What's new

Fisher AQ Impulse Pure Hype or the real deal ? VS Whites TDI BEACH HUNTER MINELAB MANTICORE

Yeah, I wasn’t actually responding to your comment—I was responding to Carl’s, and I probably should’ve clarified that when I mentioned the canvas and the broad stroke.

But I’ll say this: people can talk all they want about a “small slice of the pie,” but history matters.

When the XP Deus 2 first came out, I was one of the first people here with one—actually the first showing video of it after Elaine from XP sent it to me. And what did I say from my testing, my so-called “small slice of the pie”? I said it was a top-tier performer. Historically, how did that work out? Turns out it’s considered one of the best, if not the best, all-around detectors out there.

Same thing with the Minelab Manticore. What did I point out early on? It had an iron issue. And now what do you see? The stabilizer. That fix exists because people like me, from our “small slice of the pie,” identified a real-world problem that eventually got addressed for everybody.

So yes, I understand the argument that my beaches are mild to moderate. I’m not claiming they represent every beach on Earth. What I am saying is this: in 2026, on mild to moderate saltwater beaches, the Minelab Manticore is, in my opinion, the deepest simultaneous multi-frequency detector currently made. On those beaches, I can confidently say it has a depth edge over the Deus 2, though both are elite machines and very close overall.

Now here’s where it gets interesting with the AQ Impulse. One administrator said Florida sands were different. Fair enough. But then I listened to Phil Myers’ Treasure Talk livestream with Joe Beechnut and Clive Clynick, and Phil mentioned a customer getting around 12–13 inches on a nickel in Florida wet salt sand.

Well… what does that sound like?

That mirrors the exact type of results I’ve been showing repeatedly from Morehead City to Ocean Isle.

So if Florida’s wet salt beaches are producing similar numbers, then maybe—just maybe—the broader takeaway is this:

On mild to moderate beaches, simultaneous multi-frequency detectors appear to be outperforming pulse induction in practical, huntable real-world conditions.

That doesn’t mean PI is dead. It doesn’t mean PI won’t dominate on highly mineralized, volcanic, or extreme black sand beaches. What it means is we need more legitimate global testing—real beaches, real settings, real hunts—not theory.

So yes, sometimes a “small slice of the pie” can absolutely reveal truths that apply much wider than people want to admit.

Now let’s keep going—show us the mineralized beaches, show us the volcanic beaches, show us the black sand beaches—and let’s see what the data says. BTW BUY 4 Manticores and test with exact settings on same target...Any difference? That's another piece of the pie.
 
That would be interesting.

The depth advantage with PI’s are incredible on soil (highly mineralized or not). VLF 5” on a boot tack…PI maybe 24”. It’s actually the opposite kind of handicap than on a beach. People spend time digging HUGE PITS having difficulty finding the boot tack or wire bristle.

I get it - your testing and your point is only related to beaches. That matters.

Back to regular programming.
 
That would be interesting.

The depth advantage with PI’s are incredible on soil (highly mineralized or not). VLF 5” on a boot tack…PI maybe 24”. It’s actually the opposite kind of handicap than on a beach. People spend time digging HUGE PITS having difficulty finding the boot tack or wire bristle.

I get it - your testing and your point is only related to beaches. That matters.

Back to regular programming.
Yeah I have good friends who prospect out West and dig in the Culpepper type soils...I am very aware of pulse benefits in that arena.
 
I mean no disrespect, Barry, but here you are talking about how smoothly your machine runs in black sand like that—and you’ve got a YouTube channel. So while you were out there supposedly running a pulse delay of 8 in wet black sand, why not break out the camera, stick a microphone in the headphones, and actually show us? Let us hear it running stable. Let us see it in real conditions. And not just carefully managed coil control either.

Because honestly? Without video evidence, it starts sounding a little comical.

If you were genuinely trying to help, it seems like the simple response would’ve been: “Hey Calabash, here’s my machine running smooth. Here are my settings. Let me mic it up and show you.”

A lav mic costs about $30. Stick it in the headphones and demonstrate it. You seem to have enough electronics know-how that this shouldn’t be difficult.

But instead, it’s the same old story—talk, claims, theories… but no proof.

Meanwhile, I’ve shown the machine. I’ve shown multiple configurations. I’ve shown the exact settings people keep talking about. I’ve demonstrated that on my beaches, those settings did not run correctly or smoothly.

Do I have a defective unit? No.

The issue is pulse delay.

There’s a reason most metal detector companies historically didn’t put pulse delays below 10 on beach machines. Go look at what Steve Herschbach has said—once you push below 10, that’s when salt starts becoming a serious factor.

