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.
DFX vs EXP SE
- Thread starter DFXer
- Start date
Southwind
Well-known member
I agree digi, and the same is true of the DFX. To get maximum depth/sensitivity fals'ing is a part of the equation. That is when experience plays an important role in getting maximum depth out of any detector. It's not hard to learn the difference between fals'ing and a valid target with practice.
I understand using a different coil and or settings does improve ground coverage for the SE, but it is also true for the DFX. My point is the SE requires a slower sweep speed than the DFX. The advantage is, as any experienced hunter knows, hunting slower nets better depth and separation. The downside is obviously it takes longer to cover the area. As I said I dig coins at 10" quite often in our city park with my DFX by just hunting slow. From what I've read this is probably about what I can expect from the SE. I should get my SE today so I will be able to give a better opinion of the SE.
I've done a lot of research on these two top guns, and there is a lot of opinions to wade through. Several difference keep coming up that lead me to believe they are pretty accurate. Over at minelabowners.com these are all SE owners so you can expect a more unbiased opinion. The main complaints I see are construction, being slow and not very accurate ID'ing. I've seen lots of posts about the Explorers falling apart(shafts) after a few months, and using tape/shims to hold it together. Not an issue you read about for the DFX.
One of the things that concerns me most is a lack of resolution in target ID between the DFX and SE. This is not important to some users, but it is too me. I'm not a cherry picker by any means, for the most part, but my hunting time is limited and I like to make the best out of it. With the DFX I can easily tell a zinc from a copper, a silver dime or quarter from a clad, and a nickle from a pull tab. That combined with a faster hunting speed makes the DFX more attractive to some hunters. Thats why I believe both detectors have their pros and cons over the other. This is also why there is no clear winner between these two titans.
I understand using a different coil and or settings does improve ground coverage for the SE, but it is also true for the DFX. My point is the SE requires a slower sweep speed than the DFX. The advantage is, as any experienced hunter knows, hunting slower nets better depth and separation. The downside is obviously it takes longer to cover the area. As I said I dig coins at 10" quite often in our city park with my DFX by just hunting slow. From what I've read this is probably about what I can expect from the SE. I should get my SE today so I will be able to give a better opinion of the SE.
I've done a lot of research on these two top guns, and there is a lot of opinions to wade through. Several difference keep coming up that lead me to believe they are pretty accurate. Over at minelabowners.com these are all SE owners so you can expect a more unbiased opinion. The main complaints I see are construction, being slow and not very accurate ID'ing. I've seen lots of posts about the Explorers falling apart(shafts) after a few months, and using tape/shims to hold it together. Not an issue you read about for the DFX.
One of the things that concerns me most is a lack of resolution in target ID between the DFX and SE. This is not important to some users, but it is too me. I'm not a cherry picker by any means, for the most part, but my hunting time is limited and I like to make the best out of it. With the DFX I can easily tell a zinc from a copper, a silver dime or quarter from a clad, and a nickle from a pull tab. That combined with a faster hunting speed makes the DFX more attractive to some hunters. Thats why I believe both detectors have their pros and cons over the other. This is also why there is no clear winner between these two titans.
Good points! I don't know if I will honestly put the effort into understanding a detector as much as I have with my SE. Even if I had a better detector, that would produce better results AFTER I became proficient with it, the real question is... will I use it exclusively to learn it as well or will I continue to grab the SE because that's what I know and I can fully expect those positive results now, not a month from now. The other problem is using two different machines is difficult with the fact that in learning the new machine and tones, you are sort of training your brain to unlearn your old machine and its different tones. I applaud anyone who can do that, I only speak one language fluently. So for most guys who are very good with either, I would imagine they would be almost better off continuing their expertise with that unit. I will put down my Explorer and train a new machine into my brain, but that new machine will have to replace my Explorer, not compliment it. I already have the F75 (if I can get the bloody thing to work right) for using as a light scout for large areas to find concentrations. I am curious about the DFX but would think the complicated nature of the two; the DFX and the SE would require ones full attention in a singular, either/or kind of way to learn and become truly proficient with either one.
