Not trying to raise a srink, but.....

[bigscoop]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but when we consider the various shapes, sizes, densities, depth and signal strength, alloy mixes and the varying levels of those alloy mixes, aren't manufacturers stretching the realities as to the real-world limits of the new machines they're promoting?


“More sensitive to gold.” Really? I mean it isn't even possible for a machine to evaluate and determine the individual alloy compositions in a single piece of gold jewelry, this alloy mixture, along with the item's density/mass determining that item's conductivity. If we mix a 22k gold ring with 43% copper then the conductivity of that original 22k ring changes dramatically, mix that same 22k ring with 60% sterling silver then that ring's conductivity changes yet again, that ring's ever changing size and shape and mass and depth also having effect, and so on and so on.


Per example, we recently ran a dozen gold rings of various alloy mixes, shapes, sizes, etc., under the coil of an AT Pro and these rings returned solid VDI readings anywhere from 39 to 81, the readings on these same rings changing as the distance between the target and the coil increased and the signal strength diminished. Now place these same rings at depths in the various levels and types of contaminated soil and place trust in the machine's discrimination features and that machine's processor to determine which of these very faint returns is a potential target of value? The only thing that can result from this is the loss of potential targets of value. “Period!”


Bottom line, rely on discrimination less and investigate and dig more targets , especially on those deeper fainter returns. There isn't a machine out there that can do everything with the accuracy and reliability that some of these manufacturer's are touting, especially when it comes to the extremely wide ranging jewelry items that are made with these various degrees of gold and other alloy compositions. “More sensitive to gold?” How's that work, exactly?


Forgive me if I seem harsh and jaded, but honesty, I've grown tired of all the routine hype and unfounded claims that seem to proceed every new machine heading to market. Now don't get me wrong, I'd be the first in line to purchase a machine that can “accurately sort out” all of the above at depths, and please don't reply with that “signal boost technology” stuff as this only comes after the fact as this boosting of the return cannot add more accurate data in that boosted return. So if I'm wrong in any of this please feel free to explain it to me as I am completely open to learning more about anything I am currently misunderstanding. But until then I'll stick with the same time-tested and user proven machine that I'm currently using.

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Upgraded Night Vision Monocular Digital Infrared Monocular Telescope for 100% Darkness with 8X Zoom - Grab it through Amazon!

[bigscoop]

I don't have a fast swing with any of my machines. You'll miss deep targets if you do. In the water, it's almost impossible to swing too fast anyway. I also rarely hunt in discrimination. I only switch out of disc when I get a target (depending on the detector) to help I.D. iron or not. This includes the Excalibur, Etrac and Equinox as well as others I've had and used. Some areas have too much iron to dig it all, or in many cases, the iron is too big or deep to remove it. Some of our beaches have drainage pipes or old steel reinforced concrete buried under the sand. Hunting around those can be a challenge. Having a quick processor and being able to switch from all metal to disc can help find stuff buried close to those obstacles. I see no sacrifice in using a machine with a faster processor. Like I mentioned, I still swing slowly and in all metal. I will get the depth, and I'll also have disc, and fast processor to help separate the good from the bad. I get lots of requests from people to help locate lost items. In the case of tiny targets, like stud earrings, charms, hearing aids, etc, that have very little metal in them, some machines (like the Excal, Etrac, At Pro, CTX, F75, etc) won't hit on those targets at all. In the case of earrings and hearing aids, I've had it's twin to test with my machines to see what they read before I start the search. The Equinox with give a decent response on them that the others won't sense at all, even in an air test rubbing the item on the coil. It takes a machine designed to find those items. I used to use a gold nugget machine for that. Now, the Nox is doing the job, and doing it well. I still use the Excal and Etrac too, mainly because they have much bigger coil options right now that gives me more coverage and depth over the 11" on on the Nox. When the 15'' one comes out, I'll see how they compare and make a decision then on which one works the best for a certain application. Right now, I like the Excal for wet sand and water when I need the coverage. I use the Etrac in the dry for the same reason, plus it's better at I.D.ing bottle caps. The thing I like about the Nox, is that it's very good at doing both wet and dry, with the advantage of finding tiny gold and platinum the others can't.

