My Experiences Good & Bad (with detectors)

[Michigan Badger]

My Experiences Good & Bad (with detectors)

Share your experiences both good and bad with the various machines you've owned.

Is it true the new models are deeper than all the older machines?

BE nice and try not to slam another brand...be ojective.

Was there an advantage with TR over VLF?

What's happening today?

Lets make this thread informative without mud throwing.

 

[l.cutler]

Re: My Experiences Good & Bad (with detectors)

I started with a mid priced Garrett Freedom III CDC, then tried a Gold Mountain Cobra, found a lot of stuff the old Garrett missed but only about five inches on coins. Then I had to have a whiz bang top of the line target ID major brand detector, hated that thing. Next was a Tesoro Bandido made a lot of finds with that one, had a great Fisher 1266X deep but chattery. Then a Shadow x2 that worked great in trashy areas, fair depth, still my backup detector. moved to a Tesoro Tejon, so far this one is a keeper, great depth and discrimination.

 

[Willy]

Re: My Experiences Good & Bad (with detectors)

One thng I've noticed with newer detectors is an overprocessed sound.. seems to be missing subtle nuances that might give a hint about target identity, depth, etc. It seems more and more emphasis is being put on VID vs TID. That's one reason why I like the Sov.'s (though there's plenty I dislike about them too), the audio is just plain fantastic. The F75, so far, seems to be pretty good in that regard too, though I need to spend a lot more time with it to develop a more informed opinion. It's kinda like with the Xterra 70; took me a long time to finally decide that I couldn't stand the audio. It's a deep detector with a whole lot of neat features, but the slow tracking (and instability in really bad ground regardless of sensitivity setting) and the flutey audio just turned me off. I'm now curious about a possible new White's detector.. an MXT with multi-notch and multi-tone ID would totally rule.
When it comes to old versus new, performance-wise, I haven't seen much difference. The old Compass X-100 I sold to my buddy is as deep (or deeper than) anything put out today. Don't mean that all the old stuff was good 'cause there were some real dogs, just as there are some crummy modern units. For the most part, for the basic coin shooter, most any detector will do. Don't need an E-Trac to pop shallow clad.. but start getting into more specialized endeavors and the situation changes (prospecting, deep relics, water). Then a more expensive/specialized unit might be preferred. Even there, a lot of the older stuff does just fine and, in some cases, might be preferred. ..Willy.

 

[Michigan Badger]

Re: My Experiences Good & Bad (with detectors)

One thng I've noticed with newer detectors is an overprocessed sound.. seems to be missing subtle nuances that might give a hint about target identity, depth, etc.

Willy I've been thinking this same thing.

And too the older machines with a faint constant threshold hum in the background had their advantages. Most of today's detectors either get a loud signal or nothing at all. I'm not fond of this "silent search" thing today because you miss those faint whisper signals.

Badger

 

[Sandman]

Re: My Experiences Good & Bad (with detectors)

Willy about nailed it for me too. I've used a lot of the older ones and mostly what the newer ones offer is less weight. I don't like screens, but many of the "lazy" guys prefer to only look for what the detector tells them it is ok to dig. Sometimes I like a screen though to guess if it is right and it usually isn't so I am ahead by listening to the sound.

What I liked about the old TR's was the none movement for disc. You could do reverse disc to find nickels and rings. There were more pull tabs found back then I think. TR's were not as deep in poor ground, but did as well as todays detectors sometimes. I think it should be offered as a mode on todays detectors, but I think maybe only I would buy one.

 

[BuckleBoy]

Re: My Experiences Good & Bad (with detectors)

One thng I've noticed with newer detectors is an overprocessed sound.. seems to be missing subtle nuances that might give a hint about target identity, depth, etc.

I totally agree.  This is one area where the Industry has taken several major steps Backwards. No threshold hum, no whisper signals, and fewer partial signals even. It's that threshold that allows the experiened user to dig those large, deep items--like CW shells, caches, etc.