Southwind
Well-known member
Well I got my SE and did some hunting. Although I don't have enough time on the SE to give a good comparison to the DFX as far as a toe to toe, and I can give my first impressions.
Putting it together: It took all of 10 minutes to put it together out of the box. Everything seemed to fit good and tight and I had no problems with it(shaft) being loose as some had mentioned. Maybe in time it may change but at this point I'm very happy with it's construction. So ends my first concern.
Air Test: With the "factory settings" the air tests were just like the DFX. Same depth same signal strength. No surprises.
Test Garden: My test garden is about 2 years old and consists of 2 areas. Area 1 has a penny, nickle, dime and quarter at 4-5" and the other has the same at 7-8". The SE had no problems finding all targets from 4-5" but found none of the targets in the 7-8" garden. Not surprising since my test garden seems to have very bad ground. The SE performed pretty much as good as my DFX in the test garden. Strange as it may be the detectors that have preformed best in my test garden are Garrett's. In my test garden the ACE 250 did better than both my DFX and SE. I think the key here is being able to maintain a stable threshold. The SE would not maintain a stable threshold no matter how many times I noise canceled. The only time I had a threshold was when the coil was not in motion at all. The Garrett's seem to keep a solid threshold in any conditions.
First Hunt: We took the new SE to a new site which was a 3 block long area where the old building had been bulldozed. This was a big mistake, and I knew better, but my thoughts were I know enough about detectors to take a new detector anywhere. I was wrong when it comes to the SE. The tones were far too confusing as was the visual information in such a trashy site. I can say the SE is a beer can magnet. As my hunting buddies found possible good targets they would have me check them so I could better understand what my new detector was saying. All I could tell them was it sounded like a beer can. Most of these cans had been plowed into different sizes so they were all over my ID(Smartfind). Most of them read just like a penny. In all honesty I feel my DFX handles trashy areas such as this better. Mainly due to it's better visual ID'ing. With time this may change.
Second Hunt: I talked my buddies into going somewhere less challenging to test the SE. I needed a place where the trash was more predictable, and less abundant, and more coins were likely. We chose a school that we have hunted many times before with some luck. I found a 1903 Indian Head here with my DFX about a month ago. Things went much better. I could actually hear a threshold part of the time and was finally finding coins. At this site my understanding of the SE took a giant leap forward. Several times when my buddies had me check a signal I was actually able to give a better guess on the targets ID then they did. While I didn't find any old coins I was impressed with several finds. First was a signal that sound solid and my guess from the *cough* depth reading was 7". Roughly at this depth I dug a musket ball. The very next target, at roughly 6" was an old rim-fire 45 caliber shell like the ones we find at Fort Dodge. Makes me think this SE could be a relic monster.
Conclusion: I know I don't have enough time in the SE yet to make a full analysis, but I do think I can give a good "first time users" analysis. In my opinion the SE is not for the beginner unless an experienced SE users helps. I have no doubt the DFX is a more new user friendly detector. Pinpointing with the SE was right on the money as is the DFX. Depth was on par with the DFX, but the SE's *cough* depth meter leaves much to be desired. Actually I found the visual ID(SmartFind) pretty useless for the first time user. I saw no consistency in the visual information of the SE compared to the DFX. I hope in time this will change, but for the new user, visual information is far more useful than tone. As someone new to a detector I think the DFX wins hands-down when It comes to visual ID'ing. I now understand why SE users say it's all about learning the tone, because the visual information, at this point, is useless.
You hear people talk about the SE's weight as a problem. I can now say I know where they are coming from. After 4 hours of swing the SE both my arms are shot. Where the heck does all that weight come from? My DFX has 8 AA batteries and is built of metal but I can still swing it all day. The SE is built mostly of plastics but feels like swing a brick. After soaking my body in ointment last night I feel I will be able to do some more swing today, but my time is going to be limited this time around. I plan to take the SE to the best test site we have today where I plan to put the SE's "famed depth" to the test. I've cleaned this park with my DFX so now I'll see if the SE can pull the really deep stuff I know is still there.
