whites 6000di pro hammering my dfx

[cellar dweller]

Hello, I'm new to hunting so an old friend whom has been hunting for years inviting me to a colonel home site he's frequented. He found two buttons.a brass tack. a musket ball, piece of pewter spoon and a lead chunk with his old whites 6000 DI pro and the 9.5 blue max coil. I found one piece of lead with my dfx and 9.5 wide band coil on the preset relic mode. I know if you don't go over it your not going to find it , but sensing something other he called me over on a good hit.He was getting a high (button or coin) on his meter at around 7 inches deep. I swept over the spot and barely got a blip on the signagraph and no vdi. As the hole was dug i swung again and got a 78 over the 6inch hole. at 7 inch he pull a king George II copper out. Thinking I'll never hurt his chances at this site i now have open invitation to go. How do i tweak my settings to get deeper stronger hits?

 

[BARGuy]

And folks wonder why I'm still swingin' my old "heavy" analog 'tector with an MXT in the closet!

DR

 

[Tom_in_CA]

The 6000 Di pro. was and is a very good detector. That generation of 6000 came out in the very early 1990s, as I recall, and there are a lot of hunters that ...... to this day .... refuse to switch. Some of them, for example, switched over to machines like the XLT came out, just *assuming* that "newer meant better". But they switched back to their 6000 Di pro's. There was just something about that bouncing needle, that experienced users learned a lot of target info. from. And as far as depth: with all due respect to the DFX, I think that the depth will be about the same, for standard coin/relic hunting, when comparing the 6000 Di pro to the DFX.

There are coin/relic/jewelry machines that will go deeper than the 6000 Di pro (the explorer, for instance), but the DFX, with all due respect, is not one of them.

 

[U.K. Brian]

I agree with what Tom has said but also consider your basic set up of choice of single frequency or running correlation or best data.

Many think its got to be better to run two frequencies after all its why you chose the DFX. In fact you may well find it easier to approach the depth of the Di Pro by running a single frequency.

A lot depends on the ground mineralisation but if you read a book like Jimmy Sierra's "Understanding the DFX" you will see that where mineralisation allows he uses a single frequency.

 

[Digger]

LOL. Ok you want to spank that 6000 you need to adjust the PAG(Preamp Gain) and AC Sensitivity. Load up the factory Coin & Jewelry mode and turn up the PAG to 3 or 4 if it remain stable or doesn't make random noise in the air. Start turning up the AC Sensitivity until it become unstable and then back it off 3 points.

The DFX comes from the factory with a very conservative setup. I think it was meant to make it easier for new people to use. The older machines were fine detectors for the day but it's like comparing a 20 year old television to a new LCD. Yes some will still say the old tube TV's had better pictures. Those people should continue to buy those tube TV's.

If you take 2 people with the same experience with their detector the DFX will spank the 6000.

 

[cellar dweller]

Thanks guys, I expected the 6000 users to chime in. Not only is my buddy hammering me in the field he's hammering my choice of machines. I was thinking my machine might not get deeper but i did expect as good a hit as his on the same coin. I'll make the suggested adjustments and let you know the results. BTW, should i try single frequency? 3K or 15K ? thanks, chuck and yes, he is good with that 6000. He's been swinging that thing for a long time.

 

[liftloop]

My 5900 eat's my mxt in the dept department.

 

[Digger]

BTW, should i try single frequency? 3K or 15K ?

I always used 15k single but it depends on your soil. Kansas soil is pretty mild.

I could get amazing depth out of my old Eagle Spectrum. Better depth than it was every expected to get I'm sure. When I first got my DFX I felt the Eagle was much deeper, and it was because I had 18 years with it and none on the DFX. In a very short time I was getting depth my Eagle could never have period. Just for the record, my personal experience was that the Eagle Spectrum beat the pants off the 5900, so give the DFX time and you'll reap the rewards.

 

[deepskyal]

I had a 6000Di Pro for quite a few years and made the mistake of selling it. After a few years of not detecting, I bought a used 6000 series. A year or so later I bought the DFX. After about a dozen or so outings, I found a used 6000Di Pro and bought it and stuffed the DFX in the corner.

It's not that I couldn't figure out the DFX. I used custom programs. I was just much more comfortable with the 6000 Pro and knew I was finding more with the Pro than the DFX.

I sold the DFX and turned around and bought the Vision when it came out. Still giving it the trials...not 100% sold on it but love the TID system. I'm also learning the tone ID which is much more advanced than the pro.
One huge advantage the vision has over the 6000 is it's ability to get under power lines without interference. For me, that opens up whole new areas to detecting that were missed by many.

But for now...I know how much I like the 6000Di Pro and won't part with it.

Al

 

[Digger]

I'm a little curious why some feel a detector manufacturer would produce detectors that have less depth than the one THEY made 20 years ago? Do you feel they don't know they are producing inferior detectors? That would make one believe they don't test their own machines. Do you feel they knew more about electronics 20 years ago than today? Or perhaps you feel they are making them cheaply to save money and so they are inferior? Do you believe they think their loyal users would not be able to tell the new machine got less depth? Just what would be the logical reason behind any detector manufacturer choosing to make detectors with less depth ability than those 20 years ago?