I recently found an entire wallet due to the strip in the man's driver's license, it was about 4" deep in the sand, "with the Excal!" Tiny earrings, earring backs, itty-bitty pieces of this and that, yep, that stuff can drive me nuts, "with the Excal!" These are returns that your faster target separation never allows because in order to achieve that faster target separation for you many of these weakest returns have to be filtered out in favor of stronger and more reliable returns. All of those little edge returns, or incomplete/broken returns, these latest and greatest machines can't accurately identify the source, so how is a faster processor accurately performing it's function? The same also being said of those very faint and weaker returns, the amount of data in each also incomplete and lacking. Yet somewhere in all of this technology someone had to set in place certain parameters in order for many of these new features to perform their designed task, so what is the best way, the "only way" to deal with all of these unidentifiable and troublesome returns? "Eliminate them!" So now we have "advanced technologies" eliminating what they can't even identify. Does this sound like a better deal for hunters? I don't think so, especially if one is hoping to find more gold, and especially more deeper gold.

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Treasure of Victoria Peak - Grab it through Amazon!

[dewcon4414]

Shifting to higher or lower freq can improve the response to some metals..... like gold or copper. But .... i hear you.... gold falls from just above iron to about a penny on most machines. My response is..... sometimes jumping from machine to machine may not be the best practice. Finding ways to improve how YOU hunt or learning more about what your proven machine is telling you....... or even machine improvements like headphones or coils might be a better way to go. Ive got a little ole lady down my way that will just embarrass you with her CZ and 8" coil. Never used any other machine. When a new machine hits the market....... 40 years of detection kind of goes out the window...... yes we know how/where to hunt but we all have a learning curve.

 

[bigscoop]

Shifting to higher or lower freq can improve the response to some metals..... like gold or copper. But .... i hear you.... gold falls from just above iron to about a penny on most machines. My response is..... sometimes jumping from machine to machine may not be the best practice. Finding ways to improve how YOU hunt or learning more about what your proven machine is telling you....... or even machine improvements like headphones or coils might be a better way to go. Ive got a little ole lady down my way that will just embarrass you with her CZ and 8" coil. Never used any other machine. When a new machine hits the market....... 40 years of detection kind of goes out the window...... yes we know how/where to hunt but we all have a learning curve.

Dew, exactly! Since I started my Youtube channel I can't tell you how many folks email me about the fantastic new machine they are thinking about purchasing, or that they have already purchased, the so called new miracle machines that can do what no other machines can. They believe they can see through iron, as if these new machines are somehow magically making iron invisible. They believe it is "more sensitive to gold jewelry" and that the target ID features on these new gold bearing machines is somehow foolproof on gold without ever considering that gold jewelry doesn't even offer anything consistent to specifically target. Deeper? How can a machine with the same, or in some cases even less power output, be deeper? Yet manufacturers, and all the connected typical user hype, have sold these folks on the notion that all of these miracle claims are indeed fact. In reality, the only way these machines can provide the user with any measure of comfort in an otherwise chaotic field of returns is by "the process of elimination of those undesired/unwanted/uncertain returns." But then here is that often forgotten catch again, "there is nothing consistent to specifically target in the various gold items we seek." So by the very nature of the gold jewelry items being pursued, and all of the existing factors that can come into play, how can the the discrimination features on these newest and latest and greatest beach and water machines be "more sensitive to gold?" Reality, they can't be, they can only be less sensitive to a great deal of it.

 

[xr7ator]

Just because you have a newer machine doesn't mean you can't run it without discrimination.

 

[bigscoop]

Just because you have a newer machine doesn't mean you can't run it without discrimination.

Absolutely true. Which is sort of the point, that very point getting lost in all of the advanced discrimination hype.

