Chickenwing
New member
When coin shooting what settings do you prefer on the omega?
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.
Omega settings
- Thread starter Chickenwing
- Start date
Chickenwing
New member
Ok, so either I am the only Omega owner or I'm the only one that hunts coins??
pretty simple because I like simple. Doesn't matter the detector in hand, I like 'simple' and only have to determine my patience level to hear everything around or use a minimum level of Discrimination. I run the Sensitivity as high as possible, reducing it when I am searching close to metal fences and structures, and then I make sure I use the search coil that I feel best fits the location and density of metal targets present.
If it is a lower-trash site and coins might be deeper, then I use the same settings, except I change the Tone ID to '2', so I can listen for any nearby targets that are non-iron. I also like the depth and audio information of the 1-Tone and 2-Tone audio modes.
When I hunt more rural locations or urban renovation where they are plagued with iron nails, then I increase the discrimination to '16' or '17' so I just barely reject iron nails on the ground. I never use more Discrimination than just enough to knock out a nail .... barely. I sometimes use the 1-Tone audio, but most of the time it is 2-Tone or 4-Tone for urban places where a lot of coins are possible, and mostly shallower. I never use the 3-Tone ID option.
Ground Balance then hunt away..
Monte
If I am in an urban "flash money" site, such as a playground or the sidelines of a sports field, etc., then I like to run '99' Sensitivity, '1' Discrimination, and '4-Tone' audio ID. That's for typical higher-use sites [size=small](parks, schools, sports areas, etc.)[/size] where most Coins & Jewelry are going to be relatively shallow, in the surface to 3" or maybe 4" range. I almost always use a Disc. setting of '1' because I like to hear if any masking targets are close by.Chickenwing said:
If it is a lower-trash site and coins might be deeper, then I use the same settings, except I change the Tone ID to '2', so I can listen for any nearby targets that are non-iron. I also like the depth and audio information of the 1-Tone and 2-Tone audio modes.
When I hunt more rural locations or urban renovation where they are plagued with iron nails, then I increase the discrimination to '16' or '17' so I just barely reject iron nails on the ground. I never use more Discrimination than just enough to knock out a nail .... barely. I sometimes use the 1-Tone audio, but most of the time it is 2-Tone or 4-Tone for urban places where a lot of coins are possible, and mostly shallower. I never use the 3-Tone ID option.
Ground Balance then hunt away..
Monte
MarkCZ
Well-known member
I don't get the "99 Sensitivity" if your hunting modern clad coins? I can't see putting myself through all the noisy.
I recently started hunting some areas around a ball field that as far as I can tell nobody has hunted
The field has its fair amount of modern trash, tabs, can slaw, foil sport cap liners and COINS!
The area isn't old enough to produce silver coins, so that means that the deepest coins there is like 4". So, for me I see no reason to hunt the coins at a sensitivity of 99 or to say max!.
For me the detector functions much better in this setting with a sensitivity of 50. until I get the coins out and maybe go back to try for jewelry here is what I use.
The Omega,
11" DD coil, (the site is a bit trashy, buts its not to dense)
Disc = 52 (high side of foil)
Notch out tabs, screw caps but I leave zinc's and Nickels. If you notch out zinc's hunting for modern clad you will miss pocket spill that may have one or two zinc's mixed with clad dimes and copper pennies. I can tell when I'm hunting an area where others have notched out zinc's because of the amount of mixed coin spills I find with zinc's in the group.
The tones in this case is just what you get used to, I use the default 3 tone, the four tone is okay, but I got used to the low nickel tone.
In six hunts at this field and a couple of those were only a couple of hours each I've recovered 412 coins. with $21.00 in just quarters, a little over $12.00 in dimes.
Now if I have to hunt deep for older silver coins then I would crank up the sensitivity to as high as I can stand it noisy wise, and for jewelry I would drop the notches and lower the discrimination to include at lest most of the foil range, my mans 10k wedding ring hits in the upper foil range, that puts a good size ladies 10k band MAYBE in the lower foil range, if not in the upper iron range.
