Find's Treasure Forums

Welcome to Find's Treasure Forums, Guests!

You are viewing this forums as a guest which limits you to read only status.

Only registered members may post stories, questions, classifieds, reply to other posts, contact other members using built in messaging and use many other features found on these forums.

Why not register and join us today? It's free! (We don't share your email addresses with anyone.) We keep email addresses of our users to protect them and others from bad people posting things they shouldn't.

Click here to register!



Need Support Help?

Cannot log in?, click here to have new password emailed to you

Changed email? Forgot to update your account with new email address? Need assistance with something else?, click here to go to Find's Support Form and fill out the form.

2nd Time's The "Charm" Beach Hunting With GT Using PP Mode, & Update On Unethical Detectorist...

Critterhunter

New member
[attachment 248236 IMG_2092.jpg]
Went back to the same badly mineralized beach I hit yesterday. Didn't hunt too long but PP mode filled my apron halfway decent for such a short hunt. Once again coins as little as say 3 or 4" were a total null or choked badly like iron in discriminate, while PP had no problem "zinging" hard on them from any direction. Have to clean up these coins and see if any silver is lurking in there, as well as the pennies for a wheat or perhaps an indian. Pretty crusty stuff for a fresh water beach, so they've been there a while.

Hit a washed out small area in the sand and got a signal that I think read either 158 or 168 (probably 168 from memory and more than likely for what the target turned out to be). Looked down and right on top of the sand I see a small butterfly pendant! Pick it and and see that it's marked "925" on the clasp, so the butterfly is silver. The picture doesn't show it well but the front is studded heavily with small clear and red stones, which I'm sure are fake because a few are missing. I find the fake stones aren't usually set well and will easily fall out on stuff. Even a super thin/small silver ring will read as 180 due to being an intact look and highly conductive, but I find the odd small silver items like earings or pendants, in particular if they are not a loop and are small enough, can read a bit lower than 180. Typical is about 173 or 176 or so, so this pendant rang pretty darn low at probably 169 if I remember right.

In the picture you can also see a antique looking bracelet, which is round in shape even though the pic doesn't relate that well. It's standing up for the picture and is open at the base I used to pinch it around my truck's bed liner ribs to keep upright. I'm sure it's junk metal but I'll give it a shine and see if it might be silver but I highly doubt it even with the quick glance I gave it. I didn't find it. Turned out a lady was hunting the water's edge for lake glass, and she came over and gave it to me. I asked if she was sure she didn't want it and she said "No", so I thanked her and threw it in my pouch. Just wish I had some lake glass on me to give her in return.

The other round wire item doesn't look like junk metal but I think it's copper or brass. I'm thinking it might have held a pendant in the center because you can see a loop at both sides of the top where maybe a chain attached above and the pendant below. Then again it might be some odd type of fishing lure used to attract fish to a spreader or something.

In between that item you can see an odd looking "what is it?" thing. Not sure if it is a coin, a token, or some kind of button. It's metal but the front and black are coated with a blue and green plastic I think or perhaps paint. The wording I think is Italian or ? Then again maybe it's English and I'm just not reading it from the right starting point. :nerd:

As you can see by the coins, quite a few are pretty darn crusty having been sitting deep in the sand for years. Some looked worse before than they do now, because I usually scrape off enough crusty junk with my thumb before throwing it into my pouch so as to not make as big of a sand mess in the pocket.

You can also see the one "coin" by it's self, which is the don't do drugs token I found yesterday. Haven't cleaned that up yet to see if it's got a date on it, but it too had a pretty good amount of funk on it so I expect it sat in the sand for some time.

Oh, as a side note, I watched for the guy from yesterday who was leaving all the holes, and had my pocket camcorder at the ready should he decide to start leaving holes all over again. I wasn't going to put up with that and planned to shame him badly so he'd think twice, by making sure he knew I was filming him and all the holes he was leaving for people to trip into. Lucky for him (or maybe me because one never knows what people are packing :biggrin: ) he didn't show up. Didn't find any other holes left by the guy either so that was a good thing.
 
Went to the beach yesterday at just about high tide. As the tide retreated I followed it as I worked up and down between the water and the dunes. Found a few dollars in clad, two sterling rings (three for the week) and a big mans ring (with a bandaid wrapped to make it smaller) with a red stone and United States Army around the stone. Some young lady likely lost the ring. It was badly incrusted with salt and sand. I could see the shiny gold color in spots. Got it home and It appears to be some type of metal plated with a very thin layer of gold. Sure wish it was real as it weighed about an ounce. Oh Well I will keep looking. Gt with the 13" Ultimate worked to perfection. Hurricane Sandy removed some sand from the beach that I usually frequent so it uncovered stuff that had been too deep to be able to find. Cant get my camera to work correctly so no pictures. Sorry.
 