 

[cudamark]

I recently found an entire wallet due to the strip in the man's driver's license, it was about 4" deep in the sand, "with the Excal!" Tiny earrings, earring backs, itty-bitty pieces of this and that, yep, that stuff can drive me nuts, "with the Excal!" These are returns that your faster target separation never allows because in order to achieve that faster target separation for you many of these weakest returns have to be filtered out in favor of stronger and more reliable returns. All of those little edge returns, or incomplete/broken returns, these latest and greatest machines can't accurately identify the source, so how is a faster processor accurately performing it's function? The same also being said of those very faint and weaker returns, the amount of data in each also incomplete and lacking. Yet somewhere in all of this technology someone had to set in place certain parameters in order for many of these new features to perform their designed task, so what is the best way, the "only way" to deal with all of these unidentifiable and troublesome returns? "Eliminate them!" So now we have "advanced technologies" eliminating what they can't even identify. Does this sound like a better deal for hunters? I don't think so, especially if one is hoping to find more gold, and especially more deeper gold.

I'm afraid I don't understand your logic here. I run ALL my machines the same way, in all metal (when I can). They aren't filtering out anything. I'm hearing it all. The faster processor just allows me to hear each individual target better. For example....I ran across a pill blister pack with my Equinox 800. Though they are all connected together and only separated by a small space and line of serration, I heard each individual one.....like a machine gun burst. With the Excal it was one signal, like a wad of foil. I would have dug the signal from either machine, but, the speed of the Nox gave me more info as to what I had. I haven't noticed a significant depth difference between the two either, in stock form. The 11" Nox vs. the 10" Excal is about the same in my comparisons. I have 3 Excaliburs, so, I obviously love that machine! The other two I have with the 15" coils (one with a WOT and the other with a NEL Attack) will go deeper, but, that's expected with the bigger size. They are also very sensitive to small targets. I find jean rivets at 6" with them, but, they won't find tiny gold or platinum, regardless of settings. Neither will the 8" or 10" stock coils when the target is small enough. The Nox will find those targets. The larger targets, sure, the Excal is killer on them. The tiny stuff, no. Take an Excal and go nugget hunting with it, and try to compete with someone using a Nox, or Gold Bug, or GPX5000. You'll find the big stuff, it it's there, but, the other machines are going to find the tiny nuggets that the Excal won't even see.

 

[cudamark]

Just because you have a newer machine doesn't mean you can't run it without discrimination.

Exactly, the Excal has discrimination too, but, you hunt in all metal and then switch over to disc to give you more info on what you've run across. If it's a dead null, you move on unless you're just masochistic or anal enough to want to clean that area just for fun. Will you occasionally find something hidden under that iron target? Sure, and if it's an area where good/old/deep targets have been found, I would probably dig it too, but, your average beach area is loaded with junk like that. I choose to dig targets more likely to be good ones. If you're going to just dig everything, why even use a machine with discrimination? Just get a PI machine and be done with it.

 

[dewcon4414]

Awww but the Xcal is a different beast....... its like using an Explorer with disc set of 22.... you are already in disc before you even start. A lot of it has to do with that salt setting too. By time they filter it........ a lot of sensitivity is just lost especially to small gold. Then there is the magnetic field....... for the most part it does excellent on rings ONLY. Oh....... and then there is placebo affect of these new detectors. It often takes 6 mos or more to get a true gauge of what ... if anything the machines can and can not do based on the companies claims........ by then they have sold a lot of them and moved on lol.

 

[bigscoop]

Here's what I'm saying, and it dosen't matter what machine someone wants to reference or compare, that machine, whatever it is, is at its most sensitive and at its deepest capabilities when that machine is in an all metal mode, full sensitivity, full volume, etc. "Everything we do after that initial point of operation involves "the filtering out of existing information." Period! Any type of disc mode, or separation feature, or reduction in sensitivity, etc., involves the filtering out of existing information. "Nothing we adjust on any machine can add to that initial existing information."

The notion that a beach and water machine, that any beach and water machine, is more sensitive to gold jewelry items is just plain ridiculous simply due to the very nature of that quarry, that nature being that there is nothing consistent within that quarry to even specifically target, nor is there anything consistent within the unlimited surrounding environments that said quarry could be in to specifically target.

My point? The "discrimination features" on these newest and latest and greatest beach and water machines are being falsely marketed and propagated in terms of their being, "more sensitive to gold" and "deeper on gold" and my personal favorite, "able to better identify gold." Any machine is at it's deepest and most sensitive in the all metal mode running full sensitivity, full volume, which is why Disc should be applied after a potential target is located, not before. Doing the later can only serve to cost the user potential targets. Now then, what are the selling points being pushed and propagated about all these newest and latest and greatest beach and water machines? It certainly isn't their all metal mode capabilities, its all of the other, potential target costly, discrimination and separation features and other bells and whistles. This was the point in my original post.

