A curious thread about depth of CTX compared to previous Minelabs

[Ray-Mo.]

One guy wrote an elaborate post and others responded to it in a curious
way at least to me. I was wondering what those of you who had an
Explorer found when you changed machines. Here's a link to what they
said. http://www.findmall.com/read.php?19,1767559,1767598#msg-1767598

One noted author seems to think most finds are coming from less then 6
inches, basically trashing the machine. I personally find that I do find
lots of stuff shallow that was covered by trash rather easily with the
CTX possibly giving it a bad name accidentally due to it's unparallelled
abilities in heavy trash. It seems like it's the CTX's fault it doesn't
miss much in the trash.

I have a few non trashed sites that most of my targets have been between
the 9 and 11 inch mark. Kind of curious what the rest of you are
experiencing or have any of you guys done as much work as the one guy
did comparing them.

 

[steve herschbach]

"I guess I was just hoping that for exactly FIVE times the cost of a used Explorer and THREE times the cost of a used E-Trac...I would be getting THREE to FIVE times the performance upgrade with the CTX...but for me personally it didn't happen."

The CTX is doomed to failure by that standard. Comparing the cost of less expensive models, and used detectors at that, sets the performance bar? Three to five times the performance? Seriously?

My expectation was simply similar performance to my E-Trac while being waterproof and better balanced. I sold the E-Trac and AT Pro and got the CTX. One detector replaced two. Seemed like a no-brainier to me, but that just highlights how different people have different needs.

Steve Herschbach

 

[earthmansurfer]

Ray-Mo - First, I have to say Bryce is very well regarded as a detectorist - I believe what he says. I don't think he said most targets were sub 6". He was saying that he found sub 6" targets, that for whatever reason, the Explorer had missed. Basically the CTX and Explorer SE hit on almost all of the same deep targets - but the CTX with the stock coil couldn't hit on a few of the 10" ones - if memory serves correct. His post, btw, is backed up by a guy who hunted with him.

I think something to consider is the ground. My initial reaction to the CTX was that it was much better than the E-Trac. I said that because I was finding many more 9" targets in this one small strip I had cleaned out with the E-Trac. I thought it would be that way everywhere, but at most other spots I only found another 3 or so coins that the E-Trac missed with the stock and 6X8 SEF coil. The difference between those spots was the first one was sandier and had less mineralization. So, perhaps we need to look further into what Bryce said. I totally believe him but he only knows his soil and we need more reports to come in.

I took a few things from Bryce's post. 1 - that the Explorer SE might be just a tad deeper than the CTX (in his ground) but the CTX with the stock coil probably see's into trashier spots better than the Explorer SE with the stock coil. That is resolved if you don't mind switching coils, which is quite inexpensive on all the other FBS machines, due to no chip being there (though I think one other FBS machine does have a chip but that has been worked around). 2 - The biggest thing about the CTX, performance wise, is that it is very very fast, so you can often stick with the stock coil.(hence finding more shallow targets that other machines missed). Less coil switching is great in my book.

I do think VLF technology is pretty much maxed out, at least it has appeared that way over the last many years. I mean what is deeper, a CTX or an old FBS or Fisher CZ unit? I'd bet they both hit at about the same depth. But improvements can still be made, to a point with unmasking. In a sense, I wish Minelab had the CTX come out with a more SEF style coil, as I think the performance would be better and it would have set the machine a bit more aside of the others they offer - I mean it is the Flagship.

Steve - I think Bryce was being tongue and cheek about the 5X performance thing. I was hoping for a few more inches of depth, even 2 but that isn't the case. The big difference is the speed. The CTX is much faster than an E-Trac and much much faster than an Explorer SE. Apparently, it doesn't make much of a difference in depth (at least if you switch to a smaller coil on the Explorer SE). I prefer to like using one coil unless I'm working an area hard, so I have no problem with the CTX in that regard. I do feel like the CTX is quite a bit overpriced though and I can't at all argue with what Bryce said regarding cost - who can? I do love the machine overall. If the E-Trac's balance didn't bug my back, I'd switch back right now and sell my CTX. But, it's sort of a pay now or pay later thing with pain. ;-)

Albert

 

[Larry (IL)]

I think it would be unfair to call Bryce's post a comparison since the CTX has many features that the SE and Etrac don't have and can't be compared to. I would rather call it his evaluation or opinion of the CTX 3030. I have the highest respect for Bryce and in no way disrespecting him or his opinion, he is telling it as he sees it. ( He is well known for that. )

It appears that for him and many others, the advanced features we are paying for is not a justifiable value added asset. As we have said many times, the CTX is NOT for everyone and the CTX DOES cater to a select market. Many of us like the GPS mapping features and the ability to hunt under water, multiple targets on the screen, ground balance in severe ground, a readable screen in bright light and dozens of new features not available on other models.