Good hunt nice finds :thumbup: Jim
 
Ran across this blurb in the beach forum concerning the depth of the Sovereign or Excalibur in pin point mode to some PI units...

Tony said:
junklord3139 said:
I sold the excal and have the Infinium for sale.My Tesoro (note: the Sandshark PI unit) I like better it go's deeper

Seahunter MKII will slay the Sandshark in all conditions and all targets.
There are two people on all the forums who disagree with this statement.
This is all I have to say on this matter.

And yes, my Sovereign with stock coil in PP is as deep as my Seahunter in all but the worst black sands.

T

Interesting he even noted with the stock coil. I wonder just how the GT or Excal in PP mode with say a S-12, 12x10, 13" Ultimate, or WOT would compare to still yet other PIs by using pin point mode? I have read of others in the past saying PP mode on their Excal or Sovereign was as deep or deeper than PIs they owned. Just wondering what other PI models they were talking about?

As some of the heavy hitter Excal users say, in PP mode you can crank sensitivity to full blast and still it's stable, and that volume at full will also give you more depth. I have seen the volume thing myself in my own tests with PP mode, but haven't even played with running sensitivity to max and it's still punching deeper than disc at a very badly mineralized beach. I've been just running sensitivity at what is stable for disc when using PP mode, so I can flip back to disc to check how it's doing on a target for comparison reasons.

I hear you can still crank sensitivity to full and leave it because when flipping back to disc you are only trying to get a response (or not) and don't have to worry about stability for that reason. Makes sense. And, I've found that I can both tell target depth (just like in disc) thanks to the audio being modulated in PP too, and in the short time I've been using PP I can already often tell iron by it's response without ever needing to check in disc. Really amazes me, as it's like a PI in depth yet with the ability to judge target traits or iron. I have read that PP mode has at least 10 distinct target responses to learn to also judge other targets by too. Really looking forward to learning those.

At one badly mineralized beach, I'm not even keeping sensitivity at what disc is stable at, but much of the time I've even keeping volume at lowest, and yet PP is seeing targets, even shallow coins and such at say 3 to 5", that disc is nulling or not even responding to. Very impressive. Haven't even begun to explore the abilities of PP mode yet and am very excited about it's prospects in either very bad ground that even legendary BBS is having issues with, or say at even sites where minerals aren't much of an issue but targets within range of VLF detectors are real scarce. Then it's time to switch to PP, crank up volume and sensitivity to full, and see just what lies at extreme depths at a beach or even old land site. :cool:
 
Critterhunter said:
I hear you can still crank sensitivity to full and leave it because when flipping back to disc you are only trying to get a response (or not) and don't have to worry about stability for that reason.

That is actually how more depth was found with my already deep CZ's. I had not tried that set up with the Excal. Of course now I will have to try it.

Thanks for posting the thought.
Cheers,
tvr
 
critter weve gone back and forth on this subject before and I was wondering if you could say what the change is, say from your past experience as its obviously quite different than what it is now(pinpoint all metal versus the disc mode). I know some others are "disc is deeper" advocates as well, just wondering what changed your mind.

here is an earlier link and theres been quite a few since then: http://www.findmall.com/read.php?21,1286282,1286762#msg-1286762
 
Neil, early on I did play a bit with PP mode, on both my GT and the Excalibur I was doing some repairs on for a friend, and at that time I wasn't seeing PP mode any deeper than disc. However, two things- First, I always hunt with volume all the way down on the GT since I don't have volume controls on my headphones, and while there is no difference in depth of discrimination with volume all the way lowest or all the way highest (I recently did a youtube video that proves this), there is indeed a difference in depth of PP if you crank it's volume to full, and that's without even touching what is stable for sensitivity for disc and raising it for even more depth in PP. In my tests (video) I had sensitivity at full blast, which was still stable for disc (remote site with good soil), so that wasn't even an issue at hand. But when I compared volume at lowest to at highest for both disc and PP, disc showed no change in depth (ruler in front of camera proves this, and I had no way to tell what the depths were until I watched the video), while PP got 2" less depth than disc with volume for PP was at lowest, and yet 2" more depth than disc when volume was at highest. And as said, disc didn't change depths with volume low or high.