All in all my first impression is the SE is on par as a top of the line detector. In time I'm sure I will understand the SE much better, but at this point I would say the DFX, for me, is the better detector. Now with that being said, the SE does show promise as a much better relic detector than my DFX. One thing I was a bit disappointed in was I saw a small 22 caliber shell on top the ground that the SE wouldn't pick up. I dig bunches of these with my DFX and they sound good and solid. I expected the SE to be more sensitive to these smaller targets.
Here is my take for the day:
Putting it together: It took all of 10 minutes to put it together out of the box. Everything seemed to fit good and tight and I had no problems with it(shaft) being loose as some had mentioned. Maybe in time it may change but at this point I'm very happy with it's construction. So ends my first concern.
Air Test: With the "factory settings" the air tests were just like the DFX. Same depth same signal strength. No surprises.
Test Garden: My test garden is about 2 years old and consists of 2 areas. Area 1 has a penny, nickle, dime and quarter at 4-5" and the other has the same at 7-8". The SE had no problems finding all targets from 4-5" but found none of the targets in the 7-8" garden. Not surprising since my test garden seems to have very bad ground. The SE performed pretty much as good as my DFX in the test garden. Strange as it may be the detectors that have preformed best in my test garden are Garrett's. In my test garden the ACE 250 did better than both my DFX and SE. I think the key here is being able to maintain a stable threshold. The SE would not maintain a stable threshold no matter how many times I noise canceled. The only time I had a threshold was when the coil was not in motion at all. The Garrett's seem to keep a solid threshold in any conditions.
First Hunt: We took the new SE to a new site which was a 3 block long area where the old building had been bulldozed. This was a big mistake, and I knew better, but my thoughts were I know enough about detectors to take a new detector anywhere. I was wrong when it comes to the SE. The tones were far too confusing as was the visual information in such a trashy site. I can say the SE is a beer can magnet. As my hunting buddies found possible good targets they would have me check them so I could better understand what my new detector was saying. All I could tell them was it sounded like a beer can. Most of these cans had been plowed into different sizes so they were all over my ID(Smartfind). Most of them read just like a penny. In all honesty I feel my DFX handles trashy areas such as this better. Mainly due to it's better visual ID'ing. With time this may change.
Second Hunt: I talked my buddies into going somewhere less challenging to test the SE. I needed a place where the trash was more predictable, and less abundant, and more coins were likely. We chose a school that we have hunted many times before with some luck. I found a 1903 Indian Head here with my DFX about a month ago. Things went much better. I could actually hear a threshold part of the time and was finally finding coins. At this site my understanding of the SE took a giant leap forward. Several times when my buddies had me check a signal I was actually able to give a better guess on the targets ID then they did. While I didn't find any old coins I was impressed with several finds. First was a signal that sound solid and my guess from the *cough* depth reading was 7". Roughly at this depth I dug a musket ball. The very next target, at roughly 6" was an old rim-fire 45 caliber shell like the ones we find at Fort Dodge. Makes me think this SE could be a relic monster.
Conclusion: I know I don't have enough time in the SE yet to make a full analysis, but I do think I can give a good "first time users" analysis. In my opinion the SE is not for the beginner unless an experienced SE users helps. I have no doubt the DFX is a more new user friendly detector. Pinpointing with the SE was right on the money as is the DFX. Depth was on par with the DFX, but the SE's *cough* depth meter leaves much to be desired. Actually I found the visual ID(SmartFind) pretty useless for the first time user. I saw no consistency in the visual information of the SE compared to the DFX. I hope in time this will change, but for the new user, visual information is far more useful than tone. As someone new to a detector I think the DFX wins hands-down when It comes to visual ID'ing. I now understand why SE users say it's all about learning the tone, because the visual information, at this point, is useless.
