bandagman007
New member
I have the Garrett GTP 1350 should I buy a bigger coil for this or just upgrade to the AT pro? I love this thing I just don't know if I'm missing stuff.
Thanks
Thanks
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.
Garrett GTP 1350
- Thread starter bandagman007
- Start date
The Garrett GTP 1350 is a great detector. Great audio and a silver magnet. However, the AT Series of detectors have ground balancing, thereby expanding the types of mineralized places to hunt. Comparing the two machines with the same size coil would work in favor towards depth on the AT Series. The AT Series give you better audio performance....the iron audio is great! And......the AT Series are water proof to 10 feet in case you want to dabble in water or hunt in the rain.
Go for the AT Series and keep your GTP 1350 for a spare.
Go for the AT Series and keep your GTP 1350 for a spare.
Maybe I can add some ideas. I hope they're helpful.
Background: I had a GTP1350 for several years, and sold it only because of a super deal on a GTI2500. Otherwise the GTP would still be here. So the GTI2500 is my "imaging" machine. Coils are the standard 9-inch and 12-inch Garretts.
Also, I have a Teknetics Gamma (version 1) and Omega (version 6). Coils are the standard 8-inch Teknetics concentric, 9.5 x 5 inch Teknetics elliptical, 12-inch Teknetics concentric, and also the 5-inch NEL Sharp and 9.5-inch NEL Sharpshooter.
Before these I had a Fisher CZ-7a for about 12 years with the 8-inch and 12-inch coils, and a Garrett AT3 beach machine for about 3 years.
OK, that's the background.
Humble opinion ...
Here's what the difference has been, as I see it.
If a beer can, or a big piece of can slaw, or scrap brass, is only two or three inches down, any machine (imaging or non-imaging) "sees" it as a big and wide target. (Yes, I know it depends on the sensitivity setting.)
It's the large and deep objects that make the difference.
If the target is fairly large and deep, say a beer can or slaw at nine inches down ... in my experience, the non-imaging machines don't show it much differently from a smaller and shallow target. On them, I've had to dig the hole to find out.
In other words, on the non-imaging machines, a "large deep" or "small shallow" target looks about the same with the visual readout and audio. Then after digging deep, say nine inches, and the pinpointer still doesn't find it, then it was a "large deep" job. Couldn't see that before digging the hole.
That's where the GTP and GTI imaging helps (humble opinion). When I got the GTP and GTI, at first I dug everything. It was just to see how accurate the imaging and depth readings were. With both machines, I found the imaging to be accurate and a big time saver in trashy areas. Now if I'm looking for small targets like coins or jewelry, I don't bother to dig a hole where the imaging shows it as a large, deep target.
With the non-imaging machines, I can't be sure if it's "small/shallow" or "large/deep". I still dig holes looking for "maybe" a small/shallow target. I give up when halfway to China and the pinpointer doesn't find it.
Then why do I still use the non-imaging machines?
One, because they're lightweight compared to the GTP and GTI, so I can swing all day.
Two, it depends on the field. If it's not too trashy, with not too much deep industrial junk, then I don't worry much about "deep, big" targets. Most everything is going to be fairly small and shallow, so the target's audio and visual signal width, when sweeping the coil, is all that's needed.
Yep, maybe the "large/deep" target is a big coin spill or cache, so maybe I missed out on it. But mostly it's been big/deep trash. Instead of digging it I can move on swinging.
It's a trade-off.
To summarize:
... The imaging machines (GTI and GTP) have paid well in super-trashy fields, for displaying the image as "big/deep" or "small/shallow", without having to dig. But they lack the numeric VDI readout.
... The non-imaging machines (Gamma, Omega) have paid well in less-trashy fields, because of the numerical VDI accuracy, and are lighter in weight.
Hey, none of this is written in stone. Another person's experience could be different and better than mine. But I hope it's helpful.
Just two cents worth (clad).
Joe
Background: I had a GTP1350 for several years, and sold it only because of a super deal on a GTI2500. Otherwise the GTP would still be here. So the GTI2500 is my "imaging" machine. Coils are the standard 9-inch and 12-inch Garretts.
Also, I have a Teknetics Gamma (version 1) and Omega (version 6). Coils are the standard 8-inch Teknetics concentric, 9.5 x 5 inch Teknetics elliptical, 12-inch Teknetics concentric, and also the 5-inch NEL Sharp and 9.5-inch NEL Sharpshooter.
Before these I had a Fisher CZ-7a for about 12 years with the 8-inch and 12-inch coils, and a Garrett AT3 beach machine for about 3 years.
OK, that's the background.
Humble opinion ...
Here's what the difference has been, as I see it.
If a beer can, or a big piece of can slaw, or scrap brass, is only two or three inches down, any machine (imaging or non-imaging) "sees" it as a big and wide target. (Yes, I know it depends on the sensitivity setting.)