From memory, I believe that video shows disc got 12" on a clad dime with volume lowest or highest. PP mode got 10" with volume at lowest, and got 14" with it highest. And we all know many say Minelabs don't give best performance in air tests, at least compared to some soils in the real world.

Now, the other reason why I've changed my mind, is because I never really tested PP in very mineralized ground like this one beach. What is shocking to me is that even with volume at it's lowest, and sensitivity at what is stable for disc and not blasting it to full, PP is still seeing deeper than disc due to the bad minerals. I'm talking on coins as little as 4" or so in some instances that disc is choking or nulling on. So this tells me not only is PP deeper than disc if you crank the volume to full, but even with volume at lowest PP is seeing BETTER thru severely bad minerals. In other words, two benefits to PP- Both increased depth (by way of full volume/sensitivity), and by way of penetrating super bad mineralization that even the legendary ability of BBS/disc can't handle.

Also, another thing that had me convinced otherwise before on the subject- Is that often when I tried to PP a target in PP mode when land hunting, it would not hear a deep coin while disc had no problem with it. That had me thinking PP was not as deep, and one of the reasons why I rarely used PP to PP a target, because often I prefer disc for that so iron doesn't drag me off target when deciding where to dig a plug. However, yes...PP was not as deep as disc on some deep targets on land, but only because I had the volume all the way down on the GT. My tests show that even without raising sensitivity, just by shear virtue of turning the volume all the way up, PP mode is getting deeper than disc.

I can see now why OBN uses an audio amplifier on his Excal when using PP mode. From what I gather it shows no benefits in disc by using it, but in PP mode it is letting him push PP mode even deeper. That would seem to make sense since volume does indeed seem to change PP modes depth, while it doesn't for disc. What is happening is that the audio amplifier in the GT is passing along weak target responses in PP mode that otherwise wouldn't be amplified with the volume all the way down.

Now, from what I've been reading, it appears using the audio amp in PP mode on the GT does not show depth increases as it does on the Excal, because it appears the GT already is amping the audio at full volume just like the amp is doing for the Excal. That's what I *think* I've read thus far anyway about it. The GT doesn't need it, but the Excal, while it doesn't need it to get PI depth, will indeed benefit from using one to max out the depth ability of PP on an Excal. This makes sense, because I have said in the past that the GT, when I wiggle over a super deep fringe depth target, gives me a "click" in and out of responding to the target.

In other words, when I first start to wiggle over a super deep hit at the fringes, the audio will make a slight click like an amp being turned on, and the audio appears a little more "amped", and yet when I stop wiggling I again hear a "click" and the audio seems to ramp back down. I mentioned this early on when I was new to the GT. Two deep 11" coins did this to me. It has to be some kind of audio amplification beings switched on for fringe depth targets when you wiggle over them, is the only thing I can figure. If that's the case, then it's probably why PP mode on the GT doesn't seem to benefit from using an audio amp, because it's already doing it for you.

So yea, based on my limited messing around with PP on the GT and the Excalibur in the past, I didn't see where PP was deeper. The volume thing fooled me, and not being able to hear targets in PP because of that sometimes, and also I didn't play with it in very mineralized ground to see if it had PI-like ability to punch through minerals. Up until now I would have thought PP mode, being a form of all metal with no ground balance, was not even multi-frequency but rather just a primitive form of all metal putting out a single frequency. Apparently it's still using BBS to punch thru minerals, and even better than disc in some situations. I also think I've read a while back that somebody who should know (having spoke to a Minelab tech) was told that even the all metal fixed/track modes on the GT are still using multifrequency, and was one of the reasons why the all metal modes on the GT were among the best on any detector and very powerful. It would appear that PP mode also is benefiting from the same strong BBS technology of multifrequency, I bet anyway...
 
Thread link at bottom of this post to a thread where more of the below conversation is going on, but here's more highlights thus far...

Some more pulse induction machine comparisons from elsewhere to the Sovereign or Excalibur in pin point mode. Anybody getting excited yet? :biggrin:.....

Tony said:
Critterhunter said:
Tony, I've heard of PP mode on the Sovereign and Excal being as deep as a PI for some in their soils or sands. I can't remember though in respect as to which PIs they were comparing the PP mode to. You stated one PI that you feel PP mode is as deep as. Can you relate any others that you've heard the same in comparison to PP mode? If you wish you can just shoot me a PM on that if you want, or I'll read what you have to say here. Thanks.