Although Bryce did not experience a depth advantage in his ground, I and others have, with better target ID as well, which goes to show that results will vary and much of that is dependent on the users abilities and his ground.

 

[Ray-Mo.]

-- moved topic --

 

[Ray-Mo.]

And I never questioned Bryce's character or his honesty. Actually he and I have discussed the CTX a number of times and worked to help each other better gain maximum performance out of it. I did ask if other Explorer users had done any testing of the CTX and if they could report on their results. Any one who knows about our hobby realizes different soils and conditions can give different result both positive and negative hence the query.

I am finding the CTX to be a tad deeper (with stock coil) in more mineralized soils and think it is because of the ability to properly ground balance it to said soils not to mention it is so much smoother and quieter at maxed sensitivity allowing me to actually hear those extra deep whisper type targets.

 

[wildherre]

Here are 2 quotes from my local hunting buddy who got his CTX at the same time I did.. He has been a dedicated SE user since they came out .1st quote on CTX performance.."Depth is not a problem".. 2nd Quote " Best detecting money I ever spent" .... end quote .... I think he told me the other day that he has found 31 silvers since getting his CTX..I posted somewhere earlier that just the ergonomics and being waterproof were worth the upgrade to me... even if there was not any performance increase.. but, I have found roughly twice the number of silver coins and and Indian Heads than I have found in any year & roughly half of the hunting season to go.. More importantly, most of these finds have come from previously hunted sites that haven't produced in years... In side by side tests , my CTX matched or bettered the depth of my Explorer of choice, the Explorer 2 ... Not every site has produced, about 50% Id say, the sites with trash and iron.... The unmasking ability of the CTX over the Explorer is the key for me as well as the recovery speed and quiet nature of the unit also contribute..I have been avoiding the worst sites until I got the 06 coil which I now have and will be going over in the next couple months.. For me things that have opened up old sites in the past have been, The Explorer, then the Pro coil, Then the 6X8 coil and now the CTX.... Even though I have owned a Etrac since they came out I never considered my self a Etrac user and never thought of the Etrac as better than or even equal to an Explorer.... Me finding that many coins with a new unknown detector after using the older model for 8 years or so seems pretty impressive to me.... . Of course my nickle count is also way up with my high nickle tones and am also using a substantial amount of discrimination & I haven't really started to bear down yet... I do tend to hunt longer now that my arm don't wear down and my brain don't fade from listening to all the noise. Then of course there is the GPS...I earlier posted this pic of some find points that I had logged with the CTX at one of my sites..
.

All were silver or Indians.. After viewing the pic I returned to the site and concentrated on that diagonal line and recovered one more Barber dime & one more Indian in that same line...

For the ones that haven't seen what the Xchange 2 program can do, here is an example... the coordinates have been altered so dont got to this guys field..

We have still got a lot to learn about the CTX but am certain it was the right move for me..It would make me pretty happy it they never sold another CTX.. Ever... wildherre

 

[steve herschbach]

Hi Albert,

I do not know; Bryce made sure to highlight the desire for multiples in perfomance in red to emphasize it.

I guess I have been around too long and am too jaded. I have not expected any depth improvements from VLF for years. Depth with VLF maxed about 1980 and only target id at depth has slightly improved since then. Just my opinion. I have looked to PI units for more depth in the last 20 years, but even that has now maxed out. All I see left is to try for PI type depths but with some kind of discrimination capability in advance of what we currently have.

Bryce is 100% correct that if all you want is good performance at a good price - bang for the buck - just buy a decent used Explorer. Or a Fisher CZ-5 for that matter. Or a White's XL Pro.

Big news flash folks, you read it here first! Next time a new detector comes out, DO NOT think you are going to see any serious difference in depth or target identification at depth. Not unless the basic technology changes. Just get over it, it is not happening. If you have a good detector and it is working for you, if you want more and better finds - go detect more often and find better locations. That is all there is too it!

