Side-by-Side Tests

[John n Washington]

I haven't found but a few online, but perhaps someone has made the effort and has compared the detection capability of two or more detectors side-by-side (under similar environmental circumstances). I would think any modestly curious individual who has purchased an expensive new detector would take a moment and compare it with whatever he used to use. Now, who is willing to provide the results of such a side-by-side test?

I'm thinking someone here with a little scientific investigative ability has already recorded a quantitative test (Ground test of depth ability, discrimination ability, target separation ability) on at least two detectors.

Who wants to be first?

john

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Agony and Death on a Gold Rush Steamer: The Disastrous Sinking of the Side-Wheeler Yankee Blade - Grab it through Amazon!

[Sandman]

Any test like this will be inconclusive because of all the variables that will come up. There are variances even in the way two detectors of the same brand are manufactured. They try to make them all the same, but things happen. This is why one coil you have might be very hot on silver at deep depths while another coil just like it won't work as well. Add to this the test where you are might give one result while in another part of the country a diff. result. There is operator skill and a whole bunch of things to make this a waste of time. All you can get is a general idea that one detector is different.

Sandman

 

[bakergeol]

I have to agree with the Sandman. Ground mineralization also plays a huge role. Two detectors may have the same depth in mild soil but one may be superior in harsher ground or the other superior around trash. Some are better on low conductors than high conductors. I have seen some side by side comparisons in the past on several forums but the winner always seems to be using the brand forum sites detector.

Skill of the user is for me the top issue as I see some advanced users with ancient equipment run circles around newbies with high end machines. Most controversial is ID as very experienced users have a better handle on their target than new users.

However after saying all of the above I decided just for chuckles and grins to give you some UK air tests including 4 US models(The Hawkeye is the UK equivalent of the Tesoro Cortes).

http://www.nexusdetectors.com/Testspage.html

Please no chorus of replies saying that air tests mean nothing as ground depths will be substantially lower because of mineralization. (Is there someone who doesn't know this?).(Actually air tests for PIs will be very close to in ground depth as they are not effected by ground mineralization).

George



.

 

[U.K. Brian]

For air tests there is http://www.polbox.com/d/dark/testy.htm#mineter though its a bit out of date.
I did my own tests over twenty years that built to about two hundred machines on the same in ground test beds (low and high mineralisation) but it was difficult to keep the site up with massive hacking attempts and I even had my computer hacked and files deleted. Often older machines did as well or better than newer offerings.
Re P.I.'s on my mineralised ground there was massive cut back in some cases especially on those that relied on large coils for increased depth.
The importance of air tests is to get an idea of how a machine should perform. There's thousands of detector users who have sold/traded in a machine not realising they bought a lemon (often a new lemon). My new XLT went back three times many years ago when they first came out as it just could not match the Spectrum it was replacing. If I hadn't had the Spectrum I would have assumed either the XLT was rubbish or didn't suit my soil conditions.

 

[Cannonman17]

What? Side by side comparisson not a fair test? I can't think of better way to compare... I seen other people who "hunted out" a site with one detector and then had somebody else with a different one detect it to compare..now that has too many variables.. but side by side in the same soil on the same targets... that's fair. Somebody should take the metal handle off a five gallon bucket and fill it with sand, then bury a target at a known depth and try two different detectors... try a silver dime for example at five inches, seven, eight, etc. etc... try it with different coins at different depths.. There's no doubt that changing the coil type will change the outcome.. but for testing purposes just use factory issue. That's fair... and hunting different types of soil changes how detectors react too, no argument there but for purposes of just general comparison..that's a great idea. I would try it today but I have an old post office to hit.. no time for fooling around!

 

[Mirage]

Data is data. The key is to understand the factors and conditions under which the data was taken. Data is better than no data as long as there is that key information - otherwise you can be mislead, decieved and taken for a ride.

I have a coin garden. I test detectors in it. It is one data point. One is better than none. I compare this one data point against all the field results(daily finds and such) posted on this forum and I find my data point is fairly well accurate of what others are experiencing in the field. Air tests are one data point but at least it is a data point.

Thanks baker and Brian for the links of your test data.