-Buckles

 

[Eu_citzen]

Re: My Experiences Good & Bad (with detectors)

Garrett GTI 2500:

Pro's:
Easy to use
fair depth
Sizing (they call it imaging, gives the wrong idea if you ask me)
Good starter detector

Con's:
Heavy/poorly balanced (heavier then the Explorer if you ask me)
Notches do poorly for Europe (personal preference really)
Sounds are to similar
I think it's overpriced

DFX:

Pro's:
Good allround detector
Many settings (to screw up??) aka flexible*
Excellent modern coin shooter
many coils to choose from
Much disc info
light weight/well balanced

Con's:
Many settings (to screw up??) aka flexible*
pricey

Explorer II

Pro's:
Easy to use
Easy to get good depth
Easy to pinpoint
Can use tones only to hunt (you can base your digging choice on the tones)
Excellent all round machine
Fairly cheap used now
Many coils to choose from

Con's:
Some what heavy
It's best to go slow

I think that sums it up on the machines I've had.

 

[Michigan Badger]

Re: My Experiences Good & Bad (with detectors)

I have a question along this line of thought. First off I probably started detecting before a lot of you were born, in the early 70's, was out of it for a while then jumped back in. My detector of choice is a Whites 6000D/series 2 blue box monster. The reason being is not only the depth (if you know how to use it) but also the pin pointing factor. All the stories and pics I read seems every one has to have a shovel and a pin pointer, why? If you spend your time digging a fox hole and then pin pointing what you dug, then how much detecting time do you loose with your new detector. I carry a knife, pin point with the coil, dig a plug and I'm off to the next target.......Am I missing something about the new one's?
J-G

J-G you're in good company here--most of us posting on this thread are older than dirt.

I still remember when BFO was the only choice. In fact, most were homebrew units.

That Whites 6000D was and still is a sweet machine. It still brings very handsome prices on ebay too.

I never got much into the handheld pinpointer thing mostly because I don't bent like I used to. But there have been times when one would of come in handy. This is especially so in the case of tiny items caught in the sod.

Today's new machines can pinpoint quite well if one takes the time to learn how. But some just blast a big pothole and bring out the pinpointer. That's not too bad in the woods but in the park it's a major no no.

Good post and thanks.

Badger

 

[Michigan Badger]

Re: My Experiences Good & Bad (with detectors)

Garrett GTI 2500:

Pro's:
Easy to use
fair depth
Sizing (they call it imaging, gives the wrong idea if you ask me)
Good starter detector

Con's:
Heavy/poorly balanced (heavier then the Explorer if you ask me)
Notches do poorly for Europe (personal preference really)
Sounds are to similar
I think it's overpriced

DFX:

Pro's:
Good allround detector
Many settings (to screw up??) aka flexible*
Excellent modern coin shooter
many coils to choose from
Much disc info
light weight/well balanced

Con's:
Many settings (to screw up??) aka flexible*
pricey

Explorer II

Pro's:
Easy to use
Easy to get good depth
Easy to pinpoint
Can use tones only to hunt (you can base your digging choice on the tones)
Excellent all round machine
Fairly cheap used now
Many coils to choose from

Con's:
Some what heavy
It's best to go slow

I think that sums it up on the machines I've had.

WOW! Awesome work! Thanks much.

Badger

 

[Digger]

Re: My Experiences Good & Bad (with detectors)

Having personally experienced the evolution of detectors from BFO to the VLF's of today, I believe the newer detectors are without a doubt better, for the most part.

The old BFO's were not much compared to todays technology, so I won't spend any time with them. The TR's had a very fast response, good sensitivity to small targets and crisp sound making target identification by sound the needed skill of the day. Problem was depth. Even the best TR detector and experienced user could only hope for 5-6" at best. Many of todays detectors have replaced that old learned skill, with a computer chip designed to replace, to some degree, that once needed skill. A good VDI, and a person that knows how to use it, can do every bit as good, if not better, than those who still swear by the sound of a non-processed sound. If there really is such a thing any more.

