We've all been down this road many, many, many times since the E-Trac was released a few months back. Minelab's engineers designed a detector that utilized the FBS circuitry but was
[size=large]never[/size] intended - even from when it was still on the drawing board - to be a replacement or even the next model in the Explorer line.
Could they have added an "Explorer emmulator" mode to the menu options to give Explorer users the ability to get their "old sounds and All Metal" capabilities? Sure, with software you could probably have done that. But why stop there? Why not have a "Quattro or Safari emmulator" mode where the screen would switch to provide users with the Quattro / Safari user interface? How much would you be willing to pay? That simply does not make good business sense . . . . despite what we might want to think, Minelab as with any company stays in business to sell detectors not combine them into one model or even offer low-cost flash upgrades to the software as some have postulated to get the next model without the expense of buying the whole package.
The E-Trac does some things better than the Explorer, others different than the Explorer and for some, the Explorer is a better or preferrable choice. The comment "
If there was a good reason for doing what they did. Haven't heard one yet." has been heard time and time again yet the number of people that are using the E-Trac and doing quite well in the field goes up each day based on what they post while the naysayers shouting "
I want the new detector to act like my old one" seem to be less prevelant than they were the weeks after it came out. Anyone that feels they can master a new - not simply an upgraded - detector in a week or even a month and make an informed choice over how their old detector worked (with 100's of hours on it) is deluding themselves. Several people have posted that it takes a minimum of 40+ hours in the field to start to feel comfortable with the capabilities of a new detector . . . . and that might be low.
So the good reason for doing what they did . . . . . to produce a detector that performed better under most conditions than the competition period! Do you like everything they did? Probably not. Could they have done things differently? Maybe, but until you are working for Minelab, its their company and their decisions.
Do you really think that they are not looking at adding features found on the E-Trac to the Explorer down the road? If you don't, you need to think about how comapnies leverage resources and technology from one product to another.
As others have said since September . . . . . "
If the E-Trac works for you by all means get one and use it. If you bought one simply to say you had the newest FBS detector and did so without testing it first . . . . well, you paid your dollars and took your chance". The finds those that have learned the E-Trac are making are quite impressive.
In some areas it may not be the choice a seasoned Explorer user would make but as they say . . . ..
[size=large]"If there was one detector that did it all and outperformed all others, the other manufacturers would all be out of business!"
[/size]
Remember, some like Fords, some like Chevy's and some like Honda's . . . each for their own reason but they all get you from point A to point B"
Andy Sabisch
Tell me, honestly Andy, wouldn't you love a faster, "souped" up, Explorer?
. And yes, that is a ferrous bounce, but no different than an SE bouncing left towards iron. So to say that the ETrac has resolved that issue is way off. Additionally, in all metal on the SE's, the bounce rarely ever occurred at all, and almost never for a targets conductive value. Which is another reason why I and others prefer all metal on the Explorers.