DFX or MXT ? Convince Me......

[Ralph Bryant]

I'm in the middle of deciding between these two excellent machines as my next project, and for the sake of drumming up some discussion and to get a feel for different user's ideas and preferrences, thought I would throw this question out for discussion........

[attachment 13605 DFXMXT.jpg]


<u><h4>Which do you prefer, and why ? ...... The MXT or the DFX ?</u></h4>


Primary use will be a little bit of everything in a wide range of ground conditions, price is not an issue. I'm especially interested in comments from those who use or have used both, but all input is more than welcome. Thanks, and I appreciate the feedback.

Ralph

 

[OldeTymer]

Hi Ralph,

I've only owned the MXT, so I can't comment on the DFX other than personal feelings, not actual experience.

For me, the DFX is just too complicated and requires too much fiddling to make it work up to its abilities. I neither have the time, nor the desire to learn it. I'm sure that with enough attention to its requirements, it's probably a great machine. The concept is very good. There are just too many adjustments for my liking. Too many ways to screw it up, and reduce its capabilities. I like simple.

I don't like the MXT for coin hunting. The meter is too jumpy and I just didn't get the performance I would have liked. Relic hunting is a different story. For pure relic hunting, I think it's a great machine. I really like the two tone audio for ferrous/non-ferrous targets. When I relic hunt, I dig all non-ferrous responses. I don't even need to look at the meter, just listen to the tone. I've also been told, and have read, that it's a better prospecting machine than the DFX. I've seen it in action, and it's ability as a nugget hunter is quite amazing for a general purpose detector. I, currently, don't own an MXT at this time, but if I were looking for a pure relic machine, or for a nugget hunter, I would buy another MXT without hesitation.

From the posts of yours that I have read, my guess is that you're more curious about the DFX than necessarily dedicated to spending all the time it will take to really, I mean really, learn it. From what I've read of your posts, I think you're more like me in that you prefer performance without ballyhoo, without a lot of bells and whistles. Perhaps I'm wrong in that observation, but it sure sounds like it from posts of yours that I've read. Like you, I've been hunting for a long time. I'll admit that I'm addicted to target id for most of my hunting. I've recently re-acquired an XL Pro. To this day, I still believe that the meter on the XL Pro, and all the iterations before it, is the best there is, and has ever been. I don't expect everyone to agree with me, and that's ok. To me they are the best. Saying that, I also have one of the new Id-Edge units. Unfortunately, the weather hasn't cooperated, and I haven't been able to get out with it. I do know that if it performs like the Id-Excel does, but with better performance, it should be a real winner. I've not used any other digital readout unit that has worked better for me as far as target separation, iron masking performance and target lock than the Id-Excel did. I just didn't feel it gave me the kind of depth performance, in my soil conditions, that I wanted. From everything I read about the Id-Edge, it sounds like what I'm looking for in a digital machine. Yes, I owned a CoinStrike but didn't like it, in my soil, and my hunting style and locations. I think it may be due to its similarities to the other more complicated machines like the Explorers (hated them), and the DFX. It's funny, as a lot of people would think that I would like the computerized, modifiable units since I spent 30 years in software development. Maybe that's why I don't like them. Again, these are just my likes and dislikes, and is not a condemnation for any of these machines for others.

OldeTymer

 

[Rick(ND)]

The DFX has many setting and many adjustments to fine tune it to max performance and if you have some setting not right you would spend the time adjusting trying to find the right setting for the area. Now with the MXT it is more of a turn on an go detector and feel it will do as good as the DFX, unless you know the DFX and fine tune it. In one park we were at the DFX could not see several of the targets the MXT did for the reason it was not set right. So like I say i would rather spend my time detecting, not adjusting to max performance.
As far as coin hunting my wife and myself when i use it runs the relic mode with the 2 tones and when we get a repeatable high tone we look at the meter to ID it. One thing we learn it to only max the gain when checking out a target or it will chatter.

 

[ksdigger]

Ralph: To answer your question, GET THE MXT and I'll explain why. My personal experiences with BOTH detectors have been fantastic! The results of both machines can and will find the deep stuff. Each have proved to me they belong at the top of any COIN or RELIC hunters wish list. I've put them through extreme weather conditions, both hot and cold, even hunted in a blinding snow storm which by the way was a blast! They flat out find the goodies. Now here is where I seperate the two just from my own personal experience, others may differ. Two years ago I bought the DFX, learned the machine well, found plenty of old silver and let me tell you, it is a silver finding machine. I then started getting into civil war relic hunting and found many many civil war bullets with the DFX but no buttons. A friend told me, "if you want to find buttons, get the MXT". I bought the MXT and guess what, I started finding BUTTONS AND BULLETS in areas that I know I hunted before. I can't explain it but different detectors do different things, all I know are the results.
The MXT is so much easier to learn, it is truely a turn on and go detector! The DFX is truely a silver finding machine but does require alot of patience, not recommended for first time users. I love them both, each have there place but if I were you, I would go with the MXT. Hope this helps!

