If you except the pulse machines, due to their total lack of any decent discrimination, I'm wondering what people think of this question? (Deep breath, sit down, make tea, wait for critter)
My thoughts are that if a machine performs well on the beach then it is excellent at mineralised ground and "bad" ground. In my case, and I would guess most users, 90% of our land sites are mineralised, I think that the better a machine does on the beach the better it is mostly overall.
It's like the beach is a sort of ultimate test of a detectors capabilities against bad ground, moving it to inland only makes it easier for the machine? Which leads me to believe that the gt is well up there in the "top ten" of machines. I would say that the old days of turning a machine up to it's highest setting and blasting the ground are over, I'm starting to more and more think that the key to a great detector is it's ability to "read" the ground and balance the sensitivity to prevent it from "fogging" the ground. It's ok to have the most powerful machine on the market but if it just blasts into the ground without compensating then it becomes no better than a cheap Garrett. Like a Ferrari on a rally course, pointless and far too overpowered. I'm guessing this is one of the reasons that the cheap "ace" series from Garrett have punched well above their weight for so long?
On the motion machines, there is no indication at all of "fogging" up the ground at all due to their silent operation and if you don't pick up on tiny nuances from it when it hits a target then it's impossible to tell. Which might account for the terrific advantages us gt users seem to have and even the older fishers on land?
Finally, the detecting manufacturers have succumbed to marketing gimmicks to sell you machines, with no real evidence. For instance, a couple of people I know have deus machines (not sure you have them in the states??). Well over here they are touted to be etrac killers. They are a few hundred pounds more than an etrac and have a wireless control box and wireless headphones, they are also very lightweight. In reality, as far as I have seen, they are less deep than etracs and the extra money seems to be just for the "wireless" aspects of it. Oh, it's not good on beaches either apparently I sometimes wonder if a lot of machines are really tested that much outside a lab? And don't get me started on all that "recovery speed" claptrap, another ridiculous marketing tool. I can only imagine the amount of coins/relics buried directly next to a piece if iron placed just perfectly so the machine won't see it.....probably none. I mean, you would have to be really really unlucky to have that happening to you more than a couple of times a year!
Rant over, but I do wonder what you all think about the original question, if a machine works well on a beach it'll do well on land?
My thoughts are that if a machine performs well on the beach then it is excellent at mineralised ground and "bad" ground. In my case, and I would guess most users, 90% of our land sites are mineralised, I think that the better a machine does on the beach the better it is mostly overall.
It's like the beach is a sort of ultimate test of a detectors capabilities against bad ground, moving it to inland only makes it easier for the machine? Which leads me to believe that the gt is well up there in the "top ten" of machines. I would say that the old days of turning a machine up to it's highest setting and blasting the ground are over, I'm starting to more and more think that the key to a great detector is it's ability to "read" the ground and balance the sensitivity to prevent it from "fogging" the ground. It's ok to have the most powerful machine on the market but if it just blasts into the ground without compensating then it becomes no better than a cheap Garrett. Like a Ferrari on a rally course, pointless and far too overpowered. I'm guessing this is one of the reasons that the cheap "ace" series from Garrett have punched well above their weight for so long?
On the motion machines, there is no indication at all of "fogging" up the ground at all due to their silent operation and if you don't pick up on tiny nuances from it when it hits a target then it's impossible to tell. Which might account for the terrific advantages us gt users seem to have and even the older fishers on land?
Finally, the detecting manufacturers have succumbed to marketing gimmicks to sell you machines, with no real evidence. For instance, a couple of people I know have deus machines (not sure you have them in the states??). Well over here they are touted to be etrac killers. They are a few hundred pounds more than an etrac and have a wireless control box and wireless headphones, they are also very lightweight. In reality, as far as I have seen, they are less deep than etracs and the extra money seems to be just for the "wireless" aspects of it. Oh, it's not good on beaches either apparently I sometimes wonder if a lot of machines are really tested that much outside a lab? And don't get me started on all that "recovery speed" claptrap, another ridiculous marketing tool. I can only imagine the amount of coins/relics buried directly next to a piece if iron placed just perfectly so the machine won't see it.....probably none. I mean, you would have to be really really unlucky to have that happening to you more than a couple of times a year!
Rant over, but I do wonder what you all think about the original question, if a machine works well on a beach it'll do well on land?