Target separation vs. Explorer

[LilloEsquilo]

I'm a bit puzzled over something. In testing the E-trac, I believed based on what I've read that it separates targets better than the Explorer SE ProI decided to put that to the test. I put a nail near a silver dime, and tested both machines with factory presets using the pro coils.

What I found was under those conditions, the Explorer actually separated better than the E-trac. Both would null over the rusty iron, but would sound on the dime, though the Explorer clearly sounded off better in a way that I would investigate vs. the E-trac.

Am I just being a total moron here and missing something obvious?

 

[Ray-Mo.]

What type of nail did you test with?

 

[LilloEsquilo]

And old railroad nail, the kind with numbers on them, a pretty rusty old specimen.

 

[Ray-Mo.]

I have never tested with that type of nail.I use some old very rusted cut nails.We all know the type,the ones the Explorers love to false on.
Are the swing speeds about the same for both machines,Ray.

 

[LilloEsquilo]

Yes I've tried a variety, fast, which causes both to null on, and then slow, which allows a hit. If you swing either one too fast it just stays at a null but at a slower sweep speed you can pick up the dime.

 

[Ray-Mo.]

http://www.findmall.com/read.php?63,913239,913563#msg-913563

A test with a new washer and the Etrac

 

[LilloEsquilo]

Good post. I also have the X5 and it did very well with separation as expected.

I'll have to try your settings as they are very different from the defaults and are probably why you picked up the quarter.

 

[Dennis 2]

I'm a bit puzzled over something. In testing the E-trac, I believed based on what I've read that it separates targets better than the Explorer SE ProI decided to put that to the test. I put a nail near a silver dime, and tested both machines with factory presets using the pro coils.

What I found was under those conditions, the Explorer actually separated better than the E-trac. Both would null over the rusty iron, but would sound on the dime, though the Explorer clearly sounded off better in a way that I would investigate vs. the E-trac.

Am I just being a total moron here and missing something obvious?

I tested my EX and ET yesterday in my test garden.,and came up with the same findings as you. The Explorer clearly sounded off better . I had to work the ET harder to make sure the target was a good hit. But when I ran the EX over the target there was no mistaking that it was good. I live in Western MA. and it could be that the EX just works better in this soil then the ET. There are a few guys , NH BOB , Charles in Upstate NY...etc., That went back to the EX from the ET. Maybe its the soil in New England.!?! I'm trying all different settings with the ET. I hope I find one that works for the type of hunting that I do.

 

[christopher-ohio]

some of my aches with the E-trac include way more nulling over the EX II specifically, target sound separation is WAY better on the EX II for me, and the EX II ID is superior...after digging so much trash with the E-Trac versus the Explorer I decided enough was enough for me...I've tried to love it but it's just not there for me...which is OK,,,I'm glad others are "in the groove" with it...maybe I'm just too set in my ways

 

[Doctorcoinz]

I don't think its possible to have speed and depth both at the same time. Faster recovery /response = less depth . Slower response/recovery = better depth.
Ok so the e trac is faster and better in trash because it is a faster processor but it looses on depth and quality of signal in clean ground. I read this in a detecting magazine some years back but i am not sure if it's 100% true but it sounds reasonable to me.

 

[JohnTN]

Were you running the Etrac with the stock coin program or a modified program that just barely knocks out nails. This will make a huge difference. In my ground I wouldn't trade the Etrac performance for any Explorer. I have a lot of time logged on the Explorers too.

 

[Dennis 2]

John , I run modified programs .Sometimes 27to 35 knocked out, Sometimes 30 to 35 with righthand lower corner blocked out. I'm going to try and block out the top like Andy's and see what happens. Since iron trash is a big problem around cellar-holes, I'll be trying Fer with two tones. Allot of targets come in as good , but end up being iron...very little bounce if any.

 

[LilloEsquilo]

I tried running the settings that Ray suggested. It made a world of difference. Even using the stock pro coil, the Etrac picked up the dime consistently. With the factory preset settings, it won't do that.

Maybe it's just a matter of finding the right settings. Based on what I saw trying Ray's it seems that could be the case. I'm not sure whether it sacrifices depth or id accuracy though it might sacrifice a bit of both, but hey that's a trade off I'd accept if I could find the good stuff next to junk. Some say the Etrac is no F75 as far as response speed, and having had a T2 which is very close, I would agree, but I'll say the difference is not as bad as people make it out to be. With my T2 I also had to slow down to get a signal I would dig with a nail next to a dime, and adjust the settings just like with the Etrac. Both machines will give a good enough signal that you will dig.

Having seen this I'm a bit more optimistic about the Etrac. I haven't seen it out in the "real world" yet, so that will come soon hopefully this weekend.

 

[Chris(SoCenWI)]

I've had the XS for going on seven years. As with everyone else was frustrated with the speed, especially screen up date. So I bough a F-75 which is much faster, supposedly. After much testing doesn't seem to me that processor speed makes a huge difference. I think coil geometry is more important. With the F-75 still had to slow way down and do the "minelab" wiggle in order to seperate close targets and get even a halfway accurate ID.