Now what makes more sense, the manufacturers are purposely making inferior detectors or some users have become very good with the older machines and don't put out the effort to learn a new machine?

 

[Tom_in_CA]

digger, I must respectfully disagree with you. Part of your misconception is that you infer that if a newer machine, in a manufacturers line-up, is less-able than their own yester-year machine, that this means they must be "purposefully making inferior detectors", or that "certainly this can't be true, because certainly they must know more now, than they did 20 yrs. ago".

All of what you're saying fails to take into account that basically, we have hit a point of diminishing returns, in this last 20 yr. period, when it comes to detectors. So whereas the period from ..... say .... 1970 to 1990 saw LIGHTYEARS of evolution, every 3 or 4 years (BFO to TR. TR to TR disc, VLF-all metal to VLF Disc, to VLF disc. with TID, to VLF disc with slower speeds, to VLF disc, with added depth AND slower speed, etc...) etc... But think of it: since the early '90s, there has become much & much lesser phenomenal breakthroughs. You're no longer using a dinasour now, to have a machine that is 5 or 10 yrs. old (which was VERY true in the 1970s and '80s, if you didn't update every few years, your friends were kicking your b*tt). There are limits of technology, where you get to a point, where all they can do, is re-package it with hopefully something with more options, easier menus, added back-lights, blah blah. But essentially, it is true, that there are machines of 20 yrs. ago, that are every bit as competitive (and in some cases better) than what's coming out today. So it is NOT a "given", that anything newer, automatically has to be superior to a company's own yesteryear products.

Also, from a marketing perspective, put yourself in the position of the company's owners and boards of directors: If you don't "roll out" a new machine every few years, the sales will drop. So to stay alive, in this competitive market, you have to put out new ideas (even if nothing but whistles and bells addded), and you have to introduce things that promise to "answer" the competitor, or else your competitor will run away with all the market share. So believe me: machines get introduced, for no other reason than supply and demand, and market economics, and they may in reality, have no more depth, or even be a disappointment for some types hunting. The DFX, for instance, I believe was introduced to answer a market demand (to "answer" the Minelab infiltration of the market), and is not necessarily better than Minelabs Explorers, nor is it necessarily better than a 6000 Di pro.

JMHO.

 

[Digger]

Sorry Tom but I just can't agree. You believe that new technology, such as enhanced target ID'ing, multi-frequency, faster processors, better coils(DD) and better ground mineral tracking has had no overall improvement to detector performance?

I'm more inclined, due to the overwhelming evidence that says even the entry level detectors are higher tech, to think the older detector perform very well in the hands of those who have used them for many many years. Try handing a newbie a 6000 DI and see how well they do compared to handing them the ACE 250. I think it a matter of people refusing to move on/up and use the excuse my 20 year old detector goes deeper. The reason I think this is I was in the same boat myself not long ago, but common sense got the better of me and I embraced the newer technology and now I have no doubt it does better. Put that some old experience in a new technology and you'll do even better.

Just this past weekend I had the chance to compare my newer detectors to an experienced old-timers detectors. I'll admit I was impressed with the depth he got from those older detectors, but they were not up to the ability of the newer machine.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

well ok digger. You're pushing me to do this, but since you're "twisting my arm", here goes. You say:

" You believe that new technology, such as enhanced target ID'ing, multi-frequency, faster processors, better coils(DD) and better ground mineral tracking has had no overall improvement to detector performance? "

Yes. All the things you list are added improvements WITHIN this last 20 yrs. But .... I didn't want to say this, because it only invokes Ford/Chevy debates that went on with fury when the DFX was first introduced: What you're saying is definately true of the Explorer. It does indeed spank a 6000 di pro. But .... (here we go) the DFX, in a lot of people's opinion, just doesn't measure up, in the field, to an Explorer. And if you ask me, the DFX comparable to the 6000 Di pro in end ability. Yes perhaps different characteristics, tones, etc.... but has not added depth for most normal coin/relic hunting. Believe me, when the DFX came out, a bunch of us wanted seeooo hard to believe that since it post-dated Explorers, and had more menu options, that *certainly* it was going to be deeper or better, or whatever. A friend and I got hold of one, and flagged signals in a turf zone that I knew more deep wheaties and silver still were. I flagged a few with my Explorer, that I was fairly confident were going to be 7 to 9" deep wheatie type signals. We fired up the DFX and ..... EVEN USING EVERY CONCEIVABLE SETTING adjustments, just couldn't get it to sing an nicely, repeat as consistently, etc.... Believe me, we tried and tried, over multiple such deep signals. Perhaps it might be better at low conductors, but it is not going out out-silver-hunt an Explorer in deep turf (given that each user is proficient with their respective machine). Nor will it out beach hunt.

Again, I suppose an argument could be made that it could be tweeked better for low conductors, but I find no lack of low conductors with my explorer. Getting more low conductors doesn't seem to be a problem for ANY machine. Heck, even a cheap machine, you can simply turn down the disc, walk out to any blighted urban park, and dig low conductors till your arms fall off.

