Recently, the topic of any machine's (or anybody's) ability to tell the difference between aluminum and gold came up on a forum discussion. A particular person chiming in on that debate, who was on the side of saying it *could* be done, with practice, gave the following CD as their rationale: "Basic Ear Training for Excalibur" by author Tony Diana. I was intrigued, and wondered just what this CD was all about, so I floated a queery on this forum, asking if anyone knew about it, and if indeed it made such claims. Someone has now given me a copy, and I have had the pleasure of corresponding a bit with the author himself since then. He was interested in what my conclusion would be, after listening to his CD, in regards to this debate topic. He has graciously given me permission to post my review on-line here. So this is done with his total permission.
Here's a link to the CD in question:
http://www.amazon.com/Kellyco-Training-Excalibur-Metal-Detector/dp/B004FCNK2E
I studied the CD with only the following question in mind:
"Could someone listen to this, and come away thinking they can learn to tell aluminum apart from gold?"
So this post does NOT concern itself with the debate of "can it be done", but rather, does this CD say it can be done?
I studied it hard for quotations where the CD might have specifically distanced itself from saying this, to say it can't be done. I also studied hard for quotations where it might actually have said things that said it can be done, or highly implied anyhow, that it could be done. I wrote down the notes, with the counter-track points at which the quotes were lifted. So if anyone has the CD, they can go, for themselves, to the exact spots on the CD.
Bear in mind as you read this review, that it's inherent in ALL of us to really want to be able to dig more gold, and less trash, right? We all subconsciously latch on to any hope that we could someday attain to knowing the difference between aluminum and gold. That's why it's so easy to believe when a successful mentor (whose tallies can't be argued with) says something that leads us to think they've learned a difference between the sounds. It's the same psychology present when we hear treasure stories (legends, tips, leads, etc..) we subconsciously hone in on the positive hopes, rather than the critical kill-joy detractions, that might show it's just a legend, or that there could be other explanations and no such treasure exists (that why treasure mag's with their "lost mine" stories are seeooo intriguing and exciting to read). So with this psychology in mind, I asked myself as I listen to the CD, how could these things be interpretted by people?
Ok, here goes: There are 4 sections of the CD. The first section does not lend itself, either way, to the debate. However, starting with section 2, we find the following things: From 1:15 to 1:27 of track 2, Tony says that he's "going to start with the trash signals" and jokes that the listener probably wished that he'd start with the "gold signals". You can see how this would be easily interpretted that ....... doh ..... there's a difference therefore, between aluminum and gold signals. So this start to the CD certainly heavily implies that there is a difference.
At 8:10 of track 2, we find the following quote: "Gold simply sounds better" Again, the implication, to the hopeful listener, that therefore (implicit in the statement) that aluminum sounds worse. Afterall, was are we to infer by the statement "gold sounds better". Ie.: "better than WHAT?"
At 10.00 of track 2, Tony says: "next we're going to listen to aluminum signals". Now I suppose someone could say that by saying this, he is not saying that gold DOESN'T sound the same, yet he also doesn't say either way. So a hopeful listener can come away with his hopes further enforced. This is further driven home at 10:35 of track 2, where he says "The key to identifying aluminum is the mid sounds". And again, ask yourself "aluminum ...... verses WHAT"? The implication that is easy to walk away with, again, is "non aluminum" doh!
So the implication is there in the above quotes, that a person can someday attain to some sort of ability to tell them apart.
At 20:04 of track 2, Tony finally says/admits that "slaw and foil are the same sounds as gold". YET at 20:30 (less than 30 seconds later), he turns right around and says "gold is more pleasing, but difficult to hear". So you see that it's as if he holds out hope for the listener, that with enough practice, they could someday attain! Afterall, "difficult" and "impossible" are two very different words! So by merely saying "difficult", it does imply that there is a difference between aluminum and gold sounds, that is not impossible (only "difficult") to discern. Tony goes on to say "Yet I dig them all due to they are too close to call". Again notice: this can easily imply that the sounds are different and discernable, but simply "too close to call". "Close" does imply a difference, that they are NOT the same, but merely "close". I'm just applying simple grammatical logic to the statements, over-lapped as I've said earlier, with the tendency of us md'rs to draw on any hope.
At 21:45 of track 2, Tony tells us that the "voice of gold is spongieness and graininess" .... "more pleasing sound if you listen". Again: more pleasing than what? Junk! Do you see the implications that someone could easily walk away with?