It's the large and deep objects that make the difference.
If the target is fairly large and deep, say a beer can or slaw at nine inches down ... in my experience, the non-imaging machines don't show it much differently from a smaller and shallow target. On them, I've had to dig the hole to find out.
In other words, on the non-imaging machines, a "large deep" or "small shallow" target looks about the same with the visual readout and audio. Then after digging deep, say nine inches, and the pinpointer still doesn't find it, then it was a "large deep" job. Couldn't see that before digging the hole.
That's where the GTP and GTI imaging helps (humble opinion). When I got the GTP and GTI, at first I dug everything. It was just to see how accurate the imaging and depth readings were. With both machines, I found the imaging to be accurate and a big time saver in trashy areas. Now if I'm looking for small targets like coins or jewelry, I don't bother to dig a hole where the imaging shows it as a large, deep target.
With the non-imaging machines, I can't be sure if it's "small/shallow" or "large/deep". I still dig holes looking for "maybe" a small/shallow target. I give up when halfway to China and the pinpointer doesn't find it.
Then why do I still use the non-imaging machines?
One, because they're lightweight compared to the GTP and GTI, so I can swing all day.
Two, it depends on the field. If it's not too trashy, with not too much deep industrial junk, then I don't worry much about "deep, big" targets. Most everything is going to be fairly small and shallow, so the target's audio and visual signal width, when sweeping the coil, is all that's needed.
Yep, maybe the "large/deep" target is a big coin spill or cache, so maybe I missed out on it. But mostly it's been big/deep trash. Instead of digging it I can move on swinging.
It's a trade-off.
To summarize:
... The imaging machines (GTI and GTP) have paid well in super-trashy fields, for displaying the image as "big/deep" or "small/shallow", without having to dig. But they lack the numeric VDI readout.
... The non-imaging machines (Gamma, Omega) have paid well in less-trashy fields, because of the numerical VDI accuracy, and are lighter in weight.
Hey, none of this is written in stone. Another person's experience could be different and better than mine. But I hope it's helpful.
Just two cents worth (clad).
Joe
After writing all of that stuff above, I realize it could have saved a lot of extra words.
The difference is in the coils.
The non-imaging machines have a two-element coil. It has a transmit winding and a receive winding. The control box circuits see the signal strength from one cone-shaped pattern, coming from the signal in the one receive coil.
The imaging machines have a three-element coil. It has a transmit winding and two receive windings. The two receive windings are of different diameters. The control box circuits see the different signal strengths from two cone-shaped patterns, coming from the two receive coils. The cone-shaped patterns are different sizes: wider and deeper from the larger coil; and narrower and shallower from the smaller coil.
The imaging machine's circuits can compare the signal strengths from the two patterns, while swinging from side to side.
There's no such comparison in the non-imaging machine.
The user guides tell the story.
For the non-imaging machines, the user guides say something to this effect ... when pinpointing, the depth shown on the display is for 'coin-sized' objects. Smaller, shallow objects can look like a coin, and so can larger, deeper objects.
For the imaging machines, the guides don't need to say that ... because when pinpointing, the display shows both the size and the depth.
Experience can help to override some of the above, but that's the fundamental difference between the two types of detectors.
- - -
I keep wondering why Garrett doesn't have a machine (yet) with a numerical VDI readout for searching, and a size/depth readout for pinpointing.
Joe
The difference is in the coils.
The non-imaging machines have a two-element coil. It has a transmit winding and a receive winding. The control box circuits see the signal strength from one cone-shaped pattern, coming from the signal in the one receive coil.
The imaging machines have a three-element coil. It has a transmit winding and two receive windings. The two receive windings are of different diameters. The control box circuits see the different signal strengths from two cone-shaped patterns, coming from the two receive coils. The cone-shaped patterns are different sizes: wider and deeper from the larger coil; and narrower and shallower from the smaller coil.
The imaging machine's circuits can compare the signal strengths from the two patterns, while swinging from side to side.
There's no such comparison in the non-imaging machine.
The user guides tell the story.
For the non-imaging machines, the user guides say something to this effect ... when pinpointing, the depth shown on the display is for 'coin-sized' objects. Smaller, shallow objects can look like a coin, and so can larger, deeper objects.
For the imaging machines, the guides don't need to say that ... because when pinpointing, the display shows both the size and the depth.
Experience can help to override some of the above, but that's the fundamental difference between the two types of detectors.
- - -
I keep wondering why Garrett doesn't have a machine (yet) with a numerical VDI readout for searching, and a size/depth readout for pinpointing.
Joe
bandagman007
New member
Thanks for all the good info I sold the GTP and now have a AT pro. I'm still learning the machine I love the standard mode the pro mode not so much. The pro mode is a little more noisy then I like but I'm still learning. If I get frustrated I just pull out the CZ6.
Thanks Again and HH
Thanks Again and HH