At present there is another highly awaited beach and water machine release about to hit the market, it too being billed as being deeper and being more sensitive to gold, so my question is, once again, how can it be?

 

[cudamark]

Awww but the Xcal is a different beast....... its like using an Explorer with disc set of 22.... you are already in disc before you even start. A lot of it has to do with that salt setting too. By time they filter it........ a lot of sensitivity is just lost especially to small gold. Then there is the magnetic field....... for the most part it does excellent on rings ONLY. Oh....... and then there is placebo affect of these new detectors. It often takes 6 mos or more to get a true gauge of what ... if anything the machines can and can not do based on the companies claims........ by then they have sold a lot of them and moved on lol.

More like a Sovereign actually, but, I get your point. Not all filtering is a minus. You talk about the salt setting losing sensitivity. Maybe a tiny bit, but, without it, you would have to manually turn down the sensitivity to get it stable. Ask anyone trying to use an AT Pro in salt water. It's pretty much the same thing as ground balancing a detector. It eliminates false signals through filtering out ground mineralization. Will it reduce sensitivity? To a minor extent, yes, but, without it, the machine is too unstable to effectively use.

 

[dewcon4414]

running is salt water without a salt setting is like running high sensitivity around a lot of EMI....... it may no reduce sensitivity, but it makes it impossible to identify MOST deep targets. An Xcal is a Sov.... with less adjustment. I used the Explorer because of how you can black out the entire screen behind the 22 setting. I agree not all filtering is bad...... infact most machine have a filtering system that you mostly notice the faster you swing the machine.

 

[bigscoop]

I'm afraid I don't understand your logic here. I run ALL my machines the same way, in all metal (when I can). They aren't filtering out anything. I'm hearing it all. The faster processor just allows me to hear each individual target better. For example....I ran across a pill blister pack with my Equinox 800. Though they are all connected together and only separated by a small space and line of serration, I heard each individual one.....like a machine gun burst. With the Excal it was one signal, like a wad of foil. I would have dug the signal from either machine, but, the speed of the Nox gave me more info as to what I had. I haven't noticed a significant depth difference between the two either, in stock form. The 11" Nox vs. the 10" Excal is about the same in my comparisons. I have 3 Excaliburs, so, I obviously love that machine! The other two I have with the 15" coils (one with a WOT and the other with a NEL Attack) will go deeper, but, that's expected with the bigger size. They are also very sensitive to small targets. I find jean rivets at 6" with them, but, they won't find tiny gold or platinum, regardless of settings. Neither will the 8" or 10" stock coils when the target is small enough. The Nox will find those targets. The larger targets, sure, the Excal is killer on them. The tiny stuff, no. Take an Excal and go nugget hunting with it, and try to compete with someone using a Nox, or Gold Bug, or GPX5000. You'll find the big stuff, it it's there, but, the other machines are going to find the tiny nuggets that the Excal won't even see.

Cuda, I don't understand "not finding the small stuff with the Excal?" I've never had that issue, and in fact it's one of the things I like about it, it's ability to sniff out the tiny stuff with the stock 8" tornado coil, even in trashy environments? Tiny gold chains with no pendents, tiny gold earrings and earring backs, etc., etc. The other thing I'm curious about is the common misconception that the Excal won't return on good targets while in a state of null, because it most certainly will as long as it has a clear path to the item. And as for no discrimination in PP mode, well, the fantastic dynamic range of those returns in PP mode can tell one quite a bit about the potential target, which is another aspect of the machine that I like.

 

[cudamark]

Here's what I'm saying, and it dosen't matter what machine someone wants to reference or compare, that machine, whatever it is, is at its most sensitive and at its deepest capabilities when that machine is in an all metal mode, full sensitivity, full volume, etc. "Everything we do after that initial point of operation involves "the filtering out of existing information." Period! Any type of disc mode, or separation feature, or reduction in sensitivity, etc., involves the filtering out of existing information. "Nothing we adjust on any machine can add to that initial existing information."