You hear people talk about the SE's weight as a problem. I can now say I know where they are coming from. After 4 hours of swing the SE both my arms are shot. Where the heck does all that weight come from? My DFX has 8 AA batteries and is built of metal but I can still swing it all day. The SE is built mostly of plastics but feels like swing a brick. After soaking my body in ointment last night I feel I will be able to do some more swing today, but my time is going to be limited this time around. I plan to take the SE to the best test site we have today where I plan to put the SE's "famed depth" to the test. I've cleaned this park with my DFX so now I'll see if the SE can pull the really deep stuff I know is still there.
All in all my first impression is the SE is on par as a top of the line detector. In time I'm sure I will understand the SE much better, but at this point I would say the DFX, for me, is the better detector. Now with that being said, the SE does show promise as a much better relic detector than my DFX. One thing I was a bit disappointed in was I saw a small 22 caliber shell on top the ground that the SE wouldn't pick up. I dig bunches of these with my DFX and they sound good and solid. I expected the SE to be more sensitive to these smaller targets.
Here is my take for the day:
[quote Southwind](shaft) being loose as some had mentioned. Maybe in time it may change but at this point I'm very happy with it's construction.[/quote]
I've not noticed complaints about the SE on that issue, just the older machines.
That was the case for me yesterday too at one site I hunted, at least crushed ones. But hitting them so much I started to get some understanding of how they were reading. As you said, some read just like a penny but I noticed that the sound was less-variable and, after I noticed that I could pretty much predict when they were going to be cans.
One thing I did not long after getting my SE was running my probe all over an aluminum can from all angles in the learn screen with the cursor on small. When I was done there was a huge splash on the screen roughly filling the area that aluminum scraps fall into (from pennies SSW toward nickels).
Pinpointing works great for me in empty ground but I'm having a hell of a time learning it well enough to be useful in trash. (When in pinpoint, trying to find a small target next to a large target after it's latched onto the large target is near impossible for me.)
I've found it quite accurate down 4-6 inches when there's not other trash in the coil field. One thing that will help on that is when you're running no-disc. That usually seems to speed up the response. I'm starting to use the SmartFind screen initially to see how the cursor is jumping on iffy targets and then switching to the Digital screen (and perhaps pinpoint) to see what the numbers tell me. At this stage at least, that's working pretty well for me.
Oh, on being able to differentiate which coins are which, for me at least, I'm finding the numbers much more useful for that. For instance, if I dig a zinc now, I pretty much know what it is ahead of time. (Though the ones that have bites out of them can surprise me.)
I've found .22 shells down to 6-7 inches (and .22 bullets a little deeper). I don't think it's the smallness of the target that's an issue but that it's a surface issue. At least for me, things can get pretty confusing at times on or near the surface.
Sounds like you're having fun with it though.
I've not noticed complaints about the SE on that issue, just the older machines.
That was the case for me yesterday too at one site I hunted, at least crushed ones. But hitting them so much I started to get some understanding of how they were reading. As you said, some read just like a penny but I noticed that the sound was less-variable and, after I noticed that I could pretty much predict when they were going to be cans.
One thing I did not long after getting my SE was running my probe all over an aluminum can from all angles in the learn screen with the cursor on small. When I was done there was a huge splash on the screen roughly filling the area that aluminum scraps fall into (from pennies SSW toward nickels).
Pinpointing works great for me in empty ground but I'm having a hell of a time learning it well enough to be useful in trash. (When in pinpoint, trying to find a small target next to a large target after it's latched onto the large target is near impossible for me.)
I've found it quite accurate down 4-6 inches when there's not other trash in the coil field. One thing that will help on that is when you're running no-disc. That usually seems to speed up the response. I'm starting to use the SmartFind screen initially to see how the cursor is jumping on iffy targets and then switching to the Digital screen (and perhaps pinpoint) to see what the numbers tell me. At this stage at least, that's working pretty well for me.
Oh, on being able to differentiate which coins are which, for me at least, I'm finding the numbers much more useful for that. For instance, if I dig a zinc now, I pretty much know what it is ahead of time. (Though the ones that have bites out of them can surprise me.)
I've found .22 shells down to 6-7 inches (and .22 bullets a little deeper). I don't think it's the smallness of the target that's an issue but that it's a surface issue. At least for me, things can get pretty confusing at times on or near the surface.