Mirage

 

[Michigan Badger]

I haven't found but a few online, but perhaps someone has made the effort and has compared the detection capability of two or more detectors side-by-side (under similar environmental circumstances). I would think any modestly curious individual who has purchased an expensive new detector would take a moment and compare it with whatever he used to use. Now, who is willing to provide the results of such a side-by-side test?

I'm thinking someone here with a little scientific investigative ability has already recorded a quantitative test (Ground test of depth ability, discrimination ability, target separation ability) on at least two detectors.

Who wants to be first?

john

Your question has been asked and/or suggested many times by me and many others.

Is a side-by-side test possible? Absolutely.

Would it prove once and for all which detector really is the best in a particular type of soil, region, and weather condition? Absolutely.

So, why isn't it being done much? Easy one...nobody wants to generate enemies. If one were to do this test and prove one machine deeper than all the others in the average soil found in the U.S., one would win a few friends and many enemies. Only those who liked the final verdict would believe the report so why do it in the first place?

Badger

 

[Jerxs]

So, why isn't it being done much? Easy one...nobody wants to generate enemies. If one were to do this test and prove one machine deeper than all the others in the average soil found in the U.S., one would win a few friends and many enemies.

This is a very sad statement, but seems to be true. For some reason people take their detectors very seriously and take this topic quite personal.

I really dont know why this is, id like to know.

If I am swinging a metal detector that is performing half as good as some other detector I want to know! Tell me the detector I am swinging is crap compaired to another! I want to know! If there is solid data supporting that one is better than the other fire away!

 

[John n Washington]

It is my opinion that most people really don't want to risk knowing the facts concerning their detectors true performance. Even if a matrix was developed and made public most would poo-poo it all and buy their 'favorite' brand. People shop based on perceived needs but they buy based on emotional needs. That is why stores sell 'loss-leaders' to get you motivated to come into the store -- they know you'll be walking out with the better model (with a higher profit margin). Pride plays a part too -- who wants to admit the bought a lemon. Adaptability is the human trait to overlook a products limitations -- and instead to adapt or adjust to the limitation. For instance, we discover our new detector's confusing audio response to ferrous junk and hot ground is upsetting -- but soon adapt to it and proclaim the chatter as a good design feature that aids detection. Rather than admit it is as confusing as %ell, the limitation becomes, through mental gymnastics -- a benefit and a mark of superiority.

How many magazine detector reviews seek to justify some nagging design fault with a comment about how the tester found a way to compensate for it or some other aspect made it possible to overlook the poor construction. When it comes to detector reviews you could tie a magnet to a broom stick and someone would claim it has great balance and praise its 'silent operation', with a conclusion that it should prove to be a 'deep seeker' - overall "recommend buy". I'll pay you to say you found a copper Roman coin inscribed 200 B.C. that was dug "real deep" in a "hunted out site" after only two sweeps in an "unworkable" area littered with junk, to undeniably prove what a "fantastic" machine it is (and it costs only $1299.99 MSRP, broom sticks don't grow on trees you know). Some color pictures with a pretty girl holding it up-side-down and you'll be clamoring to buy my patent-pending "M-scope Magneto-pole with Dual Polarized Induction Technology", that's DPIT for the layman.

Well obviously no one would buy such a thing. Instead you might buy a bent metal wire that costs $1.50 to make. You'd pay $65 if I told you it was a "counter-balanced, crystal-powered, deep-seeking, locator dowsing rod".

All I'm asking is to have experienced persons post reasonably well controlled side-by-side test results. Don't know how to keep bogus data out of the results -- very tempting for some to falsify results to make their favorite detector just that much better. With enough data points those bogus data points would be easily removed as outside the norm. Then we would know which detector really is best in various categories and conditions -- yikes! An informed user - could such a thing exist in a hobby that lives on anecdotal stories.

I'd like to see it. Anyone seriously want to setup a webpage (anonymously of course) where data can be posted from home test beds? I'd do it but I'm no HTML guru. Seems like MS Access database with a fill-in user entry for inputting key information (detector used, coil size, settings, soil mineralization low/med/high, air/ground, target, max depth, etc., would work. The results would be displayed in a comparative matrix or graphically by detector.

john

 

[Rusted_Iron]

You see, what I'm really trying to say is this; this hobby is really more about emotions and imaginations than scientific fact. Many people here hold to their brand of detector like some people hold to their religion. To in the slightest bit bad-mouth their brand is akin to striking them in the face or spitting on their mother's picture. I've always found this phenomenon to be most curious indeed! Somehow a piece of electronic equipment becomes a person's soul.

