Masking

[Smudge]

When it comes to low mineralized soil, which detector do you think provides the best depth and mask fighting capabilities?

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

DR.ÖTEK Metal Detector, Waterproof Gold Detector, Pinpoint & Terrain Modes, Professional Metal Detector - Grab it through Amazon!

[Woodland Detectors]

Explorer most likely.

 

[Iron Patch]

For a large coil I know my explorer does extremely well. There is a lot of other detectors/brands that can do good too, but my experience is when you really want to work the site out you have to chase too much small iron. I still have to chase some empty holes at my most beat sites but certainly not the amount I did on my Garrett or Tesoro. Many years experience on teh same detector helps some too.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

Smudge, look again at your question, and you will see an inborn difficulty. You ask which detector is best for depth and mask-fighting capability (in a given set of low ground mineralization). You have to realize, that these are two separate questions, not one. Because generally speaking, the more depth a detector can get, the worse the masking will be. This is because, by definition: the deeper a detector goes, the more GROUND it is "seeing" at a time. Likewise the better a detector is able to un-mask (seen in, around, and through junk targets) usually the worse in the depth dept. it is.

So your question itself is sort of odd. Because the best of one, and the best of the other, are going to be at different ends of the spectrum. There are some SUPER power house machines (incredible depth) that are lousy at masking, and there are some SUPER un-masking/see-through machines, that will only get 5" tops (yet spank the power house machine in ghost town type iron-riddled environments).

But assuming you meant a happy compromise on all fronts, I find the explorer to be respectable for working junky areas ..... GIVEN the power house that it is. You can always switch to the 5" coil to help out a little in junky sites. But trust me, I reach for my Shadow X2 or Tesoro Silver Sabre (2-filter machines that won't go as deep, nor have as good as TID as the Exp.) when I'm working some old-town sidewalk demo's, or under bleachers, etc...

 

[Smudge]

Thanks for everyone's input, but I have to disagree that masking only occurs in mineralized soils.

Perhaps it comes for conflicting definitions.

I meant masking in terms of objects such as iron nails masking the dime that is very near to it.

Often the iron nail will hide the dime and give an iron signal only, bypassing the dime altogether.

And Tom, yes, you are absolutely right, I was asking about compromise and was already aware of the inherent conflict in the question. But I appreciate you pointing it out anyway.

 

[XT18000]

Lets not leave out the SOV. GT and is kin! They will hunt with the best of them under
any conditions you want to try.

 

[gmanlight]

If you have low mineralized soil just about any detector will work.
Now most brands tend to get better depth with a high price tag.
Not a guarantee but most of the time .
As for fighting through nails and trash a good selection of coils
really helps and DD coils are great

 

[Shambler]

Tom ...

do you mean the silver sabre umax or the silver sabre II?

 

[Tom_in_CA]

shambler, the silver sabre. As with other 2-filters of similar design, you can put a nail or two on top of a coin, and ....... as long as you're only disc'ing out iron (and not up higher in tab disc. or whatever), and depending on the size of the nails, how they're laying, etc... you can often get a hint of the conductive target beneath the iron. But on the down-side, this machine is not known as a deep-seeker, doesn't have great target TID (just an ascending/descending knob, that might lack accuracy at depth, etc...)

 

[Rob66]

My minelab GT never fails.

 

[Shambler]

Thanks Tom!

I always have my ear to the ground for a detector that will do well in heavy iron. I'm less interested in the 2D tests (IE. nail resting on the coin) and more interested in a 3D test where the coin is under an overturned cup with the nail resting on the bottom of that cup. Since I'm digging all non-ferrous targets within about 6", TID and depth are largely unimportant. I'm looking for fast recovery with minimal falsing on bent and square nails.

I thought the F75 was going to be the one, but it was slower than my Explorer because I had to investigate so many falses. A non-ferrous target amongst nails sound identical to falsing. Even thought the Explorer is hella slow at recovery, the falsing is a lot less.

If you had to pick one of those (sabre or shadow) which would you go to?

 

[Iron Patch]

Thanks Tom!

I always have my ear to the ground for a detector that will do well in heavy iron. I'm less interested in the 2D tests (IE. nail resting on the coin) and more interested in a 3D test where the coin is under an overturned cup with the nail resting on the bottom of that cup. Since I'm digging all non-ferrous targets within about 6", TID and depth are largely unimportant. I'm looking for fast recovery with minimal falsing on bent and square nails.

I thought the F75 was going to be the one, but it was slower than my Explorer because I had to investigate so many falses. A non-ferrous target amongst nails sound identical to falsing. Even thought the Explorer is hella slow at recovery, the falsing is a lot less.

If you had to pick one of those (sabre or shadow) which would you go to?

The slow recovery means very little on the Explorer unless you're taking full sweeps, which you definitely shouldn't be doing in iron. I've shown many a faster detector very masked targets and usually they don't get a signal until I remove the plug. Of course when I do this it's usually for a target I'm just barely able to hear. (most times just a part of a low blip mixed in a whole lot of noise)

 

[Shambler]

Unfortunately, the amount of iron in places I'm talking about create situations where you can sometimes SEE a coin on the ground and my Explorer II and my buddies Explorer XS get no signal - even in ferrous. I'll try to capture some video this fall and post it. If you can see it on the ground and get no signal, imagine what's below the surface....

 

[Iron Patch]

Unfortunately, the amount of iron in places I'm talking about create situations where you can sometimes SEE a coin on the ground and my Explorer II and my buddies Explorer XS get no signal - even in ferrous. I'll try to capture some video this fall and post it. If you can see it on the ground and get no signal, imagine what's below the surface....

