Explorer(s) vs. Quattro

[Phillip_in_NM]

One of my biggest difficulties with learning the Explorer XS years ago was pinpointing. I dug a lot of big holes for small targets. I admit that this frustration prevented me from really taking the time to learn all that the machine could do.

So, here's my question: Is the Quattro noticeably easier to pinpoint than the Explorer XS & II? I read the Explorer SE has VCO pinpointing which I love on my M6, but the SE is also $1200. I've been amazed at the number of people on this and other forums that even with expertise on both the Quattro and the Explorer, they tend to grab the Quattro first in most instances.

I went from the DFX to the M6 because the complexity of the DFX wore me down - always wondering if I had all the settings right. It was taking away from my enjoyment of the hobby. I can't help but wonder if the same would not be true regarding the Quattro versus the Explorer...the very simplicity of the Quattro making it more enjoyable to use - and still getting similar performance.

I mostly 'lurk' on these forums, but I've learned a lot from all of you and I'd sure like to hear your opinion on this.

Oops, one other thing, I got bit by the "gold bug" after finding my first ever gold ring with the M6. Do you think my gold to trash ratio would be significantly higher or lower with one of the Explorers over the Quattro (assuming the same level of expertise)?

 

[Black Davy]

Phil,

If you dont want complexity go with the Quattro, I did and have no regrets. The explorer offers alot more fine tuning if thats what you want. I dont have or have ever used a Explorer its top notch but its all were you swing. I do not have any problems pinpointing. I do not even use the pinponting function. I walk the coil out until the tone goes away and I am always on the mark. Its really your preferance. Those who have owned both would probably stick with a Explorer, I am sure that would hold true for me if I owned one.

 

[Mirage]

Phillip, I just recently sold my Quattro and bought an Exp II. I used the Quattro for about 8 months and I've use the Exp II for about 3 months now.

Pinpointing - almost the same. Not much difference between the two units here. Never really have trouble pinpointing. Only exception was occasionally with the Quattro and surface stuff.

Rings and trash ratio.... I really believe that the Quattro would be better for rings and such. I have struggled with the Exp II in the whole nickel area. Exp II is more jumpy(when running it hot) and so the "noise" tends to fall in the nickel area. Yesterday I was out hunting with a friend and he had an ACE 250. He told me to check out a signal. I could not even pick it up - nothing. He dug out a belt tip at about 6-8 inches deep. I scanned it after he dug it and it read like a perfect nickel.

The biggest improvement with the Exp II over the Quattro is the response time and the ability to separate trash from treasure. Saturday I was at a heavily hunted park in a trashy area. I thought I heard a good signal mixed with the trash....dig the plug..pull out a pull tab first then a nickel. Rescan the hole and there is more...out comes the SLQ.

I can see why people would grab the Quattro over the Exp II. In my opinion the Quattro might be a "funner", easier and "smoother" machine to use but it will limit your success in certain situations.

If you go back in this forum a while you will see a long thread devoted to this topic.

By the way I have a DFX also. In my experience and in my general ground conditions there are really only three settings that are critical to tweak(preamp gain, AC & DC sens.).

So do you think you made the right move with the M6? Sometimes I do grab my Whites Classic III just for a more relaxed simple hunt.

 

[Raoul]

Phillip i bought the Se last week and the pinpointing is dead easy and very accurate