Mark
I recently started hunting some areas around a ball field that as far as I can tell nobody has hunted
The field has its fair amount of modern trash, tabs, can slaw, foil sport cap liners and COINS!The area isn't old enough to produce silver coins, so that means that the deepest coins there is like 4". So, for me I see no reason to hunt the coins at a sensitivity of 99 or to say max!.
For me the detector functions much better in this setting with a sensitivity of 50. until I get the coins out and maybe go back to try for jewelry here is what I use.
The Omega,
11" DD coil, (the site is a bit trashy, buts its not to dense)
Disc = 52 (high side of foil)
Notch out tabs, screw caps but I leave zinc's and Nickels. If you notch out zinc's hunting for modern clad you will miss pocket spill that may have one or two zinc's mixed with clad dimes and copper pennies. I can tell when I'm hunting an area where others have notched out zinc's because of the amount of mixed coin spills I find with zinc's in the group.
The tones in this case is just what you get used to, I use the default 3 tone, the four tone is okay, but I got used to the low nickel tone.
In six hunts at this field and a couple of those were only a couple of hours each I've recovered 412 coins. with $21.00 in just quarters, a little over $12.00 in dimes.
Now if I have to hunt deep for older silver coins then I would crank up the sensitivity to as high as I can stand it noisy wise, and for jewelry I would drop the notches and lower the discrimination to include at lest most of the foil range, my mans 10k wedding ring hits in the upper foil range, that puts a good size ladies 10k band MAYBE in the lower foil range, if not in the upper iron range.
Mark
One that I get asked on occasion and for which there are some reasonable, or at least explainable, answers. Most answers when we encounter questions like this will always result in very opinionated answerers because they are what the responder does because of their experience with the make and model detector mentioned. So I am always interested in what others opinions are and then I try to sort them out in my noggin, wondering why they choose to set a detector up the way they do for certain types of hunting.
On occasion I wonder about it enough to e-mail them or to post on a forum and inquire why those settings, but it is still their opinions based upon their approach to the hobby with the equipment I question. Certainly we are all going to use different adjustments and search coils because we just happen to prefer things that way ... and also naturally we might make some adjustments afield, if we think it would be helpful. If there are possibly or probably no deeper coins at a site than maybe 3" to 4", then there might not be any other metal target deeper, and if there are no deeper targets then I don't see a problem with a Sensitivity setting of '99' because there's nothing there to interfere.
I also like to be ready for the 'unknown' when I search any site, such as ... what was there before? What kind of activity has there been at this site? What kind of possibility or probability is there that I might find a deeper coin, jewelry item or artifact of some sort? I like to be prepared for the 'unknown,' and that is why I like to use the detector settings that are similar with every detector I own and use. Basically, I make us to the highest Sensitivity setting I can, adjusting as needed, and I use the lowest Discrimination I can tolerate, which is either at 'Zero' [size=small](if a detector provides that)[/size] to just barely enough to reject iron nails. No more.
I also like to be ready for the 'unknown' when I search any site, such as ... what was there before? What kind of activity has there been at this site? What kind of possibility or probability is there that I might find a deeper coin, jewelry item or artifact of some sort? I like to be prepared for the 'unknown,' and that is why I like to use the detector settings that are similar with every detector I own and use. Basically, I make us to the highest Sensitivity setting I can, adjusting as needed, and I use the lowest Discrimination I can tolerate, which is either at 'Zero' [size=small](if a detector provides that)[/size] to just barely enough to reject iron nails. No more.
Even then there isn't always a great reason for older coins to be deep, and the bulk of the older coins I have found over fifty years of detecting have been located from surface [size=small](and I mean right on the surface to barely out-of-sight)[/size] to maybe 3" or possibly 4". Why? Because from '65 to '75 most of the coins I found in urban settings, be it school grounds, parks or private yards, were easy pickings. Most detectors didn't get a lot of depth, although it had been improving, and quite a few could not find a penny beyond about 3" deep in those early years.
Others who got into this great sport early on also plucks a bunch of the coins which were shallower [size=small](3"-4" or less)[/size] and those coin tallies often included a lot of silver coins, Indian Head and Wheat-back cents, Buffalo and 'V' nickels, etc. Through the years in urban settings there has been more grass clipping and leafage build-up or landscaping down that has raised the ground level, thus making desired older coins deeper. We still have the modern "flash money" that gets lost that everyone today looks for when "coin hunting" but I like to be prepared to chance upon anything older, if it might be there.