It's definitely true that the more modern a place is, and the heavier the iron, the masking gets much worse. Ferrous is no extra advantage over conductive, it's the settings and how you sweep the coil that make the difference in situations where masking is an issue.

I'm very lucky that most of my sites are early and the iron has been moved around by the plow for years. It's quite easy to deal with especially with my 10 years experience hunting the same type of site over and over again.

 

[Shambler]

Ferrous is no extra advantage over conductive

?? Geez - you can prove that wrong in a 3 minute test. The Explorer is terrible at recovering from a null, but seems fairly quick from sound to sound. Running ferrous tones and a wide open screen eliminates whatever the heck it's doing during the null process.

We're also hunting 1850's home sites and although they are no longer being deep-plowed they are planted and harvested each year.

 

[Iron Patch]

Ferrous is no extra advantage over conductive

?? Geez - you can prove that wrong in a 3 minute test. The Explorer is terrible at recovering from a null, but seems fairly quick from sound to sound. Running ferrous tones and a wide open screen eliminates whatever the heck it's doing during the null process.

We're also hunting 1850's home sites and although they are no longer being deep-plowed they are planted and harvested each year.

But what are you comparing your ferrous open screen to for conductive? I bet it's not an open screen. Changing the sounds does not change how the detector operates, only what you here. (Don't need a test, and that was about 22 seconds)

 

[Shambler]

I was being generous with the 3 minutes since it sounded like you were too slow to recognize that the Explorer BLOWS at recovering form a null.

You can't hunt a wide open screen in heavy iron in conductive tones unless you ignore all high tones. While you'd be sure to get a few buttons and maybe a nickel coin, you'd leave all silver and copper coins behind. To me, when someone says, "I use ferrous" I assume they are using a wide open screen or possibly some lower right masking.

While I believe experience helps in this hobby, it doesn't change the detectors' limitations.

 

[Iron Patch]

I was being generous with the 3 minutes since it sounded like you were too slow to recognize that the Explorer BLOWS at recovering form a null.

You can't hunt a wide open screen in heavy iron in conductive tones unless you ignore all high tones. While you'd be sure to get a few buttons and maybe a nickel coin, you'd leave all silver and copper coins behind. To me, when someone says, "I use ferrous" I assume they are using a wide open screen or possibly some lower right masking.

While I believe experience helps in this hobby, it doesn't change the detectors' limitations.

Well I didn't say I hunted wide open in conductive, I had asked what you compared to, to form your opinion. My setting is -14. My guess is you don't have much experience using conductive, because if you did you would know the explorer operates on the same principle when it comes to masked targets, and it being the blended tones you dig. Of course in wide open ferrous you hear mostly low tones and listen for a higher tone in the mix. It's a funny thing but someone who knows conductive very well can change to ferrous without any real issues, but some who goes the other way going to low disc. conductive would be overwhelmed by the noise. I know both, and have used both, and it's purely a matter of what you train your ears for.

I used to argue with people like you my first few years but have not done much of it in my last seven because I have nothing to prove. Plus I think I have it figured out, and so do you, so it's all good.

 

[Shambler]

I used to argue with people like you my first few years but have not done much of it in my last seven because I have nothing to prove.

@ "people like you" comment.


Tom,

Before Mr. Experience, once again, plugged the Explorer, I posted I was curious which of the two detectors you mentioned, you'd prefer. I have no problem considering other detectors over my Explorer should they perform better in a certain environment. You're not the first to mention 2 filter machines so I think I'm going to give one a fair shake. I normally hunt with a friend, and I think it would be fun to do an apples to apples comparison this fall.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

Thanks Tom!

I always have my ear to the ground for a detector that will do well in heavy iron. I'm less interested in the 2D tests (IE. nail resting on the coin) and more interested in a 3D test where the coin is under an overturned cup with the nail resting on the bottom of that cup. Since I'm digging all non-ferrous targets within about 6", TID and depth are largely unimportant. I'm looking for fast recovery with minimal falsing on bent and square nails.

I thought the F75 was going to be the one, but it was slower than my Explorer because I had to investigate so many falses. A non-ferrous target amongst nails sound identical to falsing. Even thought the Explorer is hella slow at recovery, the falsing is a lot less.

If you had to pick one of those (sabre or shadow) which would you go to?

Shambler, of those 2, the silver sabre is probably the best, in the masking/averaging dept. And Whites has their classic series which are 2-filter machines too, that will do it.

I know what you mean when talking about "putting a coin on top of the ground, and not being able to get a signal [from the power house machines] d/t iron". Some friends of mine were hunting an Idaho high mountain ghost town, and one of them spotted a V-nickel on top of the ground, barely covered in the dust. He called his buddies over it, and they noticed though, that when they'd swing over it, they just got nulls. Ie.: they would have missed it, if it hadn't been slightly visible. The only machine that one of the hunters had, that would get a conductive signal, was the Silver Sabre. Once they picked up the nickel, and scanned the spot again, it was still null. Investigating, and digging out the null, they discovered there'd been a bunch of tangled up bailing wire and rusty nails underneath. So you see, the iron had masked the coin, even though the coin was on top of the mess. The guys with the power house XLTs, Explorers, etc... had new respect for the ability of 2-filter machines, in some iron-riddled ghost-town type environments after that

And yes you're right about the difference between a rusty nail touching a conductive target, verses a nail hovering over (separated from touching) the conductive target. I think it gets even more difficult when you add space between them.