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.
CTX in the Test Trench
- Thread starter Carter NY
- Start date
GateKeeper
Well-known member
This test means absolutely nothing. I appreciate the time it took to do it, but there are too many factors that can effect hitting those deep targets. One of the main one's is the halo effect on targets that can only happen after many years of a coin or relic being in the ground. I myself have hit nickles with my CTX at depths over 10 inches with no problem. Maybe you could do a test on real targets with all those machines.
I'm not so sure about that. The old 'halo effect' argument is often used when detectors are tested over planted targets under undisturbed ground, but the truth is none of those items would have developed a decent halo had they been in that mild ground for a hundred years, bar the nails of coarse, but even on those the Euro machine would out-run FBS on iron infested ground.
Sometimes these detector comparisons can seem to be inconsequential, but I think in this clip it shows how good the high freq Euro units handle seperation over iron infested ground and their superb iron ID, along with a depth far better than our FBS units, and with a penchant for fine jewellery to boot.
It also shows how poor those Euro detectors are at coin detecting in modern trashed areas, but they aren't designed for that.
It shows the Garretts as below par, which is what they are.
The clip also proves some limits of the 3030, which isn't a bad thing, more real world than some would think.
Sometimes these detector comparisons can seem to be inconsequential, but I think in this clip it shows how good the high freq Euro units handle seperation over iron infested ground and their superb iron ID, along with a depth far better than our FBS units, and with a penchant for fine jewellery to boot.
It also shows how poor those Euro detectors are at coin detecting in modern trashed areas, but they aren't designed for that.
It shows the Garretts as below par, which is what they are.
The clip also proves some limits of the 3030, which isn't a bad thing, more real world than some would think.
sprchng
Well-known member
argyle said:
The Deep Tech was definitely running in boost as the tester says. None of the other units use "boost" settings.
I''m not going to run the vid again to see but I think the tester said e-trac rec.sens. was 19 and at above auto +3 it became unstable. I doubt that as it is in direct contrast to my real world experience. My soil often has lower rec sens than that I can run in the high 20's with little instability. My guess is the FT machines would fair well in soil that kind and omitting them from the test and choosing the teknetics without boost was intentional.
GateKeeper
Well-known member
What was shown was the DeepTech in optimal settings. In that mineralized ground, the user of the Minelab machine was running in the wrong setting. He was running in Ferrous coin, where he should have been running in Ground coin or High Trash. Subtle little nuances like that would definitely affect any machine from optimal detecting.
And to Argyle, I disagree with your statement about the Halo Effect. I myself have seen the difference with coins and have run tests on the Halo effect. Haven't you dug a Wheat or Copper Lincoln that are green? Halo. Those targets haven't been in the ground for a hundred years. Why those copper Lincolns will be green till 1982. Just food for thought.
And to Argyle, I disagree with your statement about the Halo Effect. I myself have seen the difference with coins and have run tests on the Halo effect. Haven't you dug a Wheat or Copper Lincoln that are green? Halo. Those targets haven't been in the ground for a hundred years. Why those copper Lincolns will be green till 1982. Just food for thought.
Larry (IL)
Well-known member
Carters tests may influence a newbie but those of us who "knows better" knows that the only test that counts is done by the user in his own ground with natural targets that he is interested in finding. There are SO many ways to make any detector look better than any other in a "test" that you can not take any posted comparison seriously.
GateKeeper said:
I find it funny sometimes, the excuse's we make when working out why our $1800 and $2700 units aren't up to scratch on a certain target.
Yep, dug my share if greenish copper coins, not Wheat's or Lincoln's though, and not one had a True Halo at all.
The Halo effect is just another excuse for the way the ground 'holds' in a signal. People fool themselves with it.
You'll only ever get a True Halo effect from iron in any ground type, given its been there a while.
Gold in very badly mineralized ground, if It's had time to attract ironstone particle's in that immediate spot.
And coinage/other metals out of that same very bad ground, and only provided It's had time.
I doubt you've detected that nasty ground type though.
That's some pretty tame ground he's detecting in that clip. When we make excuses like ' things would be different if', it doesn't balance it out. As each excuse can benifet another unit as well.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not one for air tests or planting one in under undisturbed ground. But even if I were newish to detecting, and I were after a unit for the sole purpose of iron ID with pure depth over quiet unlittered ground, I'd be buying one of those deep tech's in a heartbeat after sussing that clip out a dozen times.
GateKeeper
Well-known member
argyle said:
And I would love to hunt right behind you with my CTX.
GateKeeper
Well-known member
argyle said:
Well I'm open to teach you how to operate it properly for a modest fee.
TellYaWhut
Member
sprchng said:
The author of the above tests also has a couple earlier test videos in the "trench" dated March 2013. It adds two other machines, including the Fisher f75 LTD and the Blisstool.....iron test and depth test. As mentioned, a greenish copper coin is not going to give a true halo effect....besides that the above tests used a nickle as the sample coin. As buried iron rusts away, it bleeds particles that makes the object appear larger than it really is. Minelab multi-frequency machines are silver magnets and ID better than any other at depth. The Vistas are better at unmasking iron from non-ferrous targets. Practically speaking, the problem with the Vista's is that you are limited to old ancient sites /// modern sites will ware you out digging. I think a person needs at least 3 metal detectors to cover all the bases.