As for an area being "old enough" do we really know what activities might have taken place in some areas long ago? We moved to a suburban location just outside of Portland, Oregon in '59. The house, and really all of the nearby neighborhood homes, had been built about '55 to '58. Back then it was a newer area "out-in-the-country", close to some small wooded areas and really much of nothing except formerly open to brushy country. Some would say the area wasn't old enough to produce anything older or of interest.
I was tilling up some ground for my Mom as a garden area in the summer of '64 when another blasted rock got bound up in the tiller tines. I quickly shut down and rolled the tiller to the side to remove the rock, only to find an old coffee pot, and on the bottom was a patent date of 1862. So much for nothing old to be at the location. That was what spared my interest in metal/mineral locators and the following March I built one and that got me to where I am today. No great depth back then, and no more coffee pots or hidden stuff around the remains of an old campfire spot, but our yard, and the neighbor's, and the school, and any place I started going sure produced a lot of coins even down to maybe 2". Man, that was fun!
Anyway, I like to run my detectors as hot as I can, most of the time, because if there's no problem doing so, why not?
You choose to use the big oval-shaped 11+" Double-D coil, even though you say the site is usually "a bit trashy, but it's not dense." I very seldom use any search coil larger than about 9", and even that is rare because I prefer smaller-size/smaller-than-stock search coils. Why" Because the balance nicely and they work in and around trash, scattered, moderate or dense, better than larger-size search coils. I also have a bit of an advantage because smaller coils see less ground so there can be less ground mineral interference, AND you can generally increase the Sensitivity using a smaller-size coil w/o noise and instability.
A Disc. setting of '52' is high enough to reject a lot of the thing gold rings, ear rings, pendants and chains I find. Some are even knocked out [size=small](not detected well)[/size] is the Omega's Discrimination is higher than about '35' which is still in the Iron range. That's why IF I use and Discrimination higher than the minimum setting, it is only about '16' or '17' to just barely reject common iron nails.
However, while interesting, if that's what works for you and the sites you Coin Hunt, that's great! Me, I'll stick to my desired control settings and just enjoy the level of success I have and do.
Back in September of 2010, when recouping from my fall off a ladder, I could only hunt for briefer periods, and a lot of the time was travelling with friends for a few days just to hunt old schools and parks in moderate-size towns as we travelled. I used ONLY the Omega that month, with ONLY the sub-5" Double-D coil, yet even with my limited mobility ([size=small]which it is anyway but even more-so due to the fractured skull, cracked vertebrae in my neck and four broken ribs)[/size], I did recover 895 coins that month. Below what I could usually do, but the Omega w/5" DD worked for me back then.
If I concentrated on parks near the swimming and wading areas, or if I decided to go work some beaches or sports fields, good jewelry finds would increase dramatically. While those numbers could be impressive, I would rather plant myself out in a ghost towns or pioneer/military encampments, stage stop, or other older place and "Coin Hunt" for the good old stuff I prefer to find. Back to city coin hunting for a minute. Sometimes we stop and detect a site if we are travelling, and the site looks good but we have no clue what to expect.
I moved back to Utah in July of '81 and had a little detecting shop on Main St. across from the Library and City Hall. That was right about the time the metal detecting industry was about to peak [size=small](roughly '83 to '86)[/size] and you could see people out detecting almost any day of the week, but especially on weekends. Parks, schools and big grassy places, like the lawn in front of the Library/City Hall were easy attractions for anyone in the hobby, and I was told that a lot of people had detecting the lawn across the street from my shop.
So, if I had an Omega or other models back then and used a more cautious Sensitivity setting to get the coins that were anticipated to be shallower, I wouldn't have been running at maximum Sensitivity like I prefer. However, I always use all the juice I can and cut back only if needed, and it was a good thing I did. This was an older town and an older Library/City hall building and I was recovering a lot of coins from the grassy area, from the sub-surface to about 4", and most of them were modern coinage specimens.