You're right about that, Badger.

I don't personally know which machine is the best, but I do know what machine does best in my hands.

 

[Cannonman17]

True true true... we are all creatures of habit and have a tendancy to stick with what we are familiar with.. and there's no doubt that the better you know your machine the better you will do but a side by side would be interesting none the less.. I don't think I would be offended.

 

[jeff of pa]

Head To Head Comparisons
http://forum.treasurenet.com/index.php?board=316.0

 

[bakergeol]

Well I guess if depth is our God here is another test of both air and ground for a quarter. It is from Europe and the size matches a US quarter. I borrowed this from the nuggetshooter forum. It is by Don (Gatorguy). To make things easier I have converted the cm to inches. Typical of tests like this the models are outdated and new models are left out. For example there is no Ex 11, CZ3D, etc. To make things more difficult we have different coils sizes to contend with. I have the Treasure Baron on top of the list for best in ground depth for it's coil size for a quarter.. There were two models which had slightly better depth(Garrett GT1 2000 and the CZ20) but they had larger coil sizes. Let's see if we can piss off a few people here.

The following is from Don

Here is some test done in Europe some interesting results. 1cm to .3937 inches


Air testing test all metals normally gives much greater distances than those obtained in the ground test. Certain apparatus lose up to 13 cm between both, but when the detector gives a very good result in the air, it is generally - to a lesser extent - is powerful in the ground test, too.

The Ground Test for all metals is performed in a mixture of 50% bio-soil and 50% mineralized river sand, each moistened and measured before each test. Adjusted at maximum capacity many apparatus become unsteady (above all the ones with metal casings which tend to self-detect from a certain range on).

Excellent notation for the Garrett GTI 2000, easy usage, stable electronics, clear responses, good ergonomics, casing ABS, battery compartment as far from searchcoil as possible. Very good results with Fisher CZ20 (though a bit heavy). The Discovery Baron base module also gives reliable results. With its finest adjustment, the White’s 6000 Di Pro offers good detection depth but becomes rapidly unsteady. The Minelab Sovereign XS-2 works very correctly but uses up battery power in no time. Special mention for the Tesoro Lobo Super Traq, a very steady apparatus and which should give the best performances with a round searchcoil 10 1/2" (which we haven’t been able to test).



TARGET $25 CENT (Ø 24 mm Cu)