Hi Critterhunter,

I have used many PI's over the past 10 years, including Minelab SD200v2, Goldquest SS, Deepstar2 (Borrowed), SeaHunter MKII.
At the moment, as I am 90% in the water, I only have the Garrett.
Luckily I have had my Sovereign for many years and could always compare against all the PI's I got to use.
Are you ready for my conclusion;
The Sovereign was as deep or deeper than all of the PI's on the beach (dry, damp, saturated). Big statement I know but 100% true.
Generally, the sand was clear of black sands where the Sovereign would struggle/false in DISC (but in PP was still surprisingly good). I think this is due to the search pattern in PP where it it seeing such a narrow field of material but is concentrated??.
But out in the black sand free with the stock coil and full sens (yep, 9 o'clock position), the depth blew me away.
I also have Shaun's AMP which unfortunately doesn't work at the moment (and he wont get back to me...grrrrrr) and that got me an extra 15% on top of what I was already getting.
To be honest, I don't post those findings much because I have gotten quite a few doubters who consider me delirious by my findings.
That's okay, I just detect behind many of them and excavate holes for the rings.........average men's wedding band to 15".
I recently detected a beach that was covered in beer caps......had to use DISC to remove them (247 in total)....and then switched to PP and picked up 2 nice gold rings down around 13" to 14".
Maybe this DISC/PP "which is deeper" does differ between the Sovereign/Excals????
I have checked about 6 machines and PP was always deeper. PP lets you dial in so much power and there is no falsing at all although I couldn't achieve this max power with my WOT and SEF......makes sense really as a bigger coil is a bigger antenna !
I hope this helps
Thanks,
Tony.

PS.....I had all this data on a spreadsheet on an old hard drive which has since died so I can't retrieve it.

Tom Slick said:
I'm not Tony, but I think my Sovereign GT is as deep on the wet salt sand, as any of the PI's I've had and these include the White's Surf PI, PI Pro, Dual Field, the Detector Pro Headhunter PI, and my Tesoro Sand Shark.

Here's the thread they came from, where you can watch for further remarks and opinions. Fascinating reading...

http://www.findmall.com/read.php?26,1804387
 
Sorry, forgot to point out- that the "click" I hear on super deep targets which seems to be going in and then back out of some kind of audio amp mode on the GT was in discriminate, and even with volume all the way down. So I suspect this amp thing built into the GT (if it is) works in disc even at lowest volume, but in PP mode it appears it only is boosting the target's audio response when volume is at full.

And as said, from at least what I've read thus far by somebody testing an external audio amp on the Excalibur and the GT, the GT appears not to need it in PP mode at full volume, while the Excalibur appears to benefit from it in PP even when volume is cranked to full. That's not to say that many don't say at full volume on the Excalibur not using an amp that they aren't seeing PI-like depths, because people are indeed saying that. Just that perhaps an external amp is helping the Excal get that last little bit of depth the GT is already providing via some kind of internal amping maybe.

In both cases of the Excalibur and the GT if I remember right they said the audio amp did not appear to improve depth in disc mode, which would make sense if on the GT I'm hearing this click in disc when I first start wiggling over a super deep target, then more of a "white noise" type of audio quality to fringe targets, and then another click when I stop wiggling over it and the threshold resets.

It's just like a stereo amp is being turned on, then turning off. Perhaps though in PP mode on the GT this audio amping only turns on when the volume is turned to full blast? That would explain PP's less depth at lowest volume, while showing more depth at full?

Assuming (I know, big assumptions) all this stuff is the case, then maybe the Excalibur lacks the audio boost in PP mode, and is why an audio amplifier will push it even deeper than it already does with volume at full?

I've noted this click/amp/click fringe target response in disc on the GT the first few months I started using one and posted about that in this forum. I'm suspecting it might be one of the ways Minelab improved the depth of the GT?

I'll see if I can dig up the thread I was reading all this external audio amp testing stuff in a few months back to see if my memory is correct on what I thought I read. If I can find it I'll post a thread link...
 
The GTs volume switch is a target volume and the only time I would turn that down would be if I was hunting for shallower targets. A set of good headphones with volume control arent that expensive, especially a nice set used. A hunter should want those louder signals coming through to insure he is gonna hear the weaker ones. I would never discourage anyone from turning down their volume control on the Sov whether in disc mode or all metal. The volume controls on the Excal and Sov are different, indeed on the Excal they are partly or fully for headphone volume. I dont think its accurate to compare the two since they function different(anyone who has used both sov/excal should know this).
Testing or no testing for two plus years youve been saying pinpoint isnt as deep as disc in your ground and youve been quite adamant about it. Im not sure what all your words here are supposed to convey but I am glad youve found another part of the sovs function and see that iron mask and disc has its place as well as the pinpoint mode. Thats really the point of these conversations, learning and passing on what we have experienced.
 
