etrac against ctx on tid

[ron948]

I bought a ctx in Feb. the machine has a lot of great features. the target id is not one of them. I was wondering if the etrac id's coins any better. a memorial penny will id from 12-38 to 12-45 on the ctx. wheats and Indians id ok. I don't know where silver comes in at. they are just a surprise when one pops out

 

[Bill_S]

I do believe the Etrac does a better job with the ID. I have dug shallow quarters that hit 12-43 with no trash around them. I even dug a 50 cent piece that hit in the same area. I think the latest update had something to do with it.

 

[cahil_2]

I agree with bill. I have found that I dig more with the ctx because you never know when that 12/44 will end up being silver. I dug a walker yesterday that came in at 12/44. I used to skip shallow 12/44's with my etrac, so I would have missed that walker with my etrac.

 

[Goes4ever]

I agree with bill. I have found that I dig more with the ctx because you never know when that 12/44 will end up being silver. I dug a walker yesterday that came in at 12/44. I used to skip shallow 12/44's with my etrac, so I would have missed that walker with my etrac.

highly UNLIKELY the walker would have came in at 12-44 on the etrac.........I have dug my fair share of halves with the etrac and NEVER has one came in at 12-44 area, they are 90% of the time at 46 or 47

 

[Nuke em]

Its one of the reasons I sold my CTX , found the ET not only better on ID of target but better on sounds and quicker on targets . I think they have slowed the CTX down by putting to much in to it .
Just did not like the CTX after having the ET, felt like a downgrade and a expensive one too.

 

[Southwind]

WOW I'm a bit stunned. My experience was just the opposite. I got much more accurate target ID at great depth with the CTX than the E-Trac. Both got about the same depth but the CTX, in my soil anyway, was more accurate and stable for sure.

Faster and more powerful processor, newer software, 2nd generation FBS technology and it does worse?

 

[ron948]

-- moved topic --

 

[Tom_in_CA]

Well I don't know about the CTX vs the Etrac on TID, but I do know that there IS subtle differences in the TID abilities of the different explorer incarnations. For example: There are still a lot of guys who prefer the old tried and trused Explorer II, SIMPLY BECAUSE it had much better tone separations (albeit ever-so-subtle) on higher conductors. For example, guys who got good at it, would practically be able to tell a copper penny apart from a silver dime in the turf. That distinction got lost when they moved up to the Etrac. And yes, I believe that distinction (copper penny vs silver dime) is also lost on the CTX.

However, with that said, there's really not that many places where anyone's going to go cherry-picking on that level. But it certainly adds to the fun when .... you've got your pinpointer down in the hole with the Explorer II, and it screams SILVER

 

[DukeOBass]

The E-trac does much better at Target Id. I have the CTX now and feel like it's a downgrade in that TID and comfort/design areas. I like the speed of the CTX, the target separation and the flexibility. If they could have put all of that into an E-Trac "Pro" package with nice screen like the CTX, while keeping the Target ID, that would have been awesome. I disagree with the people who say the CTX is so well balanced.

 

[Johnnyanglo]

Testing has shown that the CTX:

1. With DISC pattern, keeps the TID displayed while the E-Trac loses its TID earlier when unmasking close ferrous-to-non-ferrous. The E-Trac down-averages much more than the CTX (in either open or DISC pattern), which drives the cursor into the DISC area (no audio or display). Thus, the CTX has more stable Fe values when amongst iron soils.

2. The CTX displays a red triangle when the cursor shifts into DISC areas. The E-Trac is mute and has no display cursor. The E-Trac gives no hint there is a possible target under the DISC area.

3. The E-Trac, with Open Screen (no DISC) will give accurate audio on a non-ferrous target adjacant (horizontal to) a ferrous (nail) target at much closer separation than the CTX. That is, the E-Trac in Open Screen unmasks better than the CTX when a nail is perpendicular to the sweep (lengthwise nail is at right-angles to the axis of illumination). This is no small thing - the E-Trac in a field of random iron nails has a better ability to provide a high-tone audio on the adjacent non-ferrous (at closer separation and slightly greater depth) whereas the CTX will give either a null or low-tone (depending upon the pattern you use).

Therefore, if using DISC the E-Trac will lose the non-ferrous target faster due to down-averaging (really up-averaging as values are raised) into the higher Fe values, than the CTX. Otherwise, in Open Screen, the E-Trac still down-average but will still have better unmasking ability.