DETECTION TEST

DETECTOR MODEL
Ø SEARCHCOIL
ALL METALS

AIR
GROUND

Discovery Baron Module base
8"
32 cm 12.59 in
23 cm 9.05

Garrett GTI 2000
91/2 "Super Deepseeking
37 cm 14.5 in
25 cm 9.84

Fisher CZ5
8" Spider
32 cm 12.59 in
21 cm 8.267

Garrett GTA x 500
81/2" Grossfire
26 cm 10.23 in
21 cm 8.267

White’s 6000 Di Pro
91/2" Blue Max
35 cm 13.779 in
22 cm 8.66

Fisher CZ20
101/2" Spider
36 cm 14.17 in
24 cm 9.448

Minelab Sovereign XS
8"
24 cm 9.448 in
18 cm 7.08

Minelab Sovereign XS-2
10", waterproof
33 cm 12.99 in
22 cm 8.66

Treasure Ace 300
81/2" Grossfire
17 cm 6.69 in
13 cm 5.118

Garrett GMH CXII
81/2" Grossfire
24 cm 9.449 in
18 cm 7.0868

Garrett GTA X 1000
81/2" Grossfire
25 cm 11.02 in
17 cm 6.69

White’s SpectrumXLT
91/2" Blue Max
30 cm 11.8 in
21 cm 8.26

White’s Quantum XT
91/2" Blue Max
26 cm 10.23 in
20 cm 7.87

White’s Classic SL III
91/2" Blue Max
24 cm 9.44 in
15 cm 5.906

White’s Classic SL II
8" Blue Max
19 cm 7.48 in
14 cm 5.51


Fisher 1225 X
5"
17 cm 6.69 in
12 cm 4.724

Fisher 1235 X
8" Spider
21 cm 8.26 in
16 cm 6.29

Fisher 1265 X
8" Spider
25 cm 9.84 in
17 cm 6.69

Fisher 1266 X
101/2" Spider
29 cm 11.41 in
19 cm 7.48


Tesoro Lobo Super Traq
10" x 5" elliptical
28 cm 11.02
20 cm 7.87

Tesoro Toltec
101/2"
26 cm 10.2 in
18 cm 7.08

TesoroGolden Sabre
8"
21 cm 8.26 in
16 cm 6.29

Tesoro Bandido
8"
22 cm 8.66 in
14 cm 5.51

Tesoro Silver Sabre
101/2"
24 cm 9.44 in
17 cm 6.69

Tesoro Cutlass
8"
19 cm 7.48 in
14 cm 5.51

Tesoro Amigo
7"
17 cm 6.69 in
13 cm 5.12

Minelab Sovereign XS
71/2" , waterproof
26 cm 10.2 in
19 cm 7.48

 

[Bebop]

That is why this topice, Head to Head comparison is a good thing. So people can post there results and there opinion of there local area and there detectors. After enough data is posted you can see the diffrents from region to region and the diffrents between detectors. More info, is better then less info, witch some people think is better. I want to know it all!! Good or bad! Control data or back yard data, bring it on.

 

[John n Washington]

Thanks to all who have posted comparative results. I'm thinking there are many others here who have private tests of some of the latest models that they could post. Personally, I simply couldn't resist comparing the depth capability (or target ID, target separation, etc.) of two competing detectors. That is just too big a temptation to resist.

The mere fact that this thread has had nearly 400 views shows the level of interest people have in seeing factual data.

Howz bout each person post at least one side-by-side comparison test result or result from any single detector. This assumes you are familiar with its use and have tried to be unbiased. Even air test, as previously stated, will give a relative gauge to the sensitivity of a detectors receiving coil and circuitry.

The 80% solution is better than nothing at all.

john

 

[Earl]

I think Sandman has a point. Sometimes newer does not mean better. I have owned mostly whites detectors since the late 60's. I had some of the early models but my favorite was the 6000D series. I bought a 5500D series 3 off ebay last year and it is a good little machine. I live in an area with high mineralization such as magnetic black sand and lots of alkali soil. This is hard ground for any detector. I get coins consistantly at 4 to 6 inches depth and I think this is the best this old 2 filter, single freq machine will do. I kept researching the internet and calling whites and decided on a new DFX. I got the machine last week and took it out to the coin garden. I buried a quarter at about 4 inches and put the machine in the preset coin program. Not a whisper from that machine on the quarter. I got my old 5500D and a good solid hit. I burried the quarter down to 6 inches and the old machine still got a whisper of a hit on the coin. I made some changes in the program on the DFX and I could Barely hear the quarter. So far I have to really tweak the DFX to get the same performance as the old machine provides. Out of the box performance of the DFX was very dissappointing. But I am not giving up on the DFX as I see where it has great potential and it is up to me to tweak the machine to ring the performance out of it. I have bought all the coils and I am going to give this thing a year and if I cannot improve on the performance then I guess it will be time to change machines. I wonder if maybe the metal detector business is not like the ham radio business. A manufacturer cannot justify a huge price increase on a certain model so he comes out with a new improved model with a few more knobs and bells and whistles when in all reality it offers little more than the old model. Oh well, such is the marketing game. I really believe some of the old 20 year old technology whites detectors are still hard to beat today. If I was a young pup and had not used metal detectors in the old days then I would have thought finding that quarter at 3 inches with the DFX was amazing but having used a 6000 series detector years ago that would have found that quarter in hard ground down to 6 inches or better I was somewhat disappointed but like I said the DFX has a lot of potential and just needs to be figured out. Just my 2 cents for what it is worth.