Anticipated, yes, but I also started finding Wheat-back pennies, Buffalo and early-date nickels, and both silver Dimes and Quarters in the 4" to 8" range. I was told by locals who worked that grass area themselves since about '78 and they found mainly newer coins, not the older silver and other good stuff that I was finding. Well, I work areas at the maximum Sensitivity level I can, while most of the local hobbyists used a 'preset' level or a lower Sensitivity setting level.
I found the older and deeper coins and small artifacts that they didn't, probably because I used more Sensitivity than they did, plus I hunted the site more slowly and methodically than they did. Was I finding coins that sank? No, because coins general do not 'sink.' I was finding the older stuff in the churned-up ground because I was told that about eight years earlier [size=small](maybe '73 or so)[/size] the city did a major renovation to clean up the buildings and the grounds, and because the grassy area was often dry and ugly and had very poor grass, they tilled the entire front lawn area ... deep I was told ... and then they leveled it and put in a very nice lawn with a sprinkler system to keep in looking beautiful
Because I was using maximum Sensitivity and using better search techniques, I was finding the older and deeper targets that had been displaced, while newcomers didn't have a clue old stuff was there or that there had been the renovation work done. For those same reasons, I like to still use a Sensitivity setting as high as possible most of the time. Just me I guess.
Monte
On occasion I wonder about it enough to e-mail them or to post on a forum and inquire why those settings, but it is still their opinions based upon their approach to the hobby with the equipment I question. Certainly we are all going to use different adjustments and search coils because we just happen to prefer things that way ... and also naturally we might make some adjustments afield, if we think it would be helpful. If there are possibly or probably no deeper coins at a site than maybe 3" to 4", then there might not be any other metal target deeper, and if there are no deeper targets then I don't see a problem with a Sensitivity setting of '99' because there's nothing there to interfere.
I also like to be ready for the 'unknown' when I search any site, such as ... what was there before? What kind of activity has there been at this site? What kind of possibility or probability is there that I might find a deeper coin, jewelry item or artifact of some sort? I like to be prepared for the 'unknown,' and that is why I like to use the detector settings that are similar with every detector I own and use. Basically, I make us to the highest Sensitivity setting I can, adjusting as needed, and I use the lowest Discrimination I can tolerate, which is either at 'Zero' [size=small](if a detector provides that)[/size] to just barely enough to reject iron nails. No more.
Why not? If I can run at '99' Sensitivity and it is usually quiet and stable, what's the problem? I did mention that if I were close to metal fences or metal structures, I would reduce it as needed, and certainly any other time I felt it might help. If there are possibly or probably no deeper coins at a site than maybe 3" to 4", then there might not be any other metal target deeper, and if there are no deeper targets, then I don't see a problem with a Sensitivity setting of '99' because there's nothing there to interfere.MarkCZ said:
I also like to be ready for the 'unknown' when I search any site, such as ... what was there before? What kind of activity has there been at this site? What kind of possibility or probability is there that I might find a deeper coin, jewelry item or artifact of some sort? I like to be prepared for the 'unknown,' and that is why I like to use the detector settings that are similar with every detector I own and use. Basically, I make us to the highest Sensitivity setting I can, adjusting as needed, and I use the lowest Discrimination I can tolerate, which is either at 'Zero' [size=small](if a detector provides that)[/size] to just barely enough to reject iron nails. No more.
As far as you could tell, no one had hunted it. That's what I sometimes ponder at any site that appears to be a bit productive, and if they haven't hunted it recently to get all the modern coins, maybe it hasn't been hunted a lot if the past and they could be older coins?MarkCZ said:I can't see putting myself through all the noisy.
I recently started hunting some areas around a ball field that as far as I can tell nobody has hunted
The area isn't old enough to produce silver coins, so that means that the deepest coins there is like 4". So, for me I see no reason to hunt the coins at a sensitivity of 99 or to say max!.
Even then there isn't always a great reason for older coins to be deep, and the bulk of the older coins I have found over fifty years of detecting have been located from surface [size=small](and I mean right on the surface to barely out-of-sight)[/size] to maybe 3" or possibly 4". Why? Because from '65 to '75 most of the coins I found in urban settings, be it school grounds, parks or private yards, were easy pickings. Most detectors didn't get a lot of depth, although it had been improving, and quite a few could not find a penny beyond about 3" deep in those early years.