Neil, so I guess then your problem is that I've changed my mind on one small aspect of the subject after further investigating? Would you like me to change it back? :biggrin: I have no problem changing my mind when I see different results than I've seen before. I hope you are as open minded as well in that respect. There is no point in getting upset when others don't share the same opinion on a subject. I don't let that upset me, and look at it as a interesting theory and challenge to prove or disprove one way or the other for myself on a topic. Let's cover a few of those disagreements below where I've proven to myself otherwise than what is always said as a "rules of thumb", but first let's get the PP/Volume thing out of the way...

In one particular aspect of PP versus disc on the Excal/Sov, volume does give more depth, where as using lower volume all the time fooled me on that part of the equation, or when I did blast volume to full I still didn't see any differences that I could see, so I decided I needed to do precision measurements to see how that panned out either way, as this debate (not just from me, Neil) has raged off and on for several years.

But at the same time I haven't changed my mind on various other aspects on the topic, and even have erased any doubt for myself, such that volume effects depth in disc.

As to my prior experience with PP mode on both the Excal and GT, all I saw said PP was not deeper, at full volume or not, until I decided to investigate further in a detailed, precise, and controlled manner, which nobody had ever done before at least that I've read, to finally put the subject to rest.

Only then did I discover that the appearent differences in opinion on PP was that volume was accounting for at least some of those differences in opinions. And, in my defense, I'm not the only person on this forum who has said PP was not as deep for them *in their soil or sand*, so don't think I'm the only person who was spearheading the idea.

Even when I tested volume at full, on either the GT or the Excalibur, I saw no differences by eye in disc or PP depth wise, while for sure at lowest volume I've seen in the field numerous times PP wouldn't hear a target that disc did, further contributing to my belief it wasn't as deep as disc.

I have no problem changing my mind on a subject when I see evidence later that contradicts what I first saw with my own eyes and ears, but I prefer to verify and not assume, because I have many times found the general rules of thumb advice given to me is not always correct. Trust but verify, is the way I approach things.

For example, the "golden rule" that a Sovereign must be swept slow to get maximum depth. I've thus far only found one instance where a super slow sweep speed saw a super deep target better, and in fact at most sites when I've tested that, I found a slow sweep would not even respond to the target, while a somewhat faster one approaching what I would call even a medium sweep on something like a Whites unit was the only way to get the target to sound off at fringe depth. These were undug targets, so no issues with freshly buried stuff that Minelabs might act differently on. And I've tested this on fringe targets at both beaches and on land.

A slow sweep might be true for others in their soil or sands, but in my case it's not correct, and is just one of the reasons why I never take a person's word on any aspect of a detector's performance. One reason alone being that different soils or sands can have very different results, or even coil choice might come into the equation.

Another person on this forum took heat for having the same opinion I did of a slow sweep speed not sounding off to deep targets in his soil for him, and so he made a video to show people he wasn't blowing smoke, which seemed to stop any further criticism of him on the subject. I plan to do the same video myself, just to show in my soil the results are exactly the same as his.

As another example, I've always heard for years (and experienced myself with some machines), that a small coil would see deeper into badly mineralized ground than a larger one. My tests on a badly mineralized beach appear to say otherwise. An 8" coil on the BBS machines, compared to a 13" coil, in badly mineralized ground, did not see a coin at only roughly 6 or 7", while the larger coil could. Only when switching to PP mode could the smaller coil see that coin, while the larger one could in disc.

So in this case Neil, not only did I prove my long held belief wrong, but I also proved wrong the rule of thumb that many other people have always said for years in detecting circles- that a smaller coil takes in less ground matrix and so will see through the mineralization better than a larger coil. At least in this particular situation, with these particular machines and coils, at this particular mineralized beach. The coin was buried to just the point where the larger coil was starting to choke it out badly due to the mineralization, so that it was having problems with minerals and not the depth, and this showed that a smaller coil in this case did not have an advantage in these minerals at seeing the target better. That depth was still well within what a smaller coil should be able to see, if it weren't due to the minerals.

As for the volume control on the GT in disc, I've read numerous times in the past that full volume would give you more depth on a target in disc. My tests, tested numerous times with several coils, shows no change in depth in disc regardless of where volume is set, so long as you have good enough hearing to hear fringe targets and the right kind of headphones to pass along the weaker response. I can easily hear the first initial response from a target at depth with the volume all the way down on the GT using my headphones, and video taping the results with a yardstick in the foreground left no oppurtinuty for bias, since I didn't even know the results until I reviewed the video. Rasing volume to highest did not change the detection depth of disc for me.

