A mini poll, sort of on possible new detectors by Whites.

[crazyman]

With the discussion of possible new detectors from Whites I wanted some feedback on a subject I've been discussing on another forum. If Whites were to reintroduce the XL Pro or another detector maybe like the IDX Pro that operates on one of the lower frequencies such as 8.2 kHz. found on the Prizm series or 6.59 kHz. that Whites has used for many years which freq. would you prefer and why. What advantages would one freq. have over the other in actual performance in the field? It was stated by someone that one big reason to use 8.2 is that 8.2 kHz is not affected by 60-cycle interference that plaques the 6.59 kHz freq. Are you guys plagued? Is it the frequency of the detector alone that dictates how it is affected by outside interference? Another is that the 8.2 would be better on lower conductors. With such a slight increase between the two would there really be a noticeable difference in the field? I have my own opinion but I'm interested in the opinions of other Whites users on the subject. Thanks!

 

[Nauti]

Hi Crazyman just thought i'd share a few thoughts on the subject of different frequencies.I'm not going to go into a scientific debate because i don't know enough about it to do so...but here are a few thoughts from purely practicle experience.I'm a detectorist from England and one of our main targets are hammered coins which are small,thin and fairly low in conductivity.According to most sources searching for such objects requires a higher frequency which is supposed to be more sensitive to less conductive objects.This is where it gets confusing to me though because higher frequencies have less penetration into the soil than lower frequency machines,so it seems like the higher v lower frequency argument is'nt that simple.I've used a machine with a frequency of 18 khz to try and give me the edge on the tiny hammered coins and i can say from my experiences that it did no better than machines i've used at around the 10 khz mark.I use an m6 which runs at 14 khz and this machine is as good as any on the small stuff and better than most.In the metal detecting club i'm in there are two chaps that use an xlt which runs at just over 6khz and if you had seen the amount of stuff they dig up i think you would come to the conclusion that higher frequency machines do not make more finds....in fact one of the chaps has won our club trophy with his xlt.My personel view is that i'd be happy using a detector with a 6 khz frequency or one with a 14 khz frequency.....i've used both and can honestly say that neither has had any major advantage as far as number/quality of finds goes.

 

[crazyman]

Neil, I agree with you. I live in an area with pretty bad ground also and lower freq. detectors like my XL Pro and modified IDX Pro handle the ground noticeably better in my area. I'm sure the M6/MXT would work fairly well here also but a DD coil would be a must. There is a reason the DD coils are selling like hotcakes for the higher freq.detectors. The higher the freq. the less it's able to handle bad ground which equals less depth and stability. The DD coils offset this to some degree. I use to prospect in Alaska for gold and used the Gold bug and the Whites 4900 (6.69 kHz.) The gold bug was for smaller nuggets in areas with decent ground and less trash. The 4900 was for the worst ground using the GEB SAT mode most of the time. Some of the older gold machines came with a selectable Freq. One high freq. and one low freq to make them more effective over a wide range of ground conditions. I use another detector that runs at 5 kHz. and in my ground it hits small gold rings at depth better than my old Compass Gold Scanner and my other 14kHz detector. This same 5 kHz detector is my favorite beach machine for our nasty blacksand beaches up here. I know if I lived in an area with a bit better ground my detector choice might be different.

 

[khouse]

There just isn't enough difference between 6.59 and 8.3 kHz to make any noticeable difference. I just can't figure out why they just didn't make the Prizms run at 6.59 or 14 kHz so there would be accessory coils ready to go?

It's my opinion that whatever they bring out it should weigh under 3 pounds. They moved ahead bringing out the 6t.

 

[a4wdguy]

Interference:
60 kHz is roughly the 8th harmonic of 6.592 kHz, whereas the closest harmonic 8.2 kHz has to 60 kHz is 57.4 kHz. So, in countries that us 60 kHz power, yes, 6.592 kHz would be more susceptible to interference from 60 cycle power sources than 8.2 kHz would.
However, I don't know that I have ever suffered badly from the effects of interference. I think I am more likely to be bothered by the presence of the copper wire underground than by the current passing through it.
I believe that lower frequency machines do not benefit from DD type coils as much as higher frequency machines. An example is the 4x6 shooter coil. The Eclipse coil enjoys a much better reputation than the Blue Max.
I spent a fair number of years working with sonar systems and frequency selection can be summed up this way: low frequencies provide greater depth with a loss of resolution and high frequencies provide higher resolution with a loss of depth. In this case, resolution translates to the ability to separate the target from the background. It is a well known fact that gold requires a higher frequency to find. The smaller the gold, the higher the resolution required to find it (high freq.). Rings and coins are an alloy, the base metals of which are often nickel which responds to lower frequency just fine.
So what am I saying here?
1. 6.592 is a perfectly good frequency, I don't think 8.2 kHz offers a significant advantage.
2. I think the ultimate detector would use 3 kHz, 6.592 kHz, and 33 kHz selectable. Don't need any more than those for general purpose detectors.
3. Older 6.592 coils are not up to the performance standards of newer coil technology, therefor shouldn't be counted as "ready for service" for a new machine, especially if it is multi-frequency.
4. An analog detector such as the XL Pro could easily be set up as a MF machine. The usefulness of Best data and Correlate are debatable.