Others who got into this great sport early on also plucks a bunch of the coins which were shallower [size=small](3"-4" or less)[/size] and those coin tallies often included a lot of silver coins, Indian Head and Wheat-back cents, Buffalo and 'V' nickels, etc. Through the years in urban settings there has been more grass clipping and leafage build-up or landscaping down that has raised the ground level, thus making desired older coins deeper. We still have the modern "flash money" that gets lost that everyone today looks for when "coin hunting" but I like to be prepared to chance upon anything older, if it might be there.
As for an area being "old enough" do we really know what activities might have taken place in some areas long ago? We moved to a suburban location just outside of Portland, Oregon in '59. The house, and really all of the nearby neighborhood homes, had been built about '55 to '58. Back then it was a newer area "out-in-the-country", close to some small wooded areas and really much of nothing except formerly open to brushy country. Some would say the area wasn't old enough to produce anything older or of interest.
I was tilling up some ground for my Mom as a garden area in the summer of '64 when another blasted rock got bound up in the tiller tines. I quickly shut down and rolled the tiller to the side to remove the rock, only to find an old coffee pot, and on the bottom was a patent date of 1862. So much for nothing old to be at the location. That was what spared my interest in metal/mineral locators and the following March I built one and that got me to where I am today. No great depth back then, and no more coffee pots or hidden stuff around the remains of an old campfire spot, but our yard, and the neighbor's, and the school, and any place I started going sure produced a lot of coins even down to maybe 2". Man, that was fun!
Anyway, I like to run my detectors as hot as I can, most of the time, because if there's no problem doing so, why not?
Which is exactly how things should be, adjustment functions that let the users select the settings that they want to use.MarkCZ said:
A lot of differences between our Coin & Jewelry Hunting styles. You Notch Disc. Tabs and Screw Caps, and I NEVER use Notch Discrimination, or any Disc. setting higher than enough to reject iron nails. I have fund too many gold and silver jewelry items that can fall anywhere from the ''edge' of iron rejection up to a US 1¢/10¢ read-out. My 14K men's ring reads just a bit higher then the typical 5¢ reading and just into the "Pull Tab" range.MarkCZ said:
You choose to use the big oval-shaped 11+" Double-D coil, even though you say the site is usually "a bit trashy, but it's not dense." I very seldom use any search coil larger than about 9", and even that is rare because I prefer smaller-size/smaller-than-stock search coils. Why" Because the balance nicely and they work in and around trash, scattered, moderate or dense, better than larger-size search coils. I also have a bit of an advantage because smaller coils see less ground so there can be less ground mineral interference, AND you can generally increase the Sensitivity using a smaller-size coil w/o noise and instability.
A Disc. setting of '52' is high enough to reject a lot of the thing gold rings, ear rings, pendants and chains I find. Some are even knocked out [size=small](not detected well)[/size] is the Omega's Discrimination is higher than about '35' which is still in the Iron range. That's why IF I use and Discrimination higher than the minimum setting, it is only about '16' or '17' to just barely reject common iron nails.
However, while interesting, if that's what works for you and the sites you Coin Hunt, that's great! Me, I'll stick to my desired control settings and just enjoy the level of success I have and do.
As I stated, I prefer a good modulated audio over a processed Tone ID, but when going after shallower modern coins, jewelry and typical finds, I do prefer the 4-Tone audio ID just for the enhancement in audio on 5¢ coins. Otherwise I am working the4 omega in the 2-Tone audio most days.MarkCZ said:
Often my Urban Coin Hunting is just doing hit-and-run attacks on woodchip and sand-filled playgrounds, then a few sports fields, etc., on occasion when I feel like 'cruising.' Seldom to I select a field or site and go back to it for six hunts or any number to keep working it. I'd rather be out hitting a ghost towns orf other old-use places so a lot of my in-town Coin Hunting is just kind of random and it a one-time visit.MarkCZ said:
Back in September of 2010, when recouping from my fall off a ladder, I could only hunt for briefer periods, and a lot of the time was travelling with friends for a few days just to hunt old schools and parks in moderate-size towns as we travelled. I used ONLY the Omega that month, with ONLY the sub-5" Double-D coil, yet even with my limited mobility ([size=small]which it is anyway but even more-so due to the fractured skull, cracked vertebrae in my neck and four broken ribs)[/size], I did recover 895 coins that month. Below what I could usually do, but the Omega w/5" DD worked for me back then.