So here’s the challenge:

Take that machine down to your black sand beach.
Mic it up.
Run pulse delay 8.
Run 0 ATS.
Jack the sensitivity.
Swing it in the wet sand and waterline.
Go north and south… then east and west too.

And show us—on video—how smooth and stable it really is.

I’ll be waiting.

Thanks for your comment.
Yeah it is unfortunate that I didn’t video it. I won’t be going out for a few weeks - vacation to Florida in 2 weeks or so so it may put it off for a while. Really though, try running no threshold to start with. It isn’t a Minelab gold pi that you have to hear that tone all the time. You won’t be wanting to hear whispers either. You want it quiet and stable, start with this. I don’t know why you would need to run with a delay higher than 8. The salt is under this. I never see you run with full sensitivity and that with ATS is limiting depth. You think I’m crazy but I am trying to get your AQ to behave. If it can’t it’s time to compare with another one. Maybe some are bad and some are good. Many owners have sent their AQ back for repairs, sometimes multiple times. You bought a Limited, not a production version. Let’s see if a production version ever ships….
 
One more thing I was thinking about unblocking you...This comment shows me I made the correct decision!
Well, in the video I make I will show you both good and bad on a black sand beach. Keep an open mind.
 
Especially when we know Deus 2 and Manticore seem to yield considerable depth advantage on a US nickel on even NC’s salt beach over units like CTX 3030 and Excalibur
This is not fully correct. Having these machines I can say without a doubt the CTX is deeper in the water then these newer machines and it is possible that a PI machine is deeper in the water as well. Newer machines are very sensitive and that hurts them in the surf and when you have 6' of salt water on the top side of the coil. Dry and wet sand is not the only game on the beach and I take different machines and different coils based on the hunt plan for that day. A good test would be in 4-5' of water because that may change things a lot.
 
Yeah it is unfortunate that I didn’t video it. I won’t be going out for a few weeks - vacation to Florida in 2 weeks or so so it may put it off for a while. Really though, try running no threshold to start with. It isn’t a Minelab gold pi that you have to hear that tone all the time. You won’t be wanting to hear whispers either. You want it quiet and stable, start with this. I don’t know why you would need to run with a delay higher than 8. The salt is under this. I never see you run with full sensitivity and that with ATS is limiting depth. You think I’m crazy but I am trying to get your AQ to behave. If it can’t it’s time to compare with another one. Maybe some are bad and some are good. Many owners have sent their AQ back for repairs, sometimes multiple times. You bought a Limited, not a production version. Let’s see if a production version ever shi

This is not fully correct. Having these machines I can say without a doubt the CTX is deeper in the water then these newer machines and it is possible that a PI machine is deeper in the water as well. Newer machines are very sensitive and that hurts them in the surf and when you have 6' of salt water on the top side of the coil. Dry and wet sand is not the only game on the beach and I take different machines and different coils based on the hunt plan for that day. A good test would be in 4-5' of water because that may change things a lot.
Where is the video? I have tested the CTX myself.....
 
Last edited:
Where is the video? I have tested the CTX myself.....
Please share a link of you testing it neck deep at the beach. Have you tested any of these in more then just the wet sand? For me my data is clear by how deep i dig in the water. Have you ever dug a gold ring from in the water or even at the beach? because if you did find rings you would know there is a clear difference in the water then wet sand.
 
Please share a link of you testing it neck deep at the beach. Have you tested any of these in more then just the wet sand? For me my data is clear by how deep i dig in the water. Have you ever dug a gold ring from in the water or even at the beach? because if you did find rings you would know there is a clear difference in the water then wet sand.
Not neck deep ...The AQ IMPULSE might drown if I take it neck deep. 3FT depth rating...
 
Please share a link of you testing it neck deep at the beach. Have you tested any of these in more then just the wet sand? For me my data is clear by how deep i dig in the water. Have you ever dug a gold ring from in the water or even at the beach? because if you did find rings you would know there is a clear difference in the water then wet sand.
I actually have video of myself testing in knee-deep water. Whether it’s knee-deep or chest-deep really doesn’t change the point.

This is exactly the kind of post I’m talking about. You’re basing your conclusions on feelings, because the fact is, unless you’re putting targets on sticks and testing these detectors in the water with stable, usable, huntable settings, you really don’t know how deep you’re digging.

So everything you said is based on assumption. My conclusions are based on testing and actual data points. NOT FEELINGS....
 
Please share a link of you testing it neck deep at the beach. Have you tested any of these in more then just the wet sand? For me my data is clear by how deep i dig in the water. Have you ever dug a gold ring from in the water or even at the beach? because if you did find rings you would know there is a clear difference in the water then wet sand.
You’re trying to play the same game that some of those guys have been playing for years—the idea that because they’ve been beach hunting for 30 years and found hundreds of gold rings with ancient detectors, that somehow makes them the ultimate authority on detector performance. That’s a false assumption and a complete strawman argument.