Merry Christmas to all!!!

 

[Ralph Bryant]

A quick question than comes to mind on buttons. Did you happen to try the DFX in the 15kHz only mode when relic hunting, or were you using both ? I've heard others mention that buttons were difficult unless you hunt in the higher frequency only, and that would seem to make sense considering the higher operating frequency of the MXT.

Ralph

 

[Ralph Bryant]

Thanks OT,

I read all of your posts, and it seems we think alot alike on different things. As I'm sure you know, I like to jump into the technical side of detectors, and really try to gain a full understanding of how these machines work and why they do (or don't do) certain things. I agree too, that there is alot to be said for simplicity over complexity. Many of my early machines were just straightforward, simple units without alot of the "extras" of the day to get between me and the targets. But in later years, I jumped into some of the more complex machines with both feet just for the challenge, because to be completely honest, it gets to a point where without that challenge, this hobby tends to get very boring for me and I quickly start to lose interest or take a hiatus of several months pursuing other interests. But for 38 or so years now, I always end up back with detector in hand. In a way, you are right about my curiosity, but I have no problem dedicating the time and effort to learn the DFX. I spend dozens of hours per week using, reading about, and researching metal detectors anyway, so that is really not a problem. That aspect of the hobby is just as enjoyable as the actual swinging and digging to me personally. When I'm actually engrossed in the learning process, the more I learn, the more I want to learn.....it's a never ending cycle.

I think what really interests me about the DFX is that with many machines, I get to the point of feeling like I'm hitting a brick wall in squeezing out a little more performance and miss the ability of the machine to give me "just a little more" in the way of tuning or tweaking options. I see alot of concern from others about "to much" adjustability with the DFX, but at the same time I understand that just because one control is adjusted doesn't mean they ALL have to be adjusted. There seem to be alot of misconceptions about the DFX and its level of complexity, when in reality, it just amounts to what I would call "the ultimate manual detector", having many options added into the mix that are just not available on other units.

When I first handled a Nautilus machine several years ago, the "intimidation factor" was pretty high and actually prevented me from spending any time in purchasing or trying to learn that particular machine. BIG MISTAKE ! When I eventually decided to buy one, and after gaining a good basic understanding of the machine via the writings of others (Jbird's work stands out as the best), it was surprisingly easy to learn and operate. I think that added "boost" of getting some education on the machine FIRST really cut down the learning curve, and I'm hopeful that will also be the case with the DFX if that is the route I choose to take. Jeff Foster's "Digging Deeper" is one of the best machine-specific technical manuals I have ever read, and I only wish such information was available on more of the current high-end machines. So to me, it is much more than just a matter of learning the machine, and involves learning more about ALL machines in the process, not only how they "operate", but WHY they operate that way, and the many interactions going on within the circuitry, what to expect of different machines on the market based on their circuit designs, how to get the best performance to any given location, and so on. Much like the Nautilus, the DFX just seems to me to be a great teacher, but only the student can really make it a great performer.

Ralph

 

[OldeTymer]

Wow. I can't get over how you and I think alike. I agree with all you said. I find myself falling into that same scenario. I get almost as much of a kick out of researching a new "toy", as I do using it.

That said, here is something to ponder, and where I'm trying to aspire to. With few exceptions, I think you'll agree that, many of the current detector offerings will perform with near the same capability, performance wise. What if we spent that same effort researching new sites to hunt, rather than trying to get the last iota out of a new machine? I don't know about you, but I have spent an inordinate amount of time reading about, playing with and studying new detectors. Every time a new one is announced, regardless of the manufacturer, it gets my interest and I spend a lot of time reading about it, reading all the posts on all the forums about it and trying to determine if I should consider getting one. I'm now thinking that if I put that same effort into the necessary research for new hunt sites, the machine I use wouldn't really matter that much. If I find a site that hasn't been pounded to death, I wouldn't need that last drop of tweak to get the goodies. What do you think? It's just an idea.

OldeTymer

 

[Ralph Bryant]

Couldn't agree more with your thoughts. Now the obvious question......

Why aren't we out hunting ?

Alot of this just fills up the "dead space" between hunts, especially in the winter months. I also agree than between most top-end machines, there is probably not an inch difference in "depth", though there are some advantages in the way of discrimination between some units. Discrimination is really where I tend to focus my attention these days as that seems to be the "last frontier" of VLF-IB detector improvement.

Thanks again for the feedback.