Sounds like you're having fun with it though.
Southwind
Well-known member
I'm having a blast!
One thing I enjoy is trying a new detector, and the SE is something new thats for sure. I think I will trying using the Digital Screen today and see if that clicks for me. Being used to the DFX's VDI may help me more with this screen.
I've seen people talk about "the bounce" to help ID deep coins. Just what is this "bounce", and how does it work? I know on the DFX even when a target ID would bounce around you could get a good idea of it being a coin by how it bounced around. Is this the same concept? For example a silver dime on my DFX may bounce from 79-82 but, because it was in this tight group, It would most often be a silver dime.
One thing I enjoy is trying a new detector, and the SE is something new thats for sure. I think I will trying using the Digital Screen today and see if that clicks for me. Being used to the DFX's VDI may help me more with this screen.
I've seen people talk about "the bounce" to help ID deep coins. Just what is this "bounce", and how does it work? I know on the DFX even when a target ID would bounce around you could get a good idea of it being a coin by how it bounced around. Is this the same concept? For example a silver dime on my DFX may bounce from 79-82 but, because it was in this tight group, It would most often be a silver dime.
mattockman
New member
n/t
I'd heard that a lot but usually forget to do it but I actually did remember that day--after I'd dug 4 or 5 of them. I'm starting to do that more often now as a way to check things. (And also finding that raising the coil helps find surface targets that read off the edge of the coil (I think).)
Had one fool me pretty good yesterday though on my way out of the field. Was in an old colonial field where I was digging anything that wasn't iron and I got an odd signal that tended to ID about a 1/4 of the way to the iron edge of the screen, or a little less, about a 2/5 of the way up. Raising the coil didn't indicate that it was a large object. So I dug. And dug. And dug. And dug. Of course, by the time I was down 6-8", I realized it was something large but by then I wanted to know what the hell it was. It was a crushed can at 13" that seemed, at least partially covered in dirt, to have an iron bottom fused to aluminum sides. (Forgot to take it out of my trash side last night to clean it off to see exactly what it was.) But at least the reading made sense then--would have been a pretty good average of the aluminum and iron content.
I'm starting to do that more often now as a way to check things. (And also finding that raising the coil helps find surface targets that read off the edge of the coil (I think).)Had one fool me pretty good yesterday though on my way out of the field. Was in an old colonial field where I was digging anything that wasn't iron and I got an odd signal that tended to ID about a 1/4 of the way to the iron edge of the screen, or a little less, about a 2/5 of the way up. Raising the coil didn't indicate that it was a large object. So I dug. And dug. And dug. And dug. Of course, by the time I was down 6-8", I realized it was something large but by then I wanted to know what the hell it was. It was a crushed can at 13" that seemed, at least partially covered in dirt, to have an iron bottom fused to aluminum sides. (Forgot to take it out of my trash side last night to clean it off to see exactly what it was.) But at least the reading made sense then--would have been a pretty good average of the aluminum and iron content.
Here is an idea. Have the guys and the DFX Only forum and the Minelab Owners forum get together and host a contest that could be underwritten by numerous sponsors. The guys could work together to create a series of test beds with trash, iron, nails on top of dimes etc. and have DFX and SE users compete to win one of ten spots in each camp to compete head to head in an SE/DFX showdown, in a final brutal set of test beds. Rather than dig targets, the operators would be accompanied during the test by an official and they would report to the official when they found a target, and what they thought it was and how deep, etc. All the targets would be known by the folks who build the test site, so there would be no questions about which operator was more accurate. By getting people to compete to win entry, you get the people who are the best operators of their respective machines, and with ten each, the overall winning team could establish quit firmly the better of the two machines, or each team/machine could establish it's self as being best in certain conditions.The prize could be something like the America's Cup, and handled the same way as the Cup. Every few years the competition could be repeated, and other manufacturers could participate. There could be special events, like for underwater machines, and gold prospecting machines. It could turn into the SEMA show for metal detectors. This would great for the hobby.
Kind regards,
Toy4runr
Kind regards,
Toy4runr