Might it change it for others with bad hearing or different headphones? Maybe, but it's because of those two things and not something related to the volume control as far as what I'm seeing. I did see that PP was effected by the volume control, so that changed my mind about the volume control using that mode, when I could see the slight changes in depth differences of it compared to disc on the video, where as I couldn't see it before under other circumstances.

As another example of where popular opinion was wasn't right, I'm sure you remember the off and on debates about the S-12 being the lightest coil in that size range for the Sovereign, and I did not share that belief. From some wieght numbers I saw, and have finally confirmed by weighing both coils on a quality digital scale myself to finally put the matter to rest, the 12x10 and S-12 are pretty much a dead match weight with boh coil covers on, and in fact the 12x10 is a full half ounce lighter with the coil cover removed. Can't tell you how many times I heard otherwise and voiced that I didn't share that opinion. I've heard the same thing said of the 15x12, that it's heavier than the 10" Tornado. Depends on your perspective, because in the case of not using a coil cover the 15x12 is lighter.

Why were a few people who continued to say the SEFs were so much more heavier wrong? I believe it's because they were comparing the FBS Etrac/Explorer versions of the SEF coils they own, to other coils they owned on the Sovereign or Excalibur, because the FBS versions of the SEF coils are a good bit heavier than the BBS versions. No need to point out the vew who kept saying that. They know who they are, and I'm just happy to finally have put it to rest.

Or what about the debate on iron mask on versus off? Minelab says you get more depth with it on and it improves the ability to pull coins out of iron. I had people tell me that's impossible, but then I came across the technical report on Minelab's site that says you can indeed tell the ferrous/non-ferrous qualities in a detection field and separate them. The field has to be able to tell you that, because otherwise the FBS machines wouldn't be able to put a # on the ferrous aspect of the signal. I believe the BBS machines don't try to put a # on the ferrous part of the signal, but rather just try their hardest to sound off to any non-ferrous aspects to it. Why? Because I'm digging more coins in iron with Iron Mask On then I ever did on other machines I've owned.

Then there is the old saying that I've heard in this forum among detecting circles in general, that to find gold rings your best chance is to dig the nickel zone. I even believed that one for years, but the numbers we crunched on a large random sample of diverse non-biased gold rings, along with the same percentage graphing I've read by others who did something similar, shows that the nickel zone does not have more gold rings in that zone. Almost fully half of all the gold rings in our tests, and even a higher number in other tests I've seen done, are in the foil zone below nickel. Even adding the nickel and tab zones together doesn't equal the amount of rings in the foil zone.

So why has the belief always been that the nickel zone was the best one for gold rings? Because of machines using lower resolution that's "nickel zone" is much wider, stretching far into the foil range below it and high into the tab range above it. Dig the nickel zone only on a machine with high enough resolution to tell the difference between nickels and most foil or tabs distinctly, and I gurantee you you are missing most of the gold rings that are reading in the foil zone below it. About half the gold rings to be found by the law of averages in our tests, and that of others I read where they did the same thing.

I've seen a few people report tests where they show most of the gold rings in the tab or nickel range, but the fact is those were the zones they were more prone to dig to find that test pool of rings they are using, or they are using machines that can't make the distinctions between the zones as well. Our rings in our test were all find over a number of years by a water hunter using an Excal, scooping every single signal above iron, because he never passes anything that sounds off.

So no, I don't blindly follow what anybody has to say about a detector or any other aspects of the hobby. Instead, I use their opinion as a starting point for myself and see if anything might change the results in my case, such as soil mineralization or even something as seemingly harmless as coil selection. I enjoy testing and contrasting myself. I don't tell others how to spend their time in this hobby because it's not my place. I just do what I find interesting.
 
I'll add one more...I've seen a few people say from time to time that you are supposed to ground balance the GT in all metal first when using disc. Minelab doesn't say that, because BBS doesn't use a conventional ground balance in disc. There is one or two popular videos on youtube where that is implied, where a hunter did that before switching to disc to begin hunting, and I think that is why it keeps popping up.

Also, Minelab says that PP mode is a form of all metal that doesn't feature a ground balance, so if it were true that you needed to set the ground balance for both disc and PP mode, then exactly how would you do that on an Excalibur for one thing?