It doesn’t matter whether you’ve found zero gold rings or 500. Facts are facts, and actual testing data is what shows how detectors truly stack up against one another.

So you can take that whole “I’m a professional beach hunter, I’ve found 90 gold rings, and I’ve been detecting 35 years” argument somewhere else. As you know, I’m more of a scuba diver and artifact hunter. I could pull out my relic cases and show all kinds of rare historical artifacts, but I don’t play that game because finds alone don’t mean much.

A lot of finds can be made with an Ace 250 if you’re on a fresh drop or a loaded site where targets are sitting on top. That’s not the point.

The real question is: How do these machines perform on actual test targets in wet salt sand and water when they’re set up in stable, usable, huntable configurations?

That’s what matters—not chest-beating over how long somebody’s been detecting or how many rings they’ve found.

Finding gold rings for decades doesn’t automatically make someone an expert on all modern detectors. Real expertise comes from understanding the technology, testing it properly, and comparing it with real-world data.
 
Test targets recently buried is not the same as finding targets buried for months or years.

When I still was working in repair centers I had test garden that was over 5 years old, targets buried at different depths flat and standing on edge.

You are also coming across as condescending toward members who are questioning your tests, and been hunting for decades. Not good....
 
Test targets recently buried is not the same as finding targets buried for months or years.

When I still was working in repair centers I had test garden that was over 5 years old, targets buried at different depths flat and standing on edge.

You are also coming across as condescending toward members who are questioning your tests, and been hunting for decades. Not good....
We are talking about the Beach....Sand changes every tide cycle targets move....I have a test garden also that is older than 5yrs old....Looks to me like the critics don't like to run cameras..You even said pulse was deeper....What happened? You guys seem to be offended by what I showed, WHY? This is the head to head section correct?
 
We are talking about the Beach....Sand changes every tide cycle targets move....I have a test garden also that is older than 5yrs old....Looks to me like the critics don't like to run cameras..You even said pulse was deeper....What happened? You guys seem to be offended by what I showed, WHY? This is the head to head section correct?
I haven't changed my opinion on PI.

It is your condensending replies to a few members who do not agree with you that is the problem, please watch that.
 
I haven't changed my opinion on PI.

It is your condensending replies to a few members who do not agree with you that is the problem, please watch t
Wow… so you’re really gonna sit there and still type that you believe PI machines are deeper on a mild to moderate saltwater beach, even after an engineer literally came in here and told you that’s not really the case anymore?

Look at the post above. He came in playing a little too cute by half—acting like Mr. Nice Guy, like he agreed with me—then immediately starts dissecting my post.

Now, you may see my responses as condescending. I don’t. I see it as me doing exactly what they did to my video: using logic, reasoning, and actual evidence to dismantle their points.

You’ve got one guy saying the CTX is deeper in the water based on what… his feelings? His memories? Because it sure isn’t based on actual scientific data.

Meanwhile, I’ve shown you scientific data from a saltwater beach, in multiple videos, in and out of the water, with visible settings, visible setups, and real-world testing—and you still won’t believe what’s right in front of you.

So yeah, at some point I start wondering… is it because of who I am? Is there something personal here? Because what exactly would it take for you to believe it? Who would have to show you?

Because apparently me showing the settings, the detectors, the targets, the depths, and the results somehow still isn’t enough.

Then you come in with, “Well, a test garden is what counts… freshly planted targets on a beach don’t count.”

Come on, man.

Anybody who actually beach hunts knows that beach sand shifts daily. Targets move with tide cycles, storms, erosion, replenishment—all of it. A fresh drop or a hundred-year-old target can both move. Beaches are not the same as inland dirt where a coin can sit untouched forever. So trying to apply land test garden logic to dynamic saltwater beach conditions like it’s the same thing is just not logical.

But none of that seems to matter.

So again, what would it actually take for you to believe what you’re seeing? Who would have to present this information before you’d accept it?

Because honestly, the vibe I get is that you’ve got something against me personally. Maybe you just don’t like me. And that’s fine—I don’t like everybody either.

But when somebody puts in the time, money, effort, buys the machines, learns them, tests them, films them, shows settings, and presents a logical, sensible demonstration, I at least have enough respect to watch it with an open mind.

If I want to question it, I’ll question it.
If I want to push back, I’ll push back.

But what I don’t do is just dismiss it outright based on feelings, outdated assumptions, or experiences from six or seven years ago with detectors that aren’t even being used in the current demonstration.

So yeah—you may feel like I’m being condescending.

I feel like I’m defending my argument because I’m the one being attacked here.