 

[John n Washington]

For whatever it is worth, the older Spectrum XLT with 91/2" Blue Max coil air tested on a quarter maxed at 11.8 in and max depth 8.3 inches in the ground.
The even older 6000 Di Pro with 91/2" Blue Max beat the XLT, 13.8 inches in the air and 8.7 inches in the same ground.
Another test result showed the DFX struggling against GTI 2500, ML Explorer, and Nexus (DFX was out of its league)
The GTI 2000 spanked the XLT (about 120% greater depth with same size coil) and the GTI 2500 beat the DFX consistently.
So, one might conclude, if we dared to conclude anything, that White's older 6000 (which I used for 6 years) has better depth than the newer XLT and DFX. New does not equate to better, necessarily. I would put the older White's 6000 in the same class but slightly below the Garrett GTI family and about even with the Fisher CZ5.
In the available tests, the GTI 2000/2500 family was only slightly superior depth-wise to the Minelab Explorer and Sovereign XS, though this finding probably conflicts with users opinions. It is probably rank heresy, but it would appear, IMO, that the old 6000 pro is about in the league with Minelab's earlier Explorer and Sovereign models.

My impression is that White's makes great detectors overall, with many clever features and nifty bells and whistels -- but their strong suit is not in the depth arena. Of course, your mileage may vary.

john

 

[Rusted_Iron]

It is probably rank heresy, but it would appear, IMO, that the old 6000 pro is about in the league with Minelab's earlier Explorer and Sovereign models.

If you're talking about all metal mode, I might agree with you. I have a Sears / White's coinmaster with a Hot Head coil (11 or 12 inch I think), and the thing is uncanny in all metal mode. I was picking up a solid signal from a brass Rayo lamp at like 5 feet away. Even coin depths are quite impressive if you go in all-metal and don't mind this heavy beast of a coil / detector combo.

My own experience with the White's Coinmasters in general was that they lost a lot of depth in disc mode. It also seemed as though, in GEB Disc mode, you either get a solid bell tone or nothing at all. I got none of these "faint signals" that everyone was talking about. Maybe I just had the machine set up wrong, and I'm pretty sure I had the ground balance all wrong. Oh well.

One very important thing in head-to-head tests is to make sure you specify the disc settings... for example, on analog machines, maybe set the disc on both to where it just cancels out tabs or something? The Minelab Explorer makes it hard to do a head-to-head comparison with these kinds of detectors.

 

[bakergeol]

The DFX data was always puzzling to me too. As Brian UK mentioned air tests can help determine if a detector is functioning properly. I remember in the past a few new X-5 users would complain about a lack of depth of this machine and simply bad mouth it. Well what had happened is that the last owner(s) had "tweaked the machine" and when they had screwed it up badly they simply dumped it on E-Bay. I would check with other DFX owners to see if your DFX air depths were similar to theirs. A new machine not functioning correctly is hardly unheard of.

We may be at the end of the road to what we can do with new VLF detectors as leaps in technology and depth simply are not going to happen. I still own a series 3 which I purchased back in the 80's. At the time my MD club was about 75% Whites. Believe me Whites was King at that time. Most people in the club simply upgraded from the series 2 to the series 3. It is a solid machine than as it is now. However, the analog coin ID/metal ID of the Series 3 for me was limited and does not compare to today's models.

I remember when the Explorers first came out. It seemed that there was a new rush on in the productive parks. For some people it was doing well again in a hunted out park. These new machines were just better at IDing coins in trash and at depth where earlier VLFs could not do as well. I always felt that the issue is not more depth but the ability to recognize good targets at extreme depths and around trash. I think the Ex 11 does this extremely well with tone ID and sets it apart from a older generation of VLFs.

George

 

[kool007]

I know this is an older topic, but I did do a side-by-side comparisson on 2 totally different machines. I used a Sovereign Elite with 10-inch coil vs. an Xterra-70 with stock concentric coil.

I went to a local park and used the Sov on a small area. Very small due to all the targets. In this small area, I only wanted the clad and silver, so I searched very slow. I found 3 good signals in a small 3ft X 3ft area. I then used the X-terra 70, and it could only lock onto 1 of the targets. It didn't find any other GOOD targets.

Disc was set at MIN on both machines.

What this tells me is that I would trust the Sov more for plain old coin shootin only at this particular park.

My next comparisoon for the future will be to compare the Sovereign Elite, Excalibur, and Fisher CZ20 at the beach on a true SIDE-by-SIDE comparisson. It will be fun.

Laterz

ed