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.
Lower sensitivity on Explorer: lower sens on Quattro?
- Thread starter Huntur
- Start date
Mike (Virginia Beach)
New member
I think there is a very good chance that may be the case. Both machines are 28 frequency FBS circuitry machines and share a lot of things in common. You should test that and let us know.
I was surprised recently to find that when testing my Explorer II on my backyard test garden, I was not getting signals on most of the things I had buried there. They are clad and silver coins and a Civil War bullet that have been buried there for almost 6 years at a depth of about 6
I was surprised recently to find that when testing my Explorer II on my backyard test garden, I was not getting signals on most of the things I had buried there. They are clad and silver coins and a Civil War bullet that have been buried there for almost 6 years at a depth of about 6
Hey Mike,
Your original post is why I asked the question. I read it, and thought the 2 are so alike it would follow to lower sensitivity on the Q also. I many times like to take a silver dime with me when I hunt and bury it where I'm hunting to see how the ground, my detector, and the dime respond to each other at that particular site. I will return to the dime occasionally and listen to refresh my memory on what is sounds like and hunt awhile and go back to the dime to see if the response has changed in any way, gives me a chance to make ajustments if needed. Just my way, others got there on methods I guess, also lets me know if its still working properlly, especilly if I have not had a hit in awhile.
Your original post is why I asked the question. I read it, and thought the 2 are so alike it would follow to lower sensitivity on the Q also. I many times like to take a silver dime with me when I hunt and bury it where I'm hunting to see how the ground, my detector, and the dime respond to each other at that particular site. I will return to the dime occasionally and listen to refresh my memory on what is sounds like and hunt awhile and go back to the dime to see if the response has changed in any way, gives me a chance to make ajustments if needed. Just my way, others got there on methods I guess, also lets me know if its still working properlly, especilly if I have not had a hit in awhile.
Mike (Virginia Beach)
New member
Oh, I figured that you had read my post. But I was also sure other who hadn't might be reading this one, so I was talking to them too.
Your idea of burying the dime is good if it helps you, but one thing to keep in mind is that are tests and test on freshly buried coins are of very limited value. At least insofar as that buried coin will not act anything like one that's been in the ground for years and has developed the "halo" that coins long buried get as the metal leaches out into the coil and creates that conductive "aura" around it. That's why my test garden is just really getting good now going on 6 years, but it's still young by comparison to coins buried 50 or 100+ years.
The best way to answer your question is to experiment on your deepest targets at your hunt sites before you dig them.
Your idea of burying the dime is good if it helps you, but one thing to keep in mind is that are tests and test on freshly buried coins are of very limited value. At least insofar as that buried coin will not act anything like one that's been in the ground for years and has developed the "halo" that coins long buried get as the metal leaches out into the coil and creates that conductive "aura" around it. That's why my test garden is just really getting good now going on 6 years, but it's still young by comparison to coins buried 50 or 100+ years.
The best way to answer your question is to experiment on your deepest targets at your hunt sites before you dig them.
Everyone wants to run max sensitivity or run it at max with it set in auto on the Explorer as they feel they will get the best depth, but this is not so.
I was at a site where I have found old coins and they tore up the sidewalk, so I went to 32 auto where the sidewalk was tore up. It was running very smooth and after I went 6 or 7 feet and no signals i threw a dime on the ground and could not get a signal on it unless the coil touched it. I checked everything to see what was wrong. When I went to manual 32 it was very erratic, dropped it to 20 and it was better and the coil seen the dime at about 3 inches above the dime. Dropped it to 16 auto and now got a signal at about 5 inches and when I went to 16 manual I could get close to 6 inches on the dime. I noticed it was very trashy and feel with the high sensitivity in auto it was over compensating so it would not see the dime, in manual it was too unstable, but better at lower sensitivity as you have control of the sensitivity in manual. Now I run manual and keep it in the 20-24 range and every once in a while check it with a dime in one of the area where it nulls to see what is the best for the most depth.I believe the the highest sensitivity too may cost you depth in some of the trashy areas.