The notion that a beach and water machine, that any beach and water machine, is more sensitive to gold jewelry items is just plain ridiculous simply due to the very nature of that quarry, that nature being that there is nothing consistent within that quarry to even specifically target, nor is there anything consistent within the unlimited surrounding environments that said quarry could be in to specifically target.

My point? The "discrimination features" on these newest and latest and greatest beach and water machines are being falsely marketed and propagated in terms of their being, "more sensitive to gold" and "deeper on gold" and my personal favorite, "able to better identify gold." Any machine is at it's deepest and most sensitive in the all metal mode running full sensitivity, full volume, which is why Disc should be applied after a potential target is located, not before. Doing the later can only serve to cost the user potential targets. Now then, what are the selling points being pushed and propagated about all these newest and latest and greatest beach and water machines? It certainly isn't their all metal mode capabilities, its all of the other, potential target costly, discrimination and separation features and other bells and whistles. This was the point in my original post.

At present there is another highly awaited beach and water machine release about to hit the market, it too being billed as being deeper and being more sensitive to gold, so my question is, once again, how can it be?

Looks like we agree on most points. Maybe we just explain it differently. I have one item I disagree on however, and that is your thinking (my perception anyway) that a faster processor is a negative. I only see that as a positive, if used correctly. In computers, generally, faster is better. In detectors, you need to use it effectively and under the right circumstances to benefit your hunting. Even with a super fast processor, you can swing too fast for conditions and for deep targets. That's a given. However, if you have a proper swing speed, you can unmask targets that a slower machine will not identify as a good target. The slower machine might miss it completely if the good target is under or very close to the bad target. A fast processor can sometimes hit on both targets and actually give you two (or more) signals, whereas the slow one may only give you the stronger of the two (usually the junk one!) or it will average the signal, giving you an inaccurate reading for either target. There are limits to using a fast setting however. It will limit depth if you have it set too high and are sweeping too fast......just as doing it with a slow processor and sweeping too fast. In some cases, such as iron infested fire ring areas or burnt down house sites where there are a million nails, a fast processor set to max can unmask targets in a sea of iron. Will you sacrifice depth? Sure, but, with a slow processor, you can even hunt an area like that. You just can't swing slow enough with a motion machine to separate all the signals you're going to get. By the time your machine is done with one nail, it can't recover in time for the good target before the next nail is taking over. Of course, a smaller coil helps a bunch in a search area like that, but, sometimes that just isn't enough. That's one nice thing about the Equinox, you can adjust that speed to adapt to your search area. Can't do that with the Excal, Sovereign, or Etrac. That's also why the Deus has been successful too. I don't claim to be any sort of electronics engineer, I just look at results. The Equinox is killing it in some areas that have hunted to death. That, to me, says a lot about the new technology that Minelab has come out with. To think that new technology can't make a better detector is just silly. I started in 1970 with a BFO machine. No way it comes anywhere near today detectors.....in any phase of use.

 

[bigscoop]

Cuda, I get what you're saying about machines like the Equinox, however, and this is where we have difference, "are they doing it at extreme depths?" And by extreme depths I mean items like small gold rings and dimes at 13,15,16, and beyond." This is where I make my living when I'm hunting these days and "a lot" of these even taking place in a disc silent mode that I often opt to apply, a simple shift in the threshold pitch alerting me to many of these deeper targets of value. Faster processor, I never actually said that they were a bad thing, only that they are a bad thing when it comes to those deepest and weakest and uncertain returns. For every gain there is a trade-off somewhere because there has to be. I'm just nor willing to sacrifice that extreme depth because as long as I can hit that then I can also hit everything above that.

 

[Treasure_Hunter]

It is not always hype the Minelab GPZ 7000 and the Equinix are examples of detectors being more sensitive to gold than previous models. 7000 finds smaller nuggets deeper and the equinox will find thin gold chains that both Excal or 3030 want.

 

[bigscoop]

It is not always hype the Minelab GPZ 7000 and the Equinix are examples of detectors being more sensitive to gold than previous models. 7000 finds smaller nuggets deeper and the equinox will find thin gold chains that both Excal or 3030 want.