At 24:25 of track 2, Tony does admit that there are "gold anomolies". Someone could argue that here Tony IS saying that gold and aluminum can sound the same. Yet if you read closely, he's only talking about anomolies. Ie.: a percentage of the given target samples. So ask yourself, if this were taken on its own merits, and if the rest of gold DOES (as the previous quotes outright say, or heavily imply) "sound different", then it doesn't take a rocket scientist to wonder if a person could simply elect to pass *just* those anomoly gold items (miss a certain percent) and be content just to get the rest of the percentage. For example: most of us would gladly, if we thought it was possible, be willing to avoid turning a turfed park into a battle-field of divots, to go ahead and pass that percentage of anomoly gold, and simply content ourselves with the remaining gold, if it meant not having to put up with 200 to one ratios, right? In other words, to have a couple of gold items verses none at all (because you simply can not have the liberty to strip mine parks) is better than none at all, right? So you see then, that saying "gold anomolies" still holds out hope that there is *other* gold that *just* sounds "like gold".
As further proof of the above paragraph, notice at 26:12 of track 2, the following quote: "70% of gold signals sound like the classic gold tone" This is further stated in various forms also at 29:28 and 30:40 of track 2. Again the clear implication or statement (complete with percentages!) of aluminum vs gold: some sound the same and others don't, is the clear message.
If there is any mistake that the CD is leading this direction: 28:25 of track 2 "....the more you ear train with live hunting and with your CD, the more you will increase your intuitive ability to successfully pick out those gold signals...."
On track 3, at 4:45, Tony again shows us the "classic gold excalibur sound". Which is right after the "gum foil" signal sounds, mind you The implication is hard to miss: that there will be a difference in the field. And by the way, of course they sound different on the CD. But to talk about that in this thread, will be to digress. And even though this review is not to go in to that debate, I'll just say that: Yes, there will be discernable differences between a given gold ring, and a given gum foil wad. SO TOO will there be "differences" between all sorts of gold rings when compared to each other, and SO TOO will there be "differences" between all sorts of gum foil wads when compared to each other. But ........ I digress
The author Tony Diana has exchanged some emails with me, as he knew I was going to do a critique. In the course of these email exchanges, he has made clear to me that it is not possible to tell aluminum apart from gold. What he tells me in personal communication is what we both agree on: That you can learn commonly recurring types of trash only (for example: unbroken tabs of the same brand of soda which proliferate a certain site, or bottle caps, or pennies, etc...., simply because they are "uniform" types of recurring trash).
My opinion then, of his CD, is he does not make this clear. He gives way too many statements (either specifically, or by clear implication) that a person CAN learn the difference. He does not make disclaimer statements to the contrary. Or to the extent he may try, it again allows for "outs" that those things are only "anomolies", etc... The mere fact that many have listened to the CD and come away thinking it can be learned (as evidenced by people citing this very CD as reasons for their belief) shows the weakness of this point, on the CD.
I would therefore invite Tony to perhaps have a paper insert inside the future CD's he sells (because it's too late to change the CD itself) clarifying this issue.
Thanx for letting me review your CD publically Tony! I invite everyone's input to this critique.
Here's a link to the CD in question:
http://www.amazon.com/Kellyco-Training-Excalibur-Metal-Detector/dp/B004FCNK2E
I studied the CD with only the following question in mind:
"Could someone listen to this, and come away thinking they can learn to tell aluminum apart from gold?"
So this post does NOT concern itself with the debate of "can it be done", but rather, does this CD say it can be done?
I studied it hard for quotations where the CD might have specifically distanced itself from saying this, to say it can't be done. I also studied hard for quotations where it might actually have said things that said it can be done, or highly implied anyhow, that it could be done. I wrote down the notes, with the counter-track points at which the quotes were lifted. So if anyone has the CD, they can go, for themselves, to the exact spots on the CD.
Bear in mind as you read this review, that it's inherent in ALL of us to really want to be able to dig more gold, and less trash, right? We all subconsciously latch on to any hope that we could someday attain to knowing the difference between aluminum and gold. That's why it's so easy to believe when a successful mentor (whose tallies can't be argued with) says something that leads us to think they've learned a difference between the sounds. It's the same psychology present when we hear treasure stories (legends, tips, leads, etc..) we subconsciously hone in on the positive hopes, rather than the critical kill-joy detractions, that might show it's just a legend, or that there could be other explanations and no such treasure exists (that why treasure mag's with their "lost mine" stories are seeooo intriguing and exciting to read). So with this psychology in mind, I asked myself as I listen to the CD, how could these things be interpretted by people?
Ok, here goes: There are 4 sections of the CD. The first section does not lend itself, either way, to the debate. However, starting with section 2, we find the following things: From 1:15 to 1:27 of track 2, Tony says that he's "going to start with the trash signals" and jokes that the listener probably wished that he'd start with the "gold signals". You can see how this would be easily interpretted that ....... doh ..... there's a difference therefore, between aluminum and gold signals. So this start to the CD certainly heavily implies that there is a difference.
At 8:10 of track 2, we find the following quote: "Gold simply sounds better" Again, the implication, to the hopeful listener, that therefore (implicit in the statement) that aluminum sounds worse. Afterall, was are we to infer by the statement "gold sounds better". Ie.: "better than WHAT?"