I've also heard a few say that the Excalibur is set in a "salt water mode". Again, I've never seen Minelab say that, and would like to have somebody point me to where they do. Because machines that have a "salt mode" for hunting ocean beaches are using a conventional ground balance, which throws the window for the ground balance to an extreme so they can balance in that situation.

BBS doesn't use a conventional ground balance, and it also isn't a form of auto ground tracking either used on other machines which are at risk of tracking out deep targets. BBS is unique in how it handles the ground signal in disc, and that's the reason why BBS will punch through very bad ground and target ID at depth isn't as prone to being degraded as is typical on VLF detectors.
 
Critterhunter said:
Neil, so I guess then your problem is that I've changed my mind on one small aspect of the subject after further investigating? Would you like me to change it back? :biggrin: I have no problem changing my mind when I see different results than I've seen before. I hope you are as open minded as well in that respect. There is no point in getting upset when others don't share the same opinion on a subject. I don't let that upset me, and look at it as a interesting theory and challenge to prove or disprove one way or the other for myself on a topic. Let's cover a few of those disagreements below where I've proven to myself otherwise than what is always said as a "rules of thumb", but first let's get the PP/Volume thing out of the way...

In one particular aspect of PP versus disc on the Excal/Sov, volume does give more depth, where as using lower volume all the time fooled me on that part of the equation, or when I did blast volume to full I still didn't see any differences that I could see, so I decided I needed to do precision measurements to see how that panned out either way, as this debate (not just from me, Neil) has raged off and on for several years.

But at the same time I haven't changed my mind on various other aspects on the topic, and even have erased any doubt for myself, such that volume effects depth in disc.

As to my prior experience with PP mode on both the Excal and GT, all I saw said PP was not deeper, at full volume or not, until I decided to investigate further in a detailed, precise, and controlled manner, which nobody had ever done before at least that I've read, to finally put the subject to rest.

Only then did I discover that the appearent differences in opinion on PP was that volume was accounting for at least some of those differences in opinions. And, in my defense, I'm not the only person on this forum who has said PP was not as deep for them *in their soil or sand*, so don't think I'm the only person who was spearheading the idea.

Even when I tested volume at full, on either the GT or the Excalibur, I saw no differences by eye in disc or PP depth wise, while for sure at lowest volume I've seen in the field numerous times PP wouldn't hear a target that disc did, further contributing to my belief it wasn't as deep as disc.

I have no problem changing my mind on a subject when I see evidence later that contradicts what I first saw with my own eyes and ears, but I prefer to verify and not assume, because I have many times found the general rules of thumb advice given to me is not always correct. Trust but verify, is the way I approach things.

For example, the "golden rule" that a Sovereign must be swept slow to get maximum depth. I've thus far only found one instance where a super slow sweep speed saw a super deep target better, and in fact at most sites when I've tested that, I found a slow sweep would not even respond to the target, while a somewhat faster one approaching what I would call even a medium sweep on something like a Whites unit was the only way to get the target to sound off at fringe depth. These were undug targets, so no issues with freshly buried stuff that Minelabs might act differently on. And I've tested this on fringe targets at both beaches and on land.

A slow sweep might be true for others in their soil or sands, but in my case it's not correct, and is just one of the reasons why I never take a person's word on any aspect of a detector's performance. One reason alone being that different soils or sands can have very different results, or even coil choice might come into the equation.

Another person on this forum took heat for having the same opinion I did of a slow sweep speed not sounding off to deep targets in his soil for him, and so he made a video to show people he wasn't blowing smoke, which seemed to stop any further criticism of him on the subject. I plan to do the same video myself, just to show in my soil the results are exactly the same as his.

As another example, I've always heard for years (and experienced myself with some machines), that a small coil would see deeper into badly mineralized ground than a larger one. My tests on a badly mineralized beach appear to say otherwise. An 8" coil on the BBS machines, compared to a 13" coil, in badly mineralized ground, did not see a coin at only roughly 6 or 7", while the larger coil could. Only when switching to PP mode could the smaller coil see that coin, while the larger one could in disc.

So in this case Neil, not only did I prove my long held belief wrong, but I also proved wrong the rule of thumb that many other people have always said for years in detecting circles- that a smaller coil takes in less ground matrix and so will see through the mineralization better than a larger coil. At least in this particular situation, with these particular machines and coils, at this particular mineralized beach. The coin was buried to just the point where the larger coil was starting to choke it out badly due to the mineralization, so that it was having problems with minerals and not the depth, and this showed that a smaller coil in this case did not have an advantage in these minerals at seeing the target better. That depth was still well within what a smaller coil should be able to see, if it weren't due to the minerals.