I moved to a very dinky town in Eastern Oregon last year and we have one playground. Pickin's are thin for modern change almost anywhere, but things were different when I lived in the big metropolitan area before. In the big city, for about the past two decades, I have averaged 12 gold rings per year just from woodchip playgrounds. I also got gold pendants and bracelets and charms, etc., and the Sterling silver jewelry beat out the gold by at least 5 or 6 to 1, easily.MarkCZ said:
If I concentrated on parks near the swimming and wading areas, or if I decided to go work some beaches or sports fields, good jewelry finds would increase dramatically. While those numbers could be impressive, I would rather plant myself out in a ghost towns or pioneer/military encampments, stage stop, or other older place and "Coin Hunt" for the good old stuff I prefer to find. Back to city coin hunting for a minute. Sometimes we stop and detect a site if we are travelling, and the site looks good but we have no clue what to expect.
I moved back to Utah in July of '81 and had a little detecting shop on Main St. across from the Library and City Hall. That was right about the time the metal detecting industry was about to peak [size=small](roughly '83 to '86)[/size] and you could see people out detecting almost any day of the week, but especially on weekends. Parks, schools and big grassy places, like the lawn in front of the Library/City Hall were easy attractions for anyone in the hobby, and I was told that a lot of people had detecting the lawn across the street from my shop.
So, if I had an Omega or other models back then and used a more cautious Sensitivity setting to get the coins that were anticipated to be shallower, I wouldn't have been running at maximum Sensitivity like I prefer. However, I always use all the juice I can and cut back only if needed, and it was a good thing I did. This was an older town and an older Library/City hall building and I was recovering a lot of coins from the grassy area, from the sub-surface to about 4", and most of them were modern coinage specimens.
Anticipated, yes, but I also started finding Wheat-back pennies, Buffalo and early-date nickels, and both silver Dimes and Quarters in the 4" to 8" range. I was told by locals who worked that grass area themselves since about '78 and they found mainly newer coins, not the older silver and other good stuff that I was finding. Well, I work areas at the maximum Sensitivity level I can, while most of the local hobbyists used a 'preset' level or a lower Sensitivity setting level.
I found the older and deeper coins and small artifacts that they didn't, probably because I used more Sensitivity than they did, plus I hunted the site more slowly and methodically than they did. Was I finding coins that sank? No, because coins general do not 'sink.' I was finding the older stuff in the churned-up ground because I was told that about eight years earlier [size=small](maybe '73 or so)[/size] the city did a major renovation to clean up the buildings and the grounds, and because the grassy area was often dry and ugly and had very poor grass, they tilled the entire front lawn area ... deep I was told ... and then they leveled it and put in a very nice lawn with a sprinkler system to keep in looking beautiful
Because I was using maximum Sensitivity and using better search techniques, I was finding the older and deeper targets that had been displaced, while newcomers didn't have a clue old stuff was there or that there had been the renovation work done. For those same reasons, I like to still use a Sensitivity setting as high as possible most of the time. Just me I guess.
Monte
MarkCZ
Well-known member
I'm always a bit surprised of anybody (including other posters in this thread) that feels the need to run SUPER HOT settings while hunting a ball field that only dates back to 1995! nothing but some plumbing is more than four inches deep!
So, if your in one of those areas (ball fields) with fences, deep underground pipes, and near by fences are more of a problem hunting for the shallow coins. WAY higher than needed sensitivity to gain depth also increases the sensitivity off the sides of the coil increasing unwanted responses.
They're are MANY places I hunt that I want to hunt deeper than I can get, but 1985 or later ball fields isn't one of them. For the modern ball fields MAX settings seems to lead to an overactive detector trying to do more than I even want it to do!
With my Omega and the 11" DD coil and a sensitivity of 65-70 in our soil I'm actually hunting down near the eight inch range, at 70 its a bit chatty, but necessary to get to the older deeper coins. The 1995 ball field coins are no deeper than four inches.
The below is from the Omega manual.
So, if the background "Static" "Internal Circuit Noise" isn't any gain for my surface to four inch coins, then its more counter productive than productive.
Its over shooting my targets,
I'm running with more noisy (interference)
The added sensitivity doesn't increase separation, nor improves target ID.
The detector becomes more sensitive to near by fences and deeply buried pipe.
It becomes more sensitive to tiny unwanted discarded bits and pieces of metal trash that's common to area.
Monte, I do understand your idea of "If I can, then why not?"
For, for me its about why run it that hot if I have nothing to gain?
Probably for most of the folks here they see this as nothing more than personal preferences.
In any case I was in no means just picking out your post!
Happy Thanksgiving!
Mark
So, if your in one of those areas (ball fields) with fences, deep underground pipes, and near by fences are more of a problem hunting for the shallow coins. WAY higher than needed sensitivity to gain depth also increases the sensitivity off the sides of the coil increasing unwanted responses.
They're are MANY places I hunt that I want to hunt deeper than I can get, but 1985 or later ball fields isn't one of them. For the modern ball fields MAX settings seems to lead to an overactive detector trying to do more than I even want it to do!
With my Omega and the 11" DD coil and a sensitivity of 65-70 in our soil I'm actually hunting down near the eight inch range, at 70 its a bit chatty, but necessary to get to the older deeper coins. The 1995 ball field coins are no deeper than four inches.
The below is from the Omega manual.
Omega Manual said:
So, if the background "Static" "Internal Circuit Noise" isn't any gain for my surface to four inch coins, then its more counter productive than productive.
Its over shooting my targets,
I'm running with more noisy (interference)
The added sensitivity doesn't increase separation, nor improves target ID.
The detector becomes more sensitive to near by fences and deeply buried pipe.
It becomes more sensitive to tiny unwanted discarded bits and pieces of metal trash that's common to area.
Monte, I do understand your idea of "If I can, then why not?"
For, for me its about why run it that hot if I have nothing to gain?
Probably for most of the folks here they see this as nothing more than personal preferences.
In any case I was in no means just picking out your post!
Happy Thanksgiving!
Mark
I don't get surprised by all the setting choices made, but I do when I hear people complain. For example, they have an Omega [size=small](or many other makes or models)[/size] and they go Coin Hunting to a local park that is newer, commenting on it also having a lot of trash. Then they state they operate at maximum Sensitivity, and so far I am fine with that because most of the time [size=small](NOT all of the time)[/size] that is what I do.MarkCZ said:
They the complain that the detector is too noisy. hey state it is a newer park but they want to find the older and deep silver, in all the trash, and complain that they cant' find silver, they can't get much depth, and the detectors is noisy. Then what it the next thing they often state they want? A bigger coil to get more depth. Nutty.
You can't get more depth with a lot of shallower trash, especially if dense and closely spaced. Maybe they can't find deeper silver and older coins because they just are not there. And also maybe the park or location has been hit hard for decades and the good old stuff is, for the most part .... GONE! And then due to the very high Sensitivity setting they are getting more EMI caused noise.Newer parks and the expectation of older and/or deeper coins. ,,,, If I live in an area and I know some of the history of a particular location and that a new park might have been made in the past twenty or thirst years, and knowing that the last regular minting of silver coins was 50 years ago, and that a lot was disappearing from circulation by about 35-40 years ago, then I might not necessarily use the highest Sensitivity setting. But if I do not know the particular location that well, then I "go prepared" with the settings I prefer to use.
I have seen "new parks" built out of space that had appeared to have been nothing in the past, but come to find out, it had some history and produced some older coins. I have seen 'newer parks' spring up out of some older area that had, or might have had some use, but in making the new park they brought in a few inches of fill dirt to even the area up to create a lice, level grassy lawn or sports filed. The fill dirt then made older losses now deeper.
In the end we each choose how we like our settings and have to live with them good or bad. I do reduce my Sensitivity at times when I feel it is in my best interest, but I start out with them at maximum with most detectors, then adjust from there.