Ralph

 

[steve herschbach]

Hi Ralph,

Ha... I'm not going to try and convince you of anything!! But I will tell you my impressions of the two units.

I carried both an MXT and DFX around for a few hours and cross-compared results on found targets. I was able to discern almost no real difference between the two units when it came down to depth of detection or accuracy of target identification when used as coin detectors.

I do believe the MXT is hotter on small gold range targets than the DFX, however.

I initially favored the MXT as I like simplicity. But I did eventually come to feel the MXT was on the noisy side. And about the same time I decided to give up on coin detecting and focus on jewelry.

At that point the DFX came clearly up as the machine for me to use. So far it appears to be the best unit I can find for jewelry detecting, given its coil selection, expanded 15 kHz VDI range, and still very good gold sensitivity.

I've been trying other machines looking for an alternative, but the DFX is so far the winner for me. The XT50 is looking great as a simpler alternative that will complement but not replace my DFX.

The DFX can be as simple or as complicated as people want to make it. The preprogrammed settings just need to have the gain bumped up to work well. I think just taking the Coin Mode, bumping up the gain, and changing the accept/reject numbers to suit me works well. Once you get the DFX set up the way you want it is turn on and go.

Clynicks book has some notching tricks involving setting a single VDI number to reject plus noting how the sound ramps up and down when coming up against a reject point that add some new dimensions to target discrimination. Interesting stuff.

There is so much focus on detectors and coins that it seems all people talk about is what units hit coins best. But start talking about what units make the best jewelry detctors, and the game changes a lot. The MXT and DFX both shine on jewelry, but in very different ways. The MXT is great, but you do have to hear a lot of sounds, and refer to the meter a lot. The DFX can be set to either reject certain ranges, which is my preference, or set wide open with full tonal discrimination. Many swear that is the way to go with the DFX, and just learn the tones.

Some do not want the machine to think for them, and so want to hear and analyze every target. I'm ok with that and do it myself sometimes. But more often I seem to be in the opposite camp. My dream machine beeps on good stuff and shuts up on bad. So I like the idea of looking for jewelry and having a machine that I can set to not beep on high end conductors.

As you and I discussed on another post what I really need is a reverse disc knob on the MXT. It would start to reject on the high end, and I would turn it down to just below zinc penny to reject all coins except nickels. Or a bit higher or lower depending on the location. My focus is on low end targets, whereas most people are after high end coins.

The bottom line for me is that every time a silver coin gets dug up there is one less to find. But our affluent society now has even children wearing gold jewelry. More gold is being dropped these days than in years past. Jewelry items are replenishing, and so it looks to me that it is the area with the most potential for metal detecting as the years progress.

I'm not sure yet which detector is the best jewelry detector, but I'd say the DFX has a very good shot at the title.

Steve Herschbach

 

[Ralph Bryant]

I appreciate the feedback, and am leaning in the direction of the DFX at this point for some of the reasons you mention. I'm pretty much in agreement with your thoughts on "non-renewable resources" in the way of old coins vs. gold jewelry as well. Same holds true for natural nuggets and civil war relics, and I'm sure I've found much more gold over the years in the way of jewelry than in nuggets down here in the lower 48. I'm sure you're just the opposite with some of the luck you guys have had at Gaines Creek and some of your other haunts.

I've been enjoying the Xterra myself (good machine), but keep feeling that "brick wall" when I get the urge to tweak and try for just a little more performance. What's the old saying about it being better to have it and not need it, than to need it and not have it ? I just don't see much "lacking" in the adjustability department on the DFX, and like you say, complicated or not, advantage or disadvantage, that is really up to the operator. But it sure would be nice to have that full range of options.

Ralph

 

[Big Boys Hobbies]

I had a MXT and really liked it. Specially with the 5.3 in trashy areas. I sold it and bought a Explorer II. Talk about a AWESOME machine. Kinda like the DFX with all the tweekablilty but it really outshines anything ive ever used by far. The factory presets blew me away. I found 2 rings and an old tax token with tons of clad in my first few hours on factory presets. I have had 3 whites machine and was a staunch whites guy......not anymore. Well maybe if they come out with a DFX II i might have to try it..lol

I bought a 8" coil for the explorer II yesterday and soon as the sun comes up ill be out "Christmas" hunting...ha ha

 

[TwoDogsBob]

Well said.. I have an MXT, only machine I've played with and I'm very happy. Bought one for my wife, she has been going with me and having a good time so it was her early Christmas present. She read the manual, watched the tape, we went out to the local school and within a few minutes she was finding coins and grinning from ear to ear. Don't get me wrong, there is fine tuning and learning the machine but I wanna detect not play with buttons and go through the "Maybe if I do this I can get a little deeper" mental BS..
Just my thoughts.... Bob