At 10.00 of track 2, Tony says: "next we're going to listen to aluminum signals". Now I suppose someone could say that by saying this, he is not saying that gold DOESN'T sound the same, yet he also doesn't say either way. So a hopeful listener can come away with his hopes further enforced. This is further driven home at 10:35 of track 2, where he says "The key to identifying aluminum is the mid sounds". And again, ask yourself "aluminum ...... verses WHAT"? The implication that is easy to walk away with, again, is "non aluminum" doh!
So the implication is there in the above quotes, that a person can someday attain to some sort of ability to tell them apart.At 20:04 of track 2, Tony finally says/admits that "slaw and foil are the same sounds as gold". YET at 20:30 (less than 30 seconds later), he turns right around and says "gold is more pleasing, but difficult to hear". So you see that it's as if he holds out hope for the listener, that with enough practice, they could someday attain! Afterall, "difficult" and "impossible" are two very different words! So by merely saying "difficult", it does imply that there is a difference between aluminum and gold sounds, that is not impossible (only "difficult") to discern. Tony goes on to say "Yet I dig them all due to they are too close to call". Again notice: this can easily imply that the sounds are different and discernable, but simply "too close to call". "Close" does imply a difference, that they are NOT the same, but merely "close". I'm just applying simple grammatical logic to the statements, over-lapped as I've said earlier, with the tendency of us md'rs to draw on any hope.
At 21:45 of track 2, Tony tells us that the "voice of gold is spongieness and graininess" .... "more pleasing sound if you listen". Again: more pleasing than what? Junk! Do you see the implications that someone could easily walk away with?
At 24:25 of track 2, Tony does admit that there are "gold anomolies". Someone could argue that here Tony IS saying that gold and aluminum can sound the same. Yet if you read closely, he's only talking about anomolies. Ie.: a percentage of the given target samples. So ask yourself, if this were taken on its own merits, and if the rest of gold DOES (as the previous quotes outright say, or heavily imply) "sound different", then it doesn't take a rocket scientist to wonder if a person could simply elect to pass *just* those anomoly gold items (miss a certain percent) and be content just to get the rest of the percentage. For example: most of us would gladly, if we thought it was possible, be willing to avoid turning a turfed park into a battle-field of divots, to go ahead and pass that percentage of anomoly gold, and simply content ourselves with the remaining gold, if it meant not having to put up with 200 to one ratios, right? In other words, to have a couple of gold items verses none at all (because you simply can not have the liberty to strip mine parks) is better than none at all, right? So you see then, that saying "gold anomolies" still holds out hope that there is *other* gold that *just* sounds "like gold".
As further proof of the above paragraph, notice at 26:12 of track 2, the following quote: "70% of gold signals sound like the classic gold tone" This is further stated in various forms also at 29:28 and 30:40 of track 2. Again the clear implication or statement (complete with percentages!) of aluminum vs gold: some sound the same and others don't, is the clear message.
If there is any mistake that the CD is leading this direction: 28:25 of track 2 "....the more you ear train with live hunting and with your CD, the more you will increase your intuitive ability to successfully pick out those gold signals...."
On track 3, at 4:45, Tony again shows us the "classic gold excalibur sound". Which is right after the "gum foil" signal sounds, mind you
The implication is hard to miss: that there will be a difference in the field. And by the way, of course they sound different on the CD. But to talk about that in this thread, will be to digress. And even though this review is not to go in to that debate, I'll just say that: Yes, there will be discernable differences between a given gold ring, and a given gum foil wad. SO TOO will there be "differences" between all sorts of gold rings when compared to each other, and SO TOO will there be "differences" between all sorts of gum foil wads when compared to each other. But ........ I digress The author Tony Diana has exchanged some emails with me, as he knew I was going to do a critique. In the course of these email exchanges, he has made clear to me that it is not possible to tell aluminum apart from gold. What he tells me in personal communication is what we both agree on: That you can learn commonly recurring types of trash only (for example: unbroken tabs of the same brand of soda which proliferate a certain site, or bottle caps, or pennies, etc...., simply because they are "uniform" types of recurring trash).
My opinion then, of his CD, is he does not make this clear. He gives way too many statements (either specifically, or by clear implication) that a person CAN learn the difference. He does not make disclaimer statements to the contrary. Or to the extent he may try, it again allows for "outs" that those things are only "anomolies", etc... The mere fact that many have listened to the CD and come away thinking it can be learned (as evidenced by people citing this very CD as reasons for their belief) shows the weakness of this point, on the CD.
I would therefore invite Tony to perhaps have a paper insert inside the future CD's he sells (because it's too late to change the CD itself) clarifying this issue.
Thanx for letting me review your CD publically Tony! I invite everyone's input to this critique.
thumbdown: