Head to Head

[dirt lizard]

What detector would you put the CTX3030 up against for comparison?

 

[Heelgrasper]

White's Spectra V3i and XP Deus as well as the old FBS models from Minelab. Of course none of them are waterproof but since I'm not going in the water it doesn't matter to me.

 

[Clad to be here]

Compadre

 

[Critterhunter]

I'd like to see the Etrac go up against it in terms of separation and depth because these two machines are probably the closest of all the Minelabs in terms of technology. I suspect, because the new machine is using the Pro Coil, it might not do any better than the Etrac in those two respects. Others probably differ but to me separation and depth on any of these Minelabs (GT, Etrac, SE Pro, Xcal) comes down to coil size and the sharpness of the detection field in the left/right perspective to separate targets. One can beat any of the others based on size of the coil and the sharpness of the detection field in those respects IMHO. Processing speed isn't an issue so long as you keep your sweep slow to see between targets. That's why all these Minelabs can find silver in heavy iron that fast machines weren't able to see.

The real key is being able to light up one target and not the other and that's based on how sharp the field is. Even with the high built in iron rejection on my GT, I've been able to see severly masked coins in iron that my friend's more technologicly advanced Minelab has been able to see when checking targets, as well as the deep ones too. I'm using the 12x10 and I believe even though he is running very little iron rejection and a wide open screen the GT is able to keep up due to the sharpness of the 12x10's detection field. It's been interesting to compare undug targets in the field to test that....Whether a lower iron rejection has better unmasking ability, or whether a super sharp detection field on a coil can pretty much even out the fact that the GT has all that built in iron rejection that can't be changed. So far it has.

I think all the Minelabs listed above are pretty well maxed out in VLF technology in terms of depth, as ground minerals aren't really an issue for them in most situations to ignore. That's why these Minelabs get deeper than other machines. Minelabs are able to process out and ignore the ground signal in the worst of grounds that other machines can't "see" through. It's not that the Minelab has a coil with a deeper detection field (if the coils are the same size), it's that the Minelab can better ignore the ground matrix that must be separated from the target signal.

It all comes down to the coil IMHO in terms of which Minelab has the edge on depth or separation when comparing it to another one. Don't see how they could make the same size Pro Coil on this new machine separate out targets any betteer or get any deeper than another Minelab using the same sized coil unless they are raising the voltage to the TX winding to put out a stronger field, but that has issues and that's why it's fixed and can't be changed on most detectors as it's already maxed out for optimum results. There were some using an amp to increase the voltge to the TX winding on the Sovereign but many found it was useless in even moderate mineralization due to the ground "glare" it created.

On the other hand, there are still some really mineralized grounds that even the current Minelabs have trouble with. It could be that this new machine has even further ability to process and ignore the ground signal in those situations, and if that's the case then in certain rare really rough ground it may be able to see targets better at depth. The coil's field isn't any deeper but the machine could have better ability to process and ignore the ground matrix and be able to pull better target IDs out of it. If you look at the patent it's running on the same frequnecies as the other FBS machines, so why do they call it FBS 2??? Perhaps there is enhanced processing of those frequencies to better ignore the ground minerals. You might not see this advantage in most grounds compared to the other machines, but perhaps there are rare but really bad ground conditions where this better processing shows an edge.

Of course this is TOTAL speculation at it's finest, but hey it's fun to speculate.

 

[earthmansurfer]

Nice post Critterhunter and I'll give another perspective on just some of it.

I'd like to see the Etrac go up against it in terms of separation and depth because these two machines are probably the closest of all the Minelabs in terms of technology. I suspect, because the new machine is using the Pro Coil, it might not do any better than the Etrac in those two respects. Others probably differ but to me separation and depth on any of these Minelabs (GT, Etrac, SE Pro, Xcal) comes down to coil size and the sharpness of the detection field in the left/right perspective to separate targets. One can beat any of the others based on size of the coil and the sharpness of the detection field in those respects IMHO. Processing speed isn't an issue so long as you keep your sweep slow to see between targets. That's why all these Minelabs can find silver in heavy iron that fast machines weren't able to see.

We don't know the machine is using a pro coil. Yeah it looks like one but it clearly has different markings on it and is labelled CTX11. Why? There is a chance as another poster mentioned that due to the cost of dies, they just used the pro-coil die but what is inside is different. Processing speed is an issue. Yes, minelab uses some form of time domain software but if they can speed things and still stay on that path who is to say it can't be better? Especially 4 years later. I bet it is better, but how much? Would 10%-20% be reasonable in 4 years with computers speeds where they are? Maybe. And if so, how much of an advantage could that be? It might not be linear.

I think all the Minelabs listed above are pretty well maxed out in VLF technology in terms of depth, as ground minerals aren't really an issue for them in most situations to ignore. That's why these Minelabs get deeper than other machines. Minelabs are able to process out and ignore the ground signal in the worst of grounds that other machines can't "see" through. It's not that the Minelab has a coil with a deeper detection field (if the coils are the same size), it's that the Minelab can better ignore the ground matrix that must be separated from the target signal.

You would think the tech is maxed out, but look at what the blisstool has done. One never knows. Maybe Minelab got the ground balance, which is more like ground removal, even better.

On the other hand, there are still some really mineralized grounds that even the current Minelabs have trouble with. It could be that this new machine has even further ability to process and ignore the ground signal in those situations, and if that's the case then in certain rare really rough ground it may be able to see targets better at depth. The coil's field isn't any deeper but the machine could have better ability to process and ignore the ground matrix and be able to pull better target IDs out of it. If you look at the patent it's running on the same frequnecies as the other FBS machines, so why do they call it FBS 2??? Perhaps there is enhanced processing of those frequencies to better ignore the ground minerals. You might not see this advantage in most grounds compared to the other machines, but perhaps there are rare but really bad ground conditions where this better processing shows an edge.

I think you are on to something here. In addition to being better in bad ground which imo is almost a given I have a feeling they will have a few tricks up there sleeve. In that video seeing how the man is repeatedly hitting the pinpoint trigger with his thumb really has got my curiosity.

Of course this is TOTAL speculation at it's finest, but hey it's fun to speculate.

The best part of the new forum this week! Fun, fun... In a way, Minelab not telling us has added a little seen twist here.


Albert

 

[Yeasty]

I think what we'll see with FBS2 is the capability of shifting the TX frequency band to where it will better "light up" desired targets. The current FBS TX frequency can only be varied slightly using the Noise Cancel feature.
Of course it's only my speculation but I'm enjoying it!

 

[earthmansurfer]

I think what we'll see with FBS2 is the capability of shifting the TX frequency band to where it will better "light up" desired targets. The current FBS TX frequency can only be varied slightly using the Noise Cancel feature.
Of course it's only my speculation but I'm enjoying it!

Like that thinking. And what if the rapid pressing of that pinpoint trigger in the video has something to do with target acquisition and recognition? Relate it to what you said, you find a target and then start pulling the trigger to enter an acquisition mode of sorts where the proper frequency range for the responsiveness of that target is found. Sort of like a target enhancement on those deeper ones.

Also in the video you can see iron in bottom right hand corner, just like on an E-Trac. At that time he is pulling the trigger and then it jumps up. Relate that to what I said above. Also goes along with the reports that this machine makes some deep iron signals into coins.

 

[E-TREC-Virginia]

I think what we'll see with FBS2 is the capability of shifting the TX frequency band to where it will better "light up" desired targets. The current FBS TX frequency can only be varied slightly using the Noise Cancel feature.
Of course it's only my speculation but I'm enjoying it!

Like that thinking. And what if the rapid pressing of that pinpoint trigger in the video has something to do with target acquisition and recognition? Relate it to what you said, you find a target and then start pulling the trigger to enter an acquisition mode of sorts where the proper frequency range for the responsiveness of that target is found. Sort of like a target enhancement on those deeper ones.

Also in the video you can see iron in bottom right hand corner, just like on an E-Trac. At that time he is pulling the trigger and then it jumps up. Relate that to what I said above. Also goes along with the reports that this machine makes some deep iron signals into coins.