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.
Not a challenge in any way..Just would like to know who is comparing their detectors to Fishers, and where is that info published. I would like to read it..
Remember back in the "day" when a detector's depth was pretty much based on the size of the search coil?
Technology has changed, both where detectors and coils are concerned. Now, the F75 has a 5" DD coil that will punch down near double the size of the coil itself.
Then there's the XP technology--super fast recovery speed, fully programmable, and the Minelab BBS machines with their multi-frequencies, and so on and so forth.
Good, capable detectors, all of them.
But what continues to be the benchmark for performance? A basic depth test and accurate identification of a target--usually a clad dime buried 10-12".
Some super pricey machines can pass that test IF the conditions are right, but not always.
I read on one of the other forums where a guy with a very high priced machine and very large search coil was digging good targets 12-14" deep, which is good. However, I'd venture to say that a lower priced, more "primitive" machine with the same sized coil could do the same thing.
So, detector technology has come a long way in some respects, but at the same time.............
All that being said, I think the Fisher "F" series detector is one of the best multi-purpose detectors on the market today, and yes, it seems quite a lot of detectors out there compare themselves to Fisher.
Not a challenge in any way..Just would like to know who is comparing their detectors to Fishers, and where is that info published. I would like to read it..
Elton ,
Since we can't post a link here try googling NOKTA IMPACT -- PROTOTYPING REALITY and read Tom's tome about testing the early and final release versions of the Impact. He constantly urges Nokta to push the limits of their software revisions to get the Impact to perform on par with the non DST F75se,,,that makes the 75 the standard to beat. How he can determine depth of detection to the tenth of an inch is beyond me but that's what it amounts to.
My hats off to Tom D, as I read his letters. Tom likes his 75, and that's fine. But he is testing in Floridas dirt , that is non mineralized. If Tom lived in red dirt country, he would find there are a lot of detectors that would outperform the 75. I live in the Ozarks, where there is some nasty soil. I had a T2 and F70, but they just could not handle this dirt like some of the other units I now use. So it really does matter what type of soil the units are tested in. Tom also mentioned he traveled 3 hours to test the 75 and Impact in some nastier dirt, and only hit about 7 inches of depth. In my test garden I have clad dimes buried every inch to as deep as 10 inches. Mt former T2 could hit the 8 incher, that's as deep as it went. Last nite I tested a new VLF detector and it hit the 10" dime loud and clear, with accurate solid TID. So as far as I'm concerned, the 75 is old tech. The 75 is good, and versatile, but it can be beat easily in bad soil, by more and more new detectors. I also understand Toms loyalty to Fisher, as he designed the CZ3D. Loyalty is a good thing, especially in this day and age. Not trying to stir the pot.HH
I'm pretty much with Greg that all good VLF pretty well max out at about the same depth. There is some variation among models based mostly on design priorities, but for the most part, manufacturers have long ago figured out how to squeeze the most from VLF technology. A couple years ago, I conducted a lot of extensive controlled comparison tests between my CTX 3030, MXT, and V3i, and concluded that they were all almost equal in performance in my lightly iron mineralized soil. Coil design has as much or more to do with depth than the detector.
But back to the topic, the Fisher F75 is well known as the top end detector that has managed to squeeze out the very most out of VLF tech, but even then, we're talking no more than an inch difference among the various top detectors. The F75 is still the one to beat.
"Singlefreakers" - detectors using one frequency at a time - have likely reached their limits. "multifreakers" - detectors using multiple frequencies at the same time, have been around since the CZ series from Fisher and the various Minelab FBS, BBS machines.
That way lies the future. Problem os that the technical challanges multiply rapidly as you go down that road. Progress is frustratingly slow - but it is happening.
Actually Tom didn't design the cz3d,DaveJohnson designed the cz's and Tom tweaked it and added a fourth tone for old coins.
Most of the new detectors have roots that go back to T2/F75's. Again Dave Johnson's work. White's MXT and Tesoros Supertraq all Dave.j
Actually, I think you were right the first time. Dave J. designed the MXT and the GMT, but never heard that he designed the DFX. You can also throw in the Gold Bug 2 and I think the Gold Bug Pro as some of his designs too. Can't wait to see what he has in store for us this year, hopefully a new CZ
Here is part of an article in a nugget detecting magazine about Dave J.
"What do the following gold detectors have in common:
Fisher Gold Bug (nugget detector, no longer in production)
Fisher Gold Bug 2 (nugget detector, in production)
Tesoro Diablo Micromax (nugget detector, no longer in production)
Tesoro Lobo Supertraq (general purpose, in production)
White’s GMT (nugget detector, in production)
White’s MXT (general purpose, in production)
Troy X-5 (general purpose, no longer in production)
Teknetics T2 (general purpose, in production)
Fisher F75 (general purpose, in production)
Fisher F70 (general purpose, in production)
Fisher Gold Bug Pro (general purpose, in production)
Yes, they are all particularly hot on gold - some are as hot as you get. But what they have in common is engineer Dave Johnson. What many people do not know is that only a few people have made detecting what it is today. Dave has been lead engineer or had a hand in many of the best detectors I've ever owned. What you notice is he has worked for many companies. Basically, if you wanted to make a good gold detector, for quite some time the answer was "get Dave"!
So when people talk this brand versus that brand it is kind of funny, as they often have more in common than you think. When it comes to nugget detecting, once upon a time it was Charles Garrett, and now it is pretty much Dave Johnson and Bruce Candy (Minelab) who have left their mark on the detectors that have found the vast majority of gold nuggets found worldwide. A younger fellow and less well known would be Brent Weaver at Garrett who had a hand in the Infinium and innovative AT models."
These guys built on the basics of detecting as conceived of by others but stand out for their contibutions to the world of nugget detecting."
That's why there are so many detectors out there. No one size fits all. Ground conditions and the environment one hunts in makes it paramount that lots of units need to be used and tried out because a test in one area does not mean the unit will perform the same way in another.
A relic hunter needs a unit somewhat different than a gold nugget hunter or a salt water beach hunter. Tot lot hunters/park hunters have a different perspective. Beginners don't need a thousand dollar unit.
Warranty and service also factor into the equation.
The above statements also allow me to justify having 8-10 detectors in the stable !
I read "the" article and the information was extremely interesting. 
HH jim tn