4. If the nail is Parallel to the sweep (aligned along the coil axis of illumination), while using DISC, the CTX was superior in unmasking ability. Which means the CTX has an advantage over the E-Trac depending upon the nail orientation to the target (when using DISC).

Assume non-ferrous targets are surrounded by nails in random orientation - then at times the E-Trac will unmask better and at other places the CTX will do better. Turning 90-degrees when investigating a target will help allievate the problems for both detectors.

My judgment: the unmasking under field conditions is probably a wash - but the CTX has better TID stability, is a tad deeper, and has better audio bin arrangements that the E-Trac cannot create. These audio bins are a big help when in Open Screen and Combined Mode - an improvement over the E-Trac's TTF and 4TF modes.

The CTX screen is washed out and almost unuseable in sunlight - the E-Trac screen has much better contrast. The CTX is waterproof for wet weather - the E-Trac is not.

Overall, the CTX is really the E-Trac2 (it doesn't deserve new nominclature) and in some ways is slightly better, but no so much that you'd probably miss anything in the field. That is, there is little real-world advantage other than the better ergonomics with the CTX and the ability to define audio bins to provide more intelligent audio with the CTX. The extra cost probably wouldn't justify the slight improvement you'd get (and the washed out screen is an operational problem of concern).

Neither is favorable for finding small jewelry or thin rings (due to the low operating frequency). Neither is particularly light or comfortable to use. Neither one is particularly cheap to own (buy used!). If you can live without the Fe-Co screen (nice, but you'll still need to dig to know what's in the ground), need better sensitivity to low conductors, a lighter machine, then look at other detectors (T2SE, F75SE, AT Pro, Tesoros, Omega, Deus, or some other such detector).

 

[Tom_in_CA]

Oh wow, this is a great post. Some moderator ought to "pin" this. Copy and past this and put this analysis on the CTX and Etrac forum, and you should get a medal for typing this out. Thanx !

 

[Southwind]

I've never owned the old Explorer but both the E-Trac and CTX make telling the difference between not only a penny and dime but a clad dime vs silver pretty reliable.

 

[Southwind]

I might add, since I can't edit my last post, I feel anyone who doesn't feel you can tell the difference between a penny or dime on either the the E-Trac or CTX has either never actually used one, or never learned to use it.

 

[hevmetl]

I have both, but have never swung the CTX yet it is assembled ready to go driving me nuts!!!! So I have zero experience with it yet only what I have been studing!! That being said I watched a video on you tube explaining what is being talked about here and it seems the CTX will TID way better in "ferrous coin" and "combined" mode than in "high trash" mode! I cant wait to go swing my thing!

I love reading these forums and thanks guys for sharing your knowledge most people are selfish and keep things to them selves as they look at everyone else as competion and cannot be happy watching someone make a nice find!! Thanks for sharing!!

 

[Johnnyanglo]

For fairly shallow coins in good condition the E-Trac and CTX (or most detectors) will give a reliable TID. I'd gauge that you can be about 80% sure that a coin correctly will be what you guess it is. There is some overlap and the numbers can be skewed by the condition of the coin, orientation in the ground, mineralized soil, and depth. I'll tell you that if you tire of clad pennies you will not soon forget their redundant TID value - it is as bothersome as pull-tabs (pull-tabs overlap nickels and pennies overlap dimes and dimes overlap quarters).

 

[JimmyCT]

x2

Oh wow, this is a great post. Some moderator ought to "pin" this. Copy and past this and put this analysis on the CTX and Etrac forum, and you should get a medal for typing this out. Thanx !

 

[ron948]

I might add, since I can't edit my last post, I feel anyone who doesn't feel you can tell the difference between a penny or dime on either the the E-Trac or CTX has either never actually used one, or never learned to use it.

actually I have used the ctx since Feb. I've made some remarkable finds with it. but the difference in sound and #s between a penny and a dime are not there. most quarters less than 5 inches will turn out to be memorials. over 5 inches and its pretty accurate. wheats and Indians are dead on

 

[Fletch88]

WOW I'm a bit stunned. My experience was just the opposite. I got much more accurate target ID at great depth with the CTX than the E-Trac. Both got about the same depth but the CTX, in my soil anyway, was more accurate and stable for sure.

Faster and more powerful processor, newer software, 2nd generation FBS technology and it does worse?

I'm with you on this one Southwind! I have only had the CTX a month but it was love at first swing!!! It is much better at target ID and the target trace, gps, combined audio, and ergonomics alone are worth the extra money for me!