Nuggets have some consistency that can be specifically targeted. And again, I've found plenty of small gold chains, etc., with the Excal. Now will the machine also respond to them in open air test or in test gardens? No, but then again, that isn't the real world either. And I ask again, because I have yet to see the Equinox knocking it out at depths. In fact, one of the complaints I often get about the machine is that it lacks depth.

 

[bigscoop]

Here's a fair question for some of you that needs evaluated in regards to all of the hype about this and that. Nearly all of these latest and greatest machines use coil jacks, headphone jacks, etc. So why is there only "a loss of vital target costly resistance" when this is applied after-market to the Excal?

 

[cudamark]

Cuda, I get what you're saying about machines like the Equinox, however, and this is where we have difference, "are they doing it at extreme depths?" And by extreme depths I mean items like small gold rings and dimes at 13,15,16, and beyond." This is where I make my living when I'm hunting these days and "a lot" of these even taking place in a disc silent mode that I often opt to apply, a simple shift in the threshold pitch alerting me to many of these deeper targets of value. Faster processor, I never actually said that they were a bad thing, only that they are a bad thing when it comes to those deepest and weakest and uncertain returns. For every gain there is a trade-off somewhere because there has to be. I'm just nor willing to sacrifice that extreme depth because as long as I can hit that then I can also hit everything above that.

So far. 14" seems to be about the limit for a dime or small ring. This is my local salt water beaches that have some black sand in them. I haven't hit any fresh water ones yet, so, not certain on those. This is running the recovery speed at a lower setting than the preset.....usually 3 or 4 instead of 6. At those slower speeds, it's still lots faster than all the other machines I've used except the Deus, and the MultiCruzer, which I haven't tried yet. I have 8, 10, and 15" coils for my Excals, and I've never gotten that kind of 16"+ depth you mention on the 8 or 10" ones, only the 15 inchers. Maybe it's our conditions, maybe you have a hotter machine, maybe better ears than me! Maybe I'll try using the minimum recovery speed on the Nox and see what I can squeeze out of it. I've found the sensitivity setting affects depth more than the speed setting, but, it does affect it somewhat depending on swing speed. That shouldn't be much of a factor in the water, but, I hunt more in the wet and dry sand than the surf these days.

 

[cudamark]

Here's a fair question for some of you that needs evaluated in regards to all of the hype about this and that. Nearly all of these latest and greatest machines use coil jacks, headphone jacks, etc. So why is there only "a loss of vital target costly resistance" when this is applied after-market to the Excal?

I haven't noticed any loss of depth or sensitivity using cable jacks on my Excals. I have two hard wired and one with a waterproof connector to swap coils. Haven't seen any difference at all.

 

[bigscoop]

So far. 14" seems to be about the limit for a dime or small ring. This is my local salt water beaches that have some black sand in them. I haven't hit any fresh water ones yet, so, not certain on those. This is running the recovery speed at a lower setting than the preset.....usually 3 or 4 instead of 6. At those slower speeds, it's still lots faster than all the other machines I've used except the Deus, and the MultiCruzer, which I haven't tried yet. I have 8, 10, and 15" coils for my Excals, and I've never gotten that kind of 16"+ depth you mention on the 8 or 10" ones, only the 15 inchers. Maybe it's our conditions, maybe you have a hotter machine, maybe better ears than me! Maybe I'll try using the minimum recovery speed on the Nox and see what I can squeeze out of it. I've found the sensitivity setting affects depth more than the speed setting, but, it does affect it somewhat depending on swing speed. That shouldn't be much of a factor in the water, but, I hunt more in the wet and dry sand than the surf these days.

I Just spoke with a guy today about a winter project that involves putting an external headphone jack in my headphones so I can transmit the actual audible in my headphones to the camera mic. One of the reasons I want to be able to do this is because of the great success I've been having with a silent Disc mode that I've been applying this summer, absolutely floored by the depth and sensitivity that I'm getting at those depths. However, one drawback that has to be aware of, surface items like quarters and gold rings, etc., can actual cause kickback much the same way that a nail or bottle cap will report, but once you're aware of this it's not an issue. What I have noticed when using this method, "super slow" is required for maximum depth and sensitivity. Not exactly sure why yet, only that it makes a big difference. It's also very effective in super trashy places as well.