Yes, with some makes and models you can more easily notice a reading farther from the side of the coil, depending upon the type of coil and the particular detector model. If fences and metal structures influence that in a negative way, I just quickly reduce the Sensitivity.MarkCZ said:
If there are OLD metal pipe sprinklers in a park I like to use more Sensitivity so I can more easily locate the pipes and then follow them, tracing or marking their route so I know how to better hunt the site. Also, I will often hunt in a Threshold-based All Metal mode and when using a higher Sensitivity setting it lets me hear nearby targets if I sweep my search coils close to them, whereas many motion-based Discriminate modes would not let you hear that close target and it could be missed during the search.
makes sense to me, for you and for your newer ball fields. I might take the same approach if I know for sure that the newer ball field really is newer and not over some former use location.MarkCZ said:
Again, I agree about the typical depth of coins in newer or older ball fields, as most are within the top 4", to be sure.MarkCZ said:
But you also brought out the other point that I instruct when covering Sensitivity settings when you state you use a setting of '65' to '70' on the Omega. A lot of folks grab an Omega and adjust the Sensitivity control to the maximum setting of '99', and if they are in more urban environments, like most Omega users are, then they are exposed to more EMI issues. I ask them why they use '99' because I know that I usually do, if conditions allow me, and their response is that is the highest setting available.
Then I use other makes and models for reference because many also own, or have owned, another brand. For example, I tell them that if they turn on a new White's MX5, the Sensitivity default is '8' bars, but maximum Sensitivity is '10' bars. So why do they suggest '8' as a 'Preset?" Their answer is because that might be all you need and adjusting up to '9' or '10' bars is an increase you can do if there's no EMI/
Well, I ask, how about the White's M6 or MXT All Pro. It has a manual knob Sensitivity control and, and on that control range there is a marker ▼ as a suggested Preset for the Sensitivity, why do they have that there instead of at the maximum setting. Their answer is finally the higher settings might be too sensitive and cause EMI. matter of fact, you might even be a little noisy at '8' and have to reduce it a little.
Okay, so how many own or use a Tesoro, I ask, and several hand go up. I point out that most of their models have an 'orange' area above the highest Sensitivity number that is called Max Boost. Then I ask how many search with the Sensitivity setting in the Max Boost range. and most tell me they do not because it gets too noisy in most urban settings. I agree, with some comments on that based upon how I set my own Tesoro based upon the search coil mounted.
Then I get to the Omega again and point out that the Sensitivity control doesn't turn on at a preset level, nor does it have a triangular marker or an orange shaded mark to help suggest where to set the control. But if they read their Owner's Manual they might easily figure out that the Omega has a suggested operating Sensitivity of about '70' and adjusting higher, to '99' might increase their odds of being over-adjusted.
And that is exactly what I explain to them, and it can be very obvious when using an Omega that, perhaps, it has a little too much upper-end Sensitivity adjustment range fir most people and at most typical locations due to EMI. To my advantage, I prefer not to hunt in a lot of urban settings that are prone to EMI issues, so when in town and able, or when away from a metro area and it is more possible, I set the Sensitivity at '99' because that's where I like it and it will operate reasonably smoothly.MarkCZ said:
It also becomes more sensitive to thin gold chains and tiny toe rings and small gold ear rings, all within the top inch to four inches.MarkCZ said:
And 'personal preference' is exactly what it is, and I never make a determination of I have nothing to gain unless I hunt an area with settings that might allow me to come out ahead, should they be to my advantage.MarkCZ said:
No problem as I think one or two others mentioned they are able to run it higher and do so. Let's face it, too, we are talking about the Teknetics Omega and most Omega users know that there are times they can not get the setting very high do to the noise and instability. Even in this post you can forget my '99' setting and refer to you using a setting of '65' to '70' in a newer ball fields and there are still some Omega owners who would be shocked at that as they can't get their Omega over something in the '48' to '55' range without it becoming too noisy due to EMI. So to many of those people, both you and I, using a '70' and '99' Sensitivity setting, would be operating over-the-top compared to what they can do.MarkCZ said:
I did, although I cooked way to much for me and my dog, and I didn't get out detecting at all. I hope yours was enjoyable, as well.MarkCZ said:
Monte