What I presented is being dissected, picked apart, and basically dismissed by you and the rest of the crew—not because you’ve actually disproven it with better modern evidence, but because you don’t want to believe what the evidence is showing. And that’s a big difference.
 
I have nothing against you at all, just because I dont agree with your detector comparisons posts does not mean I have something against you, it means I dont agree with posting or the condescending tone towards few members who disagree.

If you are going to quote me with quote marks then quote what I actually said.

I never said....
“Well, a test garden is what counts… freshly planted targets on a beach don’t count.”

What I said was...
"Test targets recently buried is not the same as finding targets buried for months or years."

"When I was still working in repair centers I had test garden that was over 5 years old, targets buried at different depths flat and standing on edge"..

Please end the condescending tone towards members that dont agree or dispute what is posted...
 
Last edited:
So everything you said is based on assumption. My conclusions are based on testing and actual data points. NOT FEELINGS....
This is actually what you are doing because you have never tested the depth on sticks in deep the water. When you say understand the tech then you must understand that coils also detect whats above them and must cancel that noise as well and four feet of salt water above them is real. You can literally here each swell pass you when hunting and that effects sensitivity. To say real world experience does not count is just nuts because that's what improvements are made from. Most rings on the beach are not banging your ears off and are in fact sometimes just subtle threshold breaks. When you spend enough time hunting this way you get very dialed in on your equipment and know the performance of it and its limits this counts more then any quick test in wet sand. Sorry to have offended the great dic tester and did not realize you are more sensitive then a french Deus II.
 
This is actually what you are doing because you have never tested the depth on sticks in deep the water. When you say understand the tech then you must understand that coils also detect whats above them and must cancel that noise as well and four feet of salt water above them is real. You can literally here each swell pass you when hunting and that effects sensitivity. To say real world experience does not count is just nuts because that's what improvements are made from. Most rings on the beach are not banging your ears off and are in fact sometimes just subtle threshold breaks. When you spend enough time hunting this way you get very dialed in on your equipment and know the performance of it and its limits this counts more then any quick test in wet sand. Sorry to have offended the great dic tester and did not realize you are more sensitive then a french Deus II.
Oh, so now the goalpost moves again. Now I’ve gotta go out into neck-deep water to test in saltwater? Let me guess—you’ve done that, right? Where’s the video of you testing in neck-deep saltwater? Yeah… didn’t think so.

Give me a break.

I never said real-world experience doesn’t matter in metal detecting. That’s one of the biggest advantages of doing this a long time. But here you go again, building a strawman like I said otherwise. I didn’t.

Now you’re trying to argue that a detector has to balance saltwater that’s seven feet deep above the coil? Come on, man. Where’s the proof? Where’s the test?

I showed you actual footage—real-world testing—in two to three feet of saltwater. You saw what happened with the PI machines compared to the Minelab Manticore. You saw the results with the Whites TDI and the Fisher AQ Impulse. That’s documented. That’s on video.

And what have I gotten in return? Condescending comments.

That moderator wants to talk about my attitude? Ever since I posted real data and real tests, all I’ve gotten back is people talking down to me. That’s not disagreement—that’s condescension.

Not one of you has shown any actual testing. None. No videos, no controlled comparisons—nothing. Yet you’re sitting here telling me my testing is flawed?

If this was a real disagreement, you’d say, “Here’s my data, here’s why I think you’re wrong.” But that’s not happening. Instead, it’s “I disagree because I worked at Kellyco in 1999.” That doesn’t mean anything in 2026 with modern machines.

Carl says it’s a “small piece of the pie.” Okay—where’s the rest of the pie? Where are the videos? Where’s the data? Show it.

And let me be clear—I’m not saying PI machines don’t have advantages in highly mineralized conditions. They might. That’s not the argument.

We’re talking about mild to moderate saltwater beaches.

And in those conditions, I showed you—on video—the Manticore keeping up with PI machines. That’s not theory. That’s not opinion. That’s documented testing.

So yeah, you guys can sit around and dismiss it, but it honestly just comes off like the old guard being defensive. Most of you aren’t even swinging modern machines. Some of you are still on CTXs and Excaliburs.

So how exactly are you qualified to speak on how today’s detectors compare?

You’re not showing data. You’re not running tests. You’re just dismissing what I’ve already shown.

At that point, I don’t know if it’s bias, ego, or just not liking me—and honestly, I don’t care.

Delete the thread. Delete my posts. Doesn’t matter.

I’ve got my own platforms, bigger audiences, and people who actually engage and think critically.

I can take criticism. I can take disagreement. But it needs to be logical and backed by something real—not just opinions and attitude.

I’ll take it from here.

Stay tuned.
 
It's not coincidence that over the years all your threads on multiple sites seem to devolve this way. There is one common denominator in this equation.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top Bottom