So there. You pushed me, and I have to reveal my biases, for this particular machine, and specifically, this particular machine compared to the 6000 Di pro. Still though, it remains true, that .... not all newer machines are *necessarily* better than something that predates it.

 

[Digger]

OK so we have at least admitted that newer technology, be it E-Trac, does in fact out preform the older machines. Not that there was much doubt but we're moving forward. Now let me address the DFX issue. I'll be the first to admit the DFX is not a depth monster when it comes to flat out deep. I realize this and still consider the DFX my choice if I had to choose only one machine. The E-Trac is pulling coins for our city park that the DFX can't touch, but the truth is thats the only place where the E-Trac out performs my DFX. I have taken both the E-Trac and V3i to all my other great producing sites and found my DFX left nothing to be had by these depth monsters. My DFX is much more enjoyable to use in all but one site. So I ask myself does one site justify keeping the depth monsters? If I were back east where most coins are extremely deep then it would be and easy choice, but since I only have one site where it easily beats the pants off my DFX, then I can't see the value.

Where the DFX does excel is with a faster processor, dual frequencies, if you're faced with a wet salty beach, a VDI system second to none when it comes to accuracy, and the most versatile detector made with maybe the exception of the V3i. So you see depth isn't everything to everyone. As a selective hunter(cherry picker) accurate ID ability is far more important than raw depth. In short, the DFX has all the depth I need for the job I do and is still more versatile than any other detector even half its age.

 

[deepskyal]

Manufacturers are limited by law how powerful of a frequency can be. I can imagine being limited like this, they have no choice but to alter other aspects of a detector to make it a seller.

There have been all kinds of coil changes, ID changes, various ways to customize programs...etc. But all that aside, until they come up with something else, like the PI or the old BFO's....I think put all detectors together with similar coils, you'll get similar depth.

The DFX came out with lots of bells and whistles, but nothing really to advance depth. I think it was the concentration on these bells and whistles that was it's fault. Too many adjustments to get the same effect of the bare bones 6000 Pro. A couple knobs versus literally 100's of customizable programs. Any one of those 100's of adjustments, in my opinion having used both, take away from depth.
I like the Vision but it came stock with a 10" coil versus the 8" on the 6000. White's knows that the only way to gain more depth is a bigger coil with the technology they are using.
Outside of ground balancing the 6000, I only had to adjust my Disc with a knob...that's it! I didn't have to worry about how much gain or preamp was too much or not enough, I didn't waste time tuning and tuning, rebalancing after every adjustment for each and every site.

The vision got past that problem with the on-the-go adjusting without having to rebalance. But even with the 10" coil, I'm not finding anything deeper than with my 6000.

Maybe they (White's) realized that with the bells and whistles, they were losing some depth so the next thing to do to compensate was to make the stock coil bigger.

Maybe the DFX was a lesson they learned.??

Al

 

[Digger]

I think the issue about the FCC regulating power output was addressed. They do not regulate the power but that it's a balancing act between not enough power and too much power. Too much power makes the minerals much stronger making too much power actually giving less depth. Something to that effect.

Now you have to admit that having dual frequencies will get you more depth at a salt beach right? OK then that is just one example of new technology, on the DFX, giving more depth.

We also can agree that certain frequencies will give better depth under certain conditions right? Lower frequencies have the potential to give better ground penetration, under the right conditions, that the basic general purpose 6 KHZ to 8 KHZ of the older machines. Also, higher frequencies have the potential to give better depth, under the right conditions, than the older standard general purpose 6 KHZ to 8 KHZ. Again another example of new technology having at least the potential for better depth than the older technology.

There are just simple basic impossible to contest technologies that say newer technology should go deeper under the right conditions. You can't just ignore that facts. Oh, and the DFX has all of these technologies. Dislike the DFX all you want, and your experience may have been terrible, but there is a reason many like myself feel the DFX is far superior to any older and most newer machines. These simple facts listed above may help explain why.

As far as both the E-Trac and V3i I have no doubt what so ever that they are far deeper than any detector I've used or put them up against. Anyone who cares to put it to the test is welcome to come to dodge and I'll be happy to take you to school. Not being arrogant just very confident.

 

[littletwig]

A whites dealer, here in town, sells all the whites machines...but he doesn't use them. His machine of choice is the XL Pro. He swears by it. His next in line machine is the MXT. Do I see knobs and not programs

 

[Tom_in_CA]

little twig, well then your dealer's choice of machines is very telling. Because if I'm not mistaken the XL Pro is sort of a re-packaged version of ........ essentially ...... the 6000 Di pro (in a smaller digital box, etc...). So basically, your dealer is confirming the point of the DFX vs the 6000 Di pro.

 

[Digger]

I really don't see the point of what some dealer might choose to use. I can have any detector I want and I've probably tried as many as most dealers, and I choose to use my MXT or DFX. Not so much that I think they are better than any other, but that I'm more familiar and comfortable with them than any other. And we all know experience with any detector proves to be more productive than anything else.

 

[NoNeck]

I know someone with a 6000 D they are thinking of selling any offer's?