Better Target Seperation but no improved Depth?

[mtwolf2270]

I agree with southwind here in East Tennessee where I live, we have pretty mineralized red clay . The other thing about our ground is that the clay is hard and packed we recover very few targets at more then 7-8" So yes it is imho very site specific not only to where you hunt as a whole but can vary from site to site. Unless you are just lucky enough to have good ground conitions the odds are targets are not being recovered always at amazing depths. The deeper the target the more the target id can be off. In fact yesterday I was hunting my Se at an old farm house and nothing about this 1 target said silver, other then the sound. My cursor bounced and my numbers where acting like trash. I dug and pulled a beautiful 1941 d merc at about 6" . So I agree a detector that handles that better with the same or perhaps sightly better depth is what I need not want in the field.

 

[below2doe]

Hi Earthmansurfer,

Here in Australia their is a company that modifies a GPX 5000 for $1500 australian dollars which will give the 5000 another 30% in depth. This is nothing to do with Minelab..

This makes the gpx 5000 a real depth monster .As with using the e-track or the sovereign gt with the wot 15 coil, with Eric Fosters deepstar a little deeper than both these detectors.

REGARDS Below2doe.

 

[Crumble]

I think having a manual fixed ground balance, instead of ground tracking, would increase depth by itself. I know on my Infinium, I lose an inch or 2 by leaving it in ground track mode, vs locking the ground balance. Yes PIs do regularly dig 12" + coins, more like 15" +. If you are hunting ground that isn't littered with metal every few inches, I think hunting with a PI could be done, it's all about listening for how small the target is, and with the infinium comparing the size and conductivity, it's a decent amount of information. If you are out in a field, or anywhere that you could use an actual shovel, it wouldn't be too bad digging targets. I wouldn't want to dig PI targets with a Lesche though...

 

[Critterhunter]

Yes, automatic ground tracking on conventional detectors will cost you depth and also track out deep targets...But the way the BBS and FBS machines ignore the ground filter is very different from what I understand to conventional ground tracking. On normal VLF machines a filter is created to "ignore" the ground signal, and thus the target has to break through that filter. The way I understand it BBS/FBS machines take a digital picture of the ground with and without the target present for comparison. At least that's what I always read.

Yes, I think Minelab does refer to it as digital filtering, but it's not anything like a filter being used on normal VLF detectors. That's why Minelabs get deeper and give better target IDs at depth, because the target doesn't have to fight it's way through a conventional ground balance filter to report it's self. At least that's how I understand things, but I could be wrong I guess.

I'd be very curious to hear more about exactly how the extra ground balancing function on this new machine works, and exactly why it has any advantages over the way Minelabs normally compensate for the ground signal. Anybody got a good in depth technical link to that?

It sounds like in fact this machine will show improved depth or at least ID at depth in certain rough grounds, though.

 

[earthmansurfer]

Well said Critterhunter.

Clearly Minlelab has an advantage with VID and that is somehow lost in the terms that we use. We say words like ground filters or ground balance but Minelab seems to do it differently and yet things fall under those same words. But, the functionality is a bit lost in using those words since the underlying technology is clearly different. I hadn't thought about ground filters like you said. I knew something was up with their "ground balance", which seems to be more like ground removal. The ability of the E-Trac (only Minelab I have used) to ID coins at depth is just amazing to me. So incredibly stable (outside of the Fe numbers which bounce in my soil).

We hear from all the experts that detecting is all in the sound. I don't argue that the sounds of a machine give more information than the display system (in general, traditionally) but it's such an accepted adage that we don't question it and that leaves little room for improvement. "That's the way things have always been around here" sort of mentality. That type of thinking stops innovation with the visual part of detecting. The 2D screen on the E-Trac has really helped me in addition to its auditory part. Now, I get the feeling that the CTX has clearly gone deeper "hear". ;-) We'll see, but looking forward to "seeing".

Albert