 

[Monte]

With the discussion of possible new detectors from Whites I wanted some feedback on a subject I've been discussing on another forum.

I can see the next new top-end being a very serious offering to compete with the likes of Minelab's Explorer series and E-Trac. I can imagine it being a more multi-frequency offering that they have now, but that's not the real answer to your question ... which I've been following on that other White's Forum.

If Whites were to reintroduce the XL Pro or another detector maybe like the IDX Pro that operates on one of the lower frequencies such as 8.2 kHz. found on the Prizm series or 6.59 kHz. that Whites has used for many years which freq. would you prefer and why.

Generally, I'd take the 6.59 kHz frequency ... [size=large]IF[/size] they were going to use the same essential circuitry that they used for the Classic III SL/IDX Pro and XL Pro. I noticed a slight difference in performance between the Classic ID, operating at 6.59 kHz, and the Classic 5-ID, using the same basic electronics except for a little 'front end' work to get it to operate at 8.1 kHz and use the Prizm series wound coil.

I wouldn't mind the 6.59 kHz be used to re-introduce refined versions of these three models due to the coils that are already out there.

That said, I also wouldn't mind it if they went to an 8.1 or 8.2 kHz for them because I like the new 9" spider coil, and I know these models could be made to work about as well as those at 6.59 kHz. There isn't all that much difference between these two operating frequencies, and most look at it from the convenience of already having coils in a particular frequency.

Keep in mind that they could always bring out some new models that operate at 6.59 kHz and that wouldn't mean they would be compatible with the models you have (as we've see that through the years. Also, they could use any frequency and change the plug used to reduce interchangeablility with older models.

What advantages would one freq. have over the other in actual performance in the field?

Possibly none, depending upon the rest of the electronics. Heck, I'd take an M6 or MXT any day over a DFX and they share the same search coil and similar operating frequency.

It was stated by someone that one big reason to use 8.2 is that 8.2 kHz is not affected by 60-cycle interference that plaques the 6.59 kHz freq.

Oh, you're referring to the same fellow that made the following statements in a field test review:

"First off, I was struck by the stable operation of the Classic ID over varying ground conditions. I have always preferred the slow sweep capabilities of the two-filter circuit of the Classic and Quantum Metal Detectors by Whites Electronics, but I found the Classic ID to be particularly smooth whether hunting in discrimination mode or all metal modes. The transition from the dry sand to the wet sand was smooth with virtually no false signaling."

"Nonetheless, when searching a couple of beaches, using the all metal mode, the Classic ID maintained smooth threshold, insuring maximum depth, at least the equal of some of the pulse and microprocessor detectors I have used.}

"Early, in my field testing of the Classic ID, I contacted "Earl of Whites Electronics", John Earl, master engineer in charge of the Classic ID project. John had reset some of the parameters of the current Classic line including modifying the factory preset points in the preset auto tune and mineral calibration range which translated into a very stable ground penetrating-6.59 kHz circuit."

"During my field testing of the Classic ID, I was able to run the Sensitivity Knob at full gain over most of my field tests without compromising the Classic ID'S smooth operation. Smooth operation equates to deeper coins and jewelry."

"I set the sensitivity to a level taking into consideration the amount of mineralization and 60-cycle interference. With the Classic ID'S sensitivity set on maximum, the circuit was quiet. Other detectors I have used at this particular park were noisy and their sensitivity setting had to be cut back significantly."


Sort of funny, I thought.

Are you guys plagued?

Nope, usually not with a Classic IDX Pro, or an XL Pro. I have found some models, and other brands, to give me fits at times. Yes, even the excellent XL Pro and IDX Pro, but there is a variety of electrical/electronic challenges out there.

I hunted a renovation site a couple of years back and grabbed an XLT (6.59 kHz) and used the 5.3 BullsEye coil off my modified IDX Pro. A friend wanted to see how I hunted a site like that with the XLT since he was having trouble. Then, too, he was using the 950 coil in this torn-up, iron littered sidewalk area. I nailed a beautiful 1800's Seated Liberty 10

 

[crazyman]

I'm glad you saw where I was trying to go with that debate. The other person saw where it was heading also and didn't want it to go any further so it never got to the point of posting those same excerpts from the field test. I got a good chuckle that you posted them. The point I was trying to make was that there are many variables involved when it comes to how a detector operates when it comes to depth, discrimination, it's ability to handle varying ground conditions, outside interference and even it's sensitivity to low and high conductors. I don't believe the slight difference between these two operating frequencies alone would be noticed so as of today my preference would still go the 6.59 kHz. because of accessory availability alone. That could change in the future and I would love to see that new D2 come out in either of these two frequencies.