GateKeeper said:
Thank you for that wonderful offer gatekeeper, very kind of you, and of coarse a fee would be appropriate.
Though you probably should get some more in the ground experience under your belt before taking the leap to Minelab teacher. I do however appreciate your humour...
Southwind
Well-known member
Agreed 100%
While I appreciate the effort that goes into making such a video, it really was a targeted demonstration in my opinion. You can make any detector look good compared to others when the right conditions are used.
Some of the problems I had was the comments about multi-frequency detectors and the gold chain. False! A DFX would have hit that chain just as clean as any of the single frequency machines. It's only a matter of settings.
Comparing a 6x8(AT Gold) coil against 11" coils is just wrong and the results showed it. The AT Pro, not that different from the AT Gold, hit the same as the Gold would have with the same coil.
Lastly, I have never used a Vista Gold before but from what I've seen, specs wise and from reports, it is a lot like the F75 LTD or G2 in the overly sensitive/"chatty" operation. While I got good depth, in relic hunting conditions, I found them not to my liking at all in hunting the average park/schools conditions. A 8" piece of trash sounds just like a 8" coin and the constant chirping is no comparison to the nice stable depth you get with the E-Trac/CTX 3030 or even the AT Pro.
As a comparison tool, with the targets being the same for all the machines, wouldn't the only variable be the coil size and settings? This test may not represent your soil, so the results may vary, but isn't it a fair comparison between machines at that point in time, at that location? Agreed that no halo effect could affect real world results, but there is no halo effect for any of them. I'm not trying to start an argument, I'm just failing to see how this isn't a fair test between machines (other than coil differences). As far as settings affecting the results, if your machine is so complex that you can't tweak it exactly the way it needs to be then, I guess, that says a lot too.
I have no dog in this fight. I don't have any of the machines tested, and don't plan to, so I am unbiased. I do agree that it would be a mistake to buy a machine off of the results of any video, including this one. But I still think it has merit as FYI.
Dan
I have no dog in this fight. I don't have any of the machines tested, and don't plan to, so I am unbiased. I do agree that it would be a mistake to buy a machine off of the results of any video, including this one. But I still think it has merit as FYI.
Dan
Southwind
Well-known member
Yes Dan I would somewhat agree. Although, coil size makes a big difference.
My only concern is like already has been suggested that someone new to detecting would be completely misinformed. Not knowing the fact the 5x8 coil has no chance on matching the performance of an 11" coil would mislead them into judging the AT Gold wrongly. Also, anyone who has used the "chatty" style detectors, while they do go deep, would know what to expect in your city park. A newbie wouldn't. I can speak from experience on most of these machines and I can honestly say it really doesn't reflect my in the field experience. Again, I have never used the Deep Tech's but I am judging from what the specs say, what people who have say, and what I see and hear on the videos. They lead me to believe they are a lot like the Fishers. Fine detector, just not what I would want to use. Again, the DFX, a multi-frequency detector would easily hit that necklace based on how the AT Pro did.
I would also question the setup of a few of the machines. The AT Pro sounded to me like it was in STD mode not PRO where the depth is. The reason I say this is I never heard the quiet tone of a deep coin like the 8" should have been. It was loud as the coin at 3" which is what you get when in STD mode. Not its deepest mode for sure.
Even with that being said I think the Deep Tech is a great detector. I also believe there is a reason not a vast majority of US detector'ist use them and not just because they are from across the pond. Look at the E-Trac and CTX 3030. They have risen to the top of the heap because they have indeed proved worth to hunters in the US.
My only concern is like already has been suggested that someone new to detecting would be completely misinformed. Not knowing the fact the 5x8 coil has no chance on matching the performance of an 11" coil would mislead them into judging the AT Gold wrongly. Also, anyone who has used the "chatty" style detectors, while they do go deep, would know what to expect in your city park. A newbie wouldn't. I can speak from experience on most of these machines and I can honestly say it really doesn't reflect my in the field experience. Again, I have never used the Deep Tech's but I am judging from what the specs say, what people who have say, and what I see and hear on the videos. They lead me to believe they are a lot like the Fishers. Fine detector, just not what I would want to use. Again, the DFX, a multi-frequency detector would easily hit that necklace based on how the AT Pro did.
I would also question the setup of a few of the machines. The AT Pro sounded to me like it was in STD mode not PRO where the depth is. The reason I say this is I never heard the quiet tone of a deep coin like the 8" should have been. It was loud as the coin at 3" which is what you get when in STD mode. Not its deepest mode for sure.
Even with that being said I think the Deep Tech is a great detector. I also believe there is a reason not a vast majority of US detector'ist use them and not just because they are from across the pond. Look at the E-Trac and CTX 3030. They have risen to the top of the heap because they have indeed proved worth to hunters in the US.