I've been using one since they came out 3? years ago...(short memory span, lol) and am learning to trust the visual aids in conjunction with the tones. Lots of information given in the display like depth, size of object, probably composition, etc.

Depending if I'm just coin shooting or relic hunting determines how much of the visual display I use. Relic hunting...I don't give a hoot about the visual aid...if I get a signal I dig. If I'm just passing an hour or so in a park coin shooting, I use the visuals to cherry pick coins. I don't want to devote my time to bottle caps or foil.

Lots call it bells and whistles and I used to be one because I don't see a real significant difference in finds...but I have less time to detect, I've aged and ache a lot more and I dig a lot less trash for about the same amount of finds. Once you get a machine and LEARN to use it, it's no longer bells and whistles...it's an added tool.

I'd rather take the extra minute or 2 scanning a hole from different angles and flipping a switch to see what my machine is telling me than spend that time on my knees in wet grass or muddy ground just to dig a piece of junk. I'll leave that for someone else that's younger and has more time and energy on their hands.

I even broke down and bought a pinpointer a couple years ago to save time on finding that target in the hole or plug. I don't think that makes me any lazier than visual ID.

Al