 

[thebeatmachine]

I think that the op frequency is some what of a red herring when it comes to performance. The real magic is the circuit and how much power is available to the user. I believe that a new white's detector will have great improvements when it comes to noise canceling, from 60 cycle and other RF interference but also interference from its own circuitry. Any thing that isn't metal that makes it go beep will be greatly reduced. I feel that this is an area that White's is focusing on. White's has the ability to manufacture deep and powerful detectors, we already can see that, but they should come already tweaked to maximum performance, and interference of any kind impedes their "turn-on-and-go" type of detectors. The different frequencies are a clever marketing gimmick. You use the same machines and change 50 cents worth of parts in the detector and coil and walla! you just created a whole new detector in the eyes of the consumer.
Some on please tell me if I'm wrong. I really want to hear what you have to say.

 

[crazyman]

I'm electronically challenged. As a matter of fact my wife always had to set up the VCR for me so I might be off on my wording of certain functions of the electronics and how they work so I will try to summon it up with out getting into more detail than I can explain. I think the biggest factor involved with how a detector performs when it comes to depth, discrimination and to a degree even it's sensitivity to high and low conductors is more of a product of the electronics and ground conditions as opposed to the frequency. I'm talking about general coin and jewelry hunting using detectors in the 2 kHz. to 15 kHz range. Everything else being equal the biggest difference would be how they handle ground mineralization with the lower freq. being less affected by higher minerals. One of the reasons DD coils are more effective on higher freq. detectors is because the footprint of these coils sees less ground. The electronics and "available adjustments" on the detector along with coil design can offset the difference on most detectors to different degrees. Along with a proper ground balance adjustment one of the major factors on the detectors ability to cope with the different ground conditions also comes into play with a proper balance of the transmit and receive sensitivity of the detector. This became evident to me with the introduction of the XLT. Up to that point most (Whites) detectors were set up with the gain or receive sensitivity hard wired with the transmit sensitivity being adjustable or vice-versa with the introduction of the 5900/6000 Di Pro SL. The receive sensitivity has the bigger effect on coping with ground mineralization of the two when the transmit freq. is set to a proper level. Like I said top performance is achieved when these two are balanced to the ground conditions. Again when it comes coin and jewelry hunting this balance will come into play again on depth, discrimination and even it's sensitivity to "LOW" and high conductors. A badly balanced 15 kHz. detector will be less affective on low conductors than a properly balanced lower frequency detector. So yes there is nothing set in stone when it comes to the frequency of the detector in the above examples at least. There is even more involved but this is all my mind can handle at one time this early. This is my story and I'm sticking to it.

 

[khouse]

I always take that other guys opinions with a grain of salt followed by a beer most of the time. Seems as though as the years pass some of his stories get harder to swallow. I consider you one of the true experts. Mostly because you get out and swing the machines in the real world. I remember talking to you on the phone like 15 years ago. You may not remember but you were telling me about a Bandito you had. Anyway it's always nice to read your posts!

Kenny House

 

[khouse]

I have a seasoned test garden. When I get a machine I sweep over the 7 targets. With everything I could consider - frequency, ground balance, gain, threshold, coils, sweep speed, cost of the machine etc. I'm just pretty happy if it beeps!

 

[Monte]

n/t

 

[trixncap]

I would like to see a duel purpose beach/ prospector/park machine. A pulse option for the beach.But with discrimination and VLF capacity's for prospecting . Waterproof ,reinforced box. Wireless head phones, with led cross hairs in the coil that light over the target for night hunting. A local park play area suface target 1 kt ear ring. I wonder if its real ? I kind like not really knowing. Using IDX PRO the fun never ends.

 

[khouse]

As long as the new machines are light weight.

About your bling - I too like "not knowing" I kind of like saying to myself "probably a diamond". It's like when I have bought a lottery ticket. Other people don't know that they could be talking to a millionaire!

 

[Steve(MS)]

Nothing wrong with your choice of detectors, I have had all three of the ones you now have and they are excellent performers.
I would like to add though the XL-Pro and in my case I had the 6000 DI Pro SL was a detector that holds up a standard to which I will always judge all single frq detectors.
That analog meter is simply great and after using other detectors, I realize now how much I miss it.
For instance, in nails it is/was the quietest running detector I have used, not many falses or noises.
Maybe it isn't the greatest in the separation dept. but sometimes I still like a not so busy wrap-arounds that other detectors produce.
I guess I am getting old and set in my ways.