I was at a site where I have found old coins and they tore up the sidewalk, so I went to 32 auto where the sidewalk was tore up. It was running very smooth and after I went 6 or 7 feet and no signals i threw a dime on the ground and could not get a signal on it unless the coil touched it. I checked everything to see what was wrong. When I went to manual 32 it was very erratic, dropped it to 20 and it was better and the coil seen the dime at about 3 inches above the dime. Dropped it to 16 auto and now got a signal at about 5 inches and when I went to 16 manual I could get close to 6 inches on the dime. I noticed it was very trashy and feel with the high sensitivity in auto it was over compensating so it would not see the dime, in manual it was too unstable, but better at lower sensitivity as you have control of the sensitivity in manual. Now I run manual and keep it in the 20-24 range and every once in a while check it with a dime in one of the area where it nulls to see what is the best for the most depth.I believe the the highest sensitivity too may cost you depth in some of the trashy areas.
Mike (Virginia Beach)
New member
Agreed, and thanks for confirming that. What we need is for somebody to try a similar experiment with a Quattro, to see if the 13 or 13 range on the Quattro provides similar results as the 16 to 20 range on the Explorer, relative to bad ground.
As it happens, I may soon have the opportunity to do that test in my very own backyard test garden, as I may soon have access to a Quattro to try it with. When I do I will post the results.
As it happens, I may soon have the opportunity to do that test in my very own backyard test garden, as I may soon have access to a Quattro to try it with. When I do I will post the results.
deadlizard
New member
I saw the forum traffic on lowering sensitivity for the Explorer last week so this weekend I gave it a try on my Quattro. I have been running at about 18/19 sensitivity. My "secret" spot here in town has produced quite a few keepers (numerous wheats, several buffalos, a few mercs and roosevelts, walking liberty half, and an 1888 Indian, 2 rings). Over the past few months I have covered the area pretty well but I went back to try lowering the sensitivity. Maybe it was just slowing down my pace or just happened to swing the coil over the coins but I walked away with 5 more wheats, a few commons, and a junk ring. I think lowering the Quattro sensitivity makes a difference...more testing to follow. Thanks! Jason
Mike (Virginia Beach)
New member
That's great to hear. I will be testing one on my garden soon, with the settings lowered to various levels to get some hard data. HH!
Last summer my son and I went to a site(before I had the Quattro) with highly mineralized soil. We were detecting for a while and I noticed that I was only getting coins near the surface. So I took a dime and buried it no more than 1.5 inches and the detector(Whites) would not give a peep! Anyway, I made some adjustments and got my depth back. I guess until you really are experienced with the particular detector it pays sometimes to do the sanity check. Yes, it's not the best test but at least it should get you in the ballpark.
PS - Thanks for the post on the Explorer II sensitivity Mike. Also, love the idea of the coin garden. I'll make one soon.
Mirage
PS - Thanks for the post on the Explorer II sensitivity Mike. Also, love the idea of the coin garden. I'll make one soon.
Mirage
I'm new to the Quattro and qualified to give advice, but I found a situation where more sensitivity helped. A lot of trash about 4 inches deep and the only silver was deep. All the easy stuff was picked clean. I raised the sensitivity to 18 and disc. everything but 30 to 39 signals. I was able to pick up the deep coins even when the threshold nulled out.Also it seems the machine goes deeper in wet sandy soil.
Mike (Virginia Beach)
New member
Oh sure, I hear you...I've done the same, at the beach and out in the field. It just merits mention though that air tests and tests with recently buried coins are of limited value, at least when trying to validate depth ability. A lot of folks have posted in the past on various machines that "This thing should be able to do better than 7" on a quarter, for God's sake..." when they're testing it in their living room. It's just so much better when you can simulate "real world", which even with mine buried almost 6 years, I'm not doing. But it's getting there.