Steve Herschbach

 

[GunnarMN]

your not going to get deep targets in high trash , until U clean out the trash thats may be why most targets came in the 6" range in high trash 9" should be no problem for the 3030 bury a dime at 9" and do a test on it

 

[etracjoe]

No problems here on 9" plus dimes that were not buried(come in banging loud).....no problems on very tiny targets at 6".....and for the information of people reading this, the CTX IS deeper then the Etrac here in NY. Without a doubt deeper. Also doubled if not tripled last years silver count in half the amount of time used. Yes faster processor and better ID but Yes also deeper. I've seen others with a CTX have the same advantage I am having. We actually blew the Deus a whites machine and the Blisstool away. This is all in the hands of experienced users at a revolutionary war battlefield that the 3 of us sporting a CTX were the ONLY ones to come home with anything in the finds pouch. Pretty good after a day of detecting. Actually I was the only one with silver that day when we all regrouped we were chatting and as I was standing there with the machine still on I was barely swinging and got a sweet high tone that registered 9" on the meter. I was thinking bust or earlier dime but ended up an early merc. Actual depth was between 9-10"

 

[etracjoe]

When I say Blew away on the other machines....I did not mean in depth but in the amount of finds.

 

[firty13]

Hi Albert,

I do not know; Bryce made sure to highlight the desire for multiples in perfomance in red to emphasize it.

I guess I have been around too long and am too jaded. I have not expected any depth improvements from VLF for years. Depth with VLF maxed about 1980 and only target id at depth has slightly improved since then. Just my opinion. I have looked to PI units for more depth in the last 20 years, but even that has now maxed out. All I see left is to try for PI type depths but with some kind of discrimination capability in advance of what we currently have.

Bryce is 100% correct that if all you want is good performance at a good price - bang for the buck - just buy a decent used Explorer. Or a Fisher CZ-5 for that matter. Or a White's XL Pro.

Big news flash folks, you read it here first! Next time a new detector comes out, DO NOT think you are going to see any serious difference in depth or target identification at depth. Not unless the basic technology changes. Just get over it, it is not happening. If you have a good detector and it is working for you, if you want more and better finds - go detect more often and find better locations. That is all there is too it!

Steve Herschbach

Big news flash folks, you read it here first! Next time a new detector comes out, DO NOT think you are going to see any serious difference in depth or target identification at depth. Not unless the basic technology changes. Just get over it, it is not happening. If you have a good detector and it is working for you, if you want more and better finds - go detect more often and find better locations. That is all there is too it!

I really dont think many ctx users can grasp this concept If any of them read the comparison post Bryce was trying to not ruffle any feathers at all putting in positive praise for the CTX where he could but the fact is 3x the MONEYS about the same depth. In retrospect people do pay 3000-4000$ for a 3D 55in 1080p tv screen but im okay with LCD because 3D and 1080p wont change the way i watch TV which is in a way how the CTX and EX SE kind of are.

 

[firty13]

One guy wrote an elaborate post and others responded to it in a curious
way at least to me. I was wondering what those of you who had an
Explorer found when you changed machines. Here's a link to what they
said. http://www.findmall.com/read.php?19,1767559,1767598#msg-1767598

One noted author seems to think most finds are coming from less then 6
inches, basically trashing the machine. I personally find that I do find
lots of stuff shallow that was covered by trash rather easily with the
CTX possibly giving it a bad name accidentally due to it's unparallelled
abilities in heavy trash. It seems like it's the CTX's fault it doesn't
miss much in the trash.

I have a few non trashed sites that most of my targets have been between
the 9 and 11 inch mark. Kind of curious what the rest of you are
experiencing or have any of you guys done as much work as the one guy
did comparing them.

He clearly states at the end of the comparison after spending another 700-800 on the large and small CTX coils they have no probs hitting anything the EX SE can.

BUT WAIT for 700-800 you can just buy an EX SE with a 10x12 on it sooooooo im sorry the money to performance ratio is clear hear and last time i checked it was still a recession.

 

[etracjoe]

And unless you have one you cant understand. And maybe it is because I havent the experience Bryce has with his explorer, but my CTX sure stands out next to the Etrac. I do not need to justify price because the factor is how many coins are in the pouch. I could not have spent better money. All I know is the CTX opened up my old hunting grounds, and I would pay 2x the CTX price if I had to.