Just as it was in the days of old, it is up to the user to become proficient with the detector of choice. It's only the language of the detector that has changed.

 

[Eu_citzen]

Re: My Experiences Good & Bad (with detectors)

Your welcome MB.

 

[SusanMN]

Re: My Experiences Good & Bad (with detectors)

I started in the hobby in the 70's. Don't remember the exact model but it was a bounty hunter - no discrimination, just motion and non-motion detecting. Probably didn't get much further than two inches but I could tell a dime from a nickle from a penny by sound.

After a couple of years gave up the hobby until 2006 when I bought first an XLT and then a Tiger Shark. Never loved the XLT, too heavy, two much scrolling to make any changes to setting and not that good at separating targets, but in fairness it did have erratic signal issues requiring warranty repair and when I got it back, I was already using the Tiger Shark for both water and land hunting and decided to sell it.

Tiger Shark, love it for both. I mount the control box at the top of the handle so it is well balanced, does a great job of separating targets and easy to pinpoint. Only issue for me is that there are times or places where some form of additional target ID is needed and thought maybe for land hunting I could find something that went a little deeper. So I purchased an F4.

F4, absolutely hated it. Seemed light and flimsy and I couldn't pinpoint with it worth a darn. Tried it two or three times, knew I'd never love it , gave up and sold it.

So the TS remains the sole detector, but I'm thinking maybe to try the Cortes next.

 

[Eu_citzen]

Re: My Experiences Good & Bad (with detectors)

Thanks Badger, at least I know I not talking to kids. (40 and under) LOL.... I think my main problem is being old school and wanting to dig every thing. I don't trust a machine that has a little screen that say's I got a pull tad, after using the 6000 for years I know a pull tab when I here it but since I hunt the same place's over and over I'm still going to dig it and get it out of the ground and in the trash.

I believe Digger hit the nail on the head when he said... "Just as it was in the days of old, it is up to the user to become proficient with the detector of choice. It's only the language of the detector that has changed."
J-G

Hmm maybe you should look at my profile.

 

[Eu_citzen]

Re: My Experiences Good & Bad (with detectors)

Sorry about that EU-Citzen
By the way I have boots older than you LOL
J-G

Hahha Don't bother J-G. I was just enjoying my self.

 

[Michigan Badger]

Re: My Experiences Good & Bad (with detectors)

Willy about nailed it for me too. I've used a lot of the older ones and mostly what the newer ones offer is less weight. I don't like screens, but many of the "lazy" guys prefer to only look for what the detector tells them it is ok to dig. Sometimes I like a screen though to guess if it is right and it usually isn't so I am ahead by listening to the sound.

What I liked about the old TR's was the none movement for disc. You could do reverse disc to find nickels and rings. There were more pull tabs found back then I think. TR's were not as deep in poor ground, but did as well as todays detectors sometimes. I think it should be offered as a mode on todays detectors, but I think maybe only I would buy one.

As always right on Sandman.

I think about the old Nautilus DMC1 a lot. It ran TR “variable discrimination” and VLF ground balance mode simultaneously.

The TR mode sounded deeper on the less conductive targets such as silver dimes. Therefore a silver coin was detected much deeper with the TR mode than with the VLF mode. But the VLF mode was a killer for pulltabs and other highly conductive metals.

I recall back when the hot machines were TR we dug fewer pulltabs than we do today. But it's also true that about 6 inches was tops for the TR detectors. But I think this was more due to the coils being made back then. If we had had the sizes and types offered today for VLF machines I'll bet our TRs would have gone deeper.

The advantage in the dual mode Nautilus has always been the ability to better judge targets. And too it had a nice smooth threshold hum which I really really miss today.

But I’m sure it’s true what many say about the Iib being deeper, but I doubt it’s better with all things considered.

I’m no longer a big Nautilus fan but if I were to get one today it would most likely be the original DMC.

Badger