And even though I only had my coins buried for a year at the time, they were a big help in tuning and learning my DFX when I had that. A little TOO much tweaking with that one for my tastes though...I hunted with it for 6 months and made some nice finds but eventually moved to a CZ-70 and got better depth with incredible simplicity. To me, the Explorer II is more like the best of the DFX and the CZ in one machine. I like the digital mode, which harkens back to the VDI on the DFX...something I missed with my CZ. I like the wide range of tones, like the DFX. I like the simpler settings of the Explorer II...that may sound wild to some, but in my mind there are more settings that can affect one another on the DFX than the Explorer and it's easier to dork it up.
Well, enough babbling...happy hunting!
And even though I only had my coins buried for a year at the time, they were a big help in tuning and learning my DFX when I had that. A little TOO much tweaking with that one for my tastes though...I hunted with it for 6 months and made some nice finds but eventually moved to a CZ-70 and got better depth with incredible simplicity. To me, the Explorer II is more like the best of the DFX and the CZ in one machine. I like the digital mode, which harkens back to the VDI on the DFX...something I missed with my CZ. I like the wide range of tones, like the DFX. I like the simpler settings of the Explorer II...that may sound wild to some, but in my mind there are more settings that can affect one another on the DFX than the Explorer and it's easier to dork it up.
Well, enough babbling...happy hunting!
I have a DFX also and I know what you mean. It is a great machine but does take tweaking to get the most from it. My son(16) does well with it so I got a Quattro. We got a little competition going -who finds the most and who finds the most silver. I was leading but he pulled ahead after last weekend.
Mirage
Mirage
Mike (Virginia Beach)
New member
Yeah, I had read that in another one of your posts.
The DFX is definitely a capable machine. I found a Barber dime at over 8" deep the first time out with mine. But I found the performance to be inconsistent at different times in different situations. Like for relic hunting...it didn't do well on deep bullets. I got my butt handed to me by the CZ machines on that. And although it was a decent beach machine, no match for a CZ or a Minelab. I guess the biggest reason I got rid of it was that I hunt with a couple guys with CZ's a lot and they drove the DFX nuts within about 30 feet of them. Good for THEM, bad for ME!
The DFX is definitely a capable machine. I found a Barber dime at over 8" deep the first time out with mine. But I found the performance to be inconsistent at different times in different situations. Like for relic hunting...it didn't do well on deep bullets. I got my butt handed to me by the CZ machines on that. And although it was a decent beach machine, no match for a CZ or a Minelab. I guess the biggest reason I got rid of it was that I hunt with a couple guys with CZ's a lot and they drove the DFX nuts within about 30 feet of them. Good for THEM, bad for ME!
Doug[Manila]
New member
Lowering the sens would only make it stable if it sees too much. You can either try to pick thru the trash using notching but if the site is old it may be better to take all that trash out and the goodies with them 
If this is your first detector, it may be best to pick a less trashy site and learn your detector rather than frustrate yourself with a high trash ratio.
If this is your first detector, it may be best to pick a less trashy site and learn your detector rather than frustrate yourself with a high trash ratio.
Johnny Quattro
New member
Hello everyone,
Well, That was a great and informative post for me as I'm a new quattro user and have also owned a DFX. The DFX was very "Handy" but way to finicky for me. And as far as slow recovery goes, the DFX was much slower than my old XLT. So the slower recovery of the Quattro does'nt bother me at all because I'm digging some very deep coins consistently. Thanks for the great post guys and Best of luck to all !!!
Well, That was a great and informative post for me as I'm a new quattro user and have also owned a DFX. The DFX was very "Handy" but way to finicky for me. And as far as slow recovery goes, the DFX was much slower than my old XLT. So the slower recovery of the Quattro does'nt bother me at all because I'm digging some very deep coins consistently. Thanks for the great post guys and Best of luck to all !!!