As for the volume control on the GT in disc, I've read numerous times in the past that full volume would give you more depth on a target in disc. My tests, tested numerous times with several coils, shows no change in depth in disc regardless of where volume is set, so long as you have good enough hearing to hear fringe targets and the right kind of headphones to pass along the weaker response. I can easily hear the first initial response from a target at depth with the volume all the way down on the GT using my headphones, and video taping the results with a yardstick in the foreground left no oppurtinuty for bias, since I didn't even know the results until I reviewed the video. Rasing volume to highest did not change the detection depth of disc for me.

Might it change it for others with bad hearing or different headphones? Maybe, but it's because of those two things and not something related to the volume control as far as what I'm seeing. I did see that PP was effected by the volume control, so that changed my mind about the volume control using that mode, when I could see the slight changes in depth differences of it compared to disc on the video, where as I couldn't see it before under other circumstances.

As another example of where popular opinion was wasn't right, I'm sure you remember the off and on debates about the S-12 being the lightest coil in that size range for the Sovereign, and I did not share that belief. From some wieght numbers I saw, and have finally confirmed by weighing both coils on a quality digital scale myself to finally put the matter to rest, the 12x10 and S-12 are pretty much a dead match weight with boh coil covers on, and in fact the 12x10 is a full half ounce lighter with the coil cover removed. Can't tell you how many times I heard otherwise and voiced that I didn't share that opinion. I've heard the same thing said of the 15x12, that it's heavier than the 10" Tornado. Depends on your perspective, because in the case of not using a coil cover the 15x12 is lighter.

Why were a few people who continued to say the SEFs were so much more heavier wrong? I believe it's because they were comparing the FBS Etrac/Explorer versions of the SEF coils they own, to other coils they owned on the Sovereign or Excalibur, because the FBS versions of the SEF coils are a good bit heavier than the BBS versions. No need to point out the vew who kept saying that. They know who they are, and I'm just happy to finally have put it to rest.

Or what about the debate on iron mask on versus off? Minelab says you get more depth with it on and it improves the ability to pull coins out of iron. I had people tell me that's impossible, but then I came across the technical report on Minelab's site that says you can indeed tell the ferrous/non-ferrous qualities in a detection field and separate them. The field has to be able to tell you that, because otherwise the FBS machines wouldn't be able to put a # on the ferrous aspect of the signal. I believe the BBS machines don't try to put a # on the ferrous part of the signal, but rather just try their hardest to sound off to any non-ferrous aspects to it. Why? Because I'm digging more coins in iron with Iron Mask On then I ever did on other machines I've owned.

Then there is the old saying that I've heard in this forum among detecting circles in general, that to find gold rings your best chance is to dig the nickel zone. I even believed that one for years, but the numbers we crunched on a large random sample of diverse non-biased gold rings, along with the same percentage graphing I've read by others who did something similar, shows that the nickel zone does not have more gold rings in that zone. Almost fully half of all the gold rings in our tests, and even a higher number in other tests I've seen done, are in the foil zone below nickel. Even adding the nickel and tab zones together doesn't equal the amount of rings in the foil zone.

So why has the belief always been that the nickel zone was the best one for gold rings? Because of machines using lower resolution that's "nickel zone" is much wider, stretching far into the foil range below it and high into the tab range above it. Dig the nickel zone only on a machine with high enough resolution to tell the difference between nickels and most foil or tabs distinctly, and I gurantee you you are missing most of the gold rings that are reading in the foil zone below it. About half the gold rings to be found by the law of averages in our tests, and that of others I read where they did the same thing.

I've seen a few people report tests where they show most of the gold rings in the tab or nickel range, but the fact is those were the zones they were more prone to dig to find that test pool of rings they are using, or they are using machines that can't make the distinctions between the zones as well. Our rings in our test were all find over a number of years by a water hunter using an Excal, scooping every single signal above iron, because he never passes anything that sounds off.

So no, I don't blindly follow what anybody has to say about a detector or any other aspects of the hobby. Instead, I use their opinion as a starting point for myself and see if anything might change the results in my case, such as soil mineralization or even something as seemingly harmless as coil selection. I enjoy testing and contrasting myself. I don't tell others how to spend their time in this hobby because it's not my place. I just do what I find interesting.

critter I was looking to see what you saw different after the last couple of years of testing between the two modes and I guess nothing has changed so thats it for me with you on this topic.
 
Top