The Whites QXT Is Way Better Than The IDX Pro

[Critterhunter]

Forgot to mention on setting the QXT up. First load the coin program so SAT speed and such is set properly, then make the adjustments I went over.

 

[provantage]

hey critter i have tried the 18 sensitivity and seems to get a little unstable i keep mine at 16 as well as my pinpointing. also ground tracking big fields i have found out just bumping it up to one helped a bit.

 

[Critterhunter]

On the regular QXT usualy 16 was the highest I could set sensitivity. Sometimes 18. On the QXT Pro I could usualy run it at 18. The QXT Pro and regular QXT are identical machines but Whites must have used slightly better (less noisy) electronics in the QXT Pro so that it could normaly run at 18. A QII or regular QXT with older software can be updated to the current QXT software by sending the unit in to Whites. There were some QXTs out there that had an older version of software that gave them trouble ground balancing in certain places. Those older versions read 1c to $1 in the coin zone instead of "COINS". I would recommend updating a QII to QXT software as they are both the same machine other than the software features.

In my QXT Tips page I suggested running ground tracking in large open areas. I no longer recommend that. It won't give you as good of depth as turning off ground tracking and setting it manualy.

 

[Monte]

taking care of our detector group meeting schedule, plus detecting when I could. I finally have the time to get over to these Forums and check in on what I've missed. One thing we have in common, Thomas, is that we each have a certain passion for this sport, and the desire to select the best detector(s) for our hunting needs, and then learn to get the most out of them that we can. In addition to that, we have each done what we could through the years to help contribute tips and suggestions to help others newer to the hobby, and new to the models we tend to prefer.

Ahhh Monte....My old nemesis who never liked the QXT.

Well, I wouldn't say 'never' because there was a time I did welcome them. The first time I got a chance to try them out was with one of the design engineers who, quite different from so many detector designers, actually enjoys going to detecting and has been especially successful through the years. We were at a club competition hunt and we discussed this new project and he let me check them both out (the Quantum II and Quantum XT).

I had been using the XLT, which I do like for certain uses, but for many searches I like a slower-sweep detector. Also, in seminars I was/am often asked about detectors with an LCD display but are less complicated than the XLT when it comes to adjustments. There were things I liked, such as the excellent packaging, and they had fewer adjustments and were more simple than the XLT. I hoped that when I used one in some of my favorite hunting sites they would prove to be impressive.

At the time I put in some part-time work at a local detector dealer's store where I had ample opportunity to get consumer feedback when they checked them out both in-store and outside where coins and other targets had been planted long ago. I helped the original owners secret a few coin targets in their yard. They started the business in '68 and might have hidden some coins early on, but I helped plant some of them in different areas of the front yard and side yard in '72 to '78, so twenty-some years later I had an advantage when it came to testing buried samples, planted before we had VLF Ground Balanced detectors, before GB'ed motion Discriminators, and long before there was visual Target ID.

Interest in, and sales of, the Quantum's was not well received. A customer or two who did buy one, and who had a good background in coin hunting, complained about the peculiar sweep speed needed for best performance in our very mineralized soils. I was able to 'borrow' the display model to work with on a couple of weekends and came to a personal conclusion that, for me and the sites I hunt and the ground environment I tend to hunt in, the Quantum's just weren't for me.

I had friends who were/are detector dealers in several towns and cities in Oregon, Washington, Idaho, Utah and Arizona who I talked with and, even a year or two ofter their release, they told me the Quantum's either did not sell, or didn't sell well. Better still, for me, I knew these dealers were not just sales points, but they were also avid hobbyists and got out as often as they could. Not one of them personally liked the Quantum's or used them. Initially they really tried to get comfortable with them, but it just didn't happen.

I like simple. I do not care for a lot of complex adjustment features because I prefer to make a quick adjustment when I want it or need it, but have it be an adjustment that makes some simple, functional changes. I just prefer to keep things simple. I like to find stuff, and I like to find it in some very challenging ground mineral environments as well as some trashy conditions. AS an example, I might point to the MInelab Sovereign GT you use because, in many ways, it is more 'simple' than the more complex Explorer/E-Trac series by the same manufacturer Simple.

Avid hunters know that trash can mask a desired target, and that means it can vastly alter the visual TID reading, as well as the audio Tone ID. Thus, I only use Tone ID for some 'casual cruising' in more open, lower-trashed sites. Tone ID responses are grossly distorted, even to the point of uselessness, with many Tone ID models in most tough target environments. I like the XLT, but I don't use Tone ID when hunting in ghost towns, when searching for deeper targets in large open parks and such, and while I have Tone ID 'On' with my most used program, I turn it 'Off' when I get into challenging ground mineral conditions, or when I hunt most multi-target sites.

And, keeping with simplicity, I also like to have more operator control for certain functions. One important feature, for me, is having a variable Discrimination control rather than a block or segment accept/reject option form of discrimination. Finally, to this segment of my reply, I will add that I found the Quantum's to have a more specific sweep speed requirement, or better stated maybe is a sweep speed limitation for many of the types of sites I hunt.

I'm one of those people who does like the QXT and feel it was the best Whites unit they ever put out for years.

Terrific! No problem here. I like the M6 and MXT, but actually feel the M6 is better ... for most people ... than the MXT. It is simpler, and many I meet prefer it to the MXT. White's has made some terrific detectors through the years.

I liked it better than even the XLT.

I didn't, and while I DO like the XLT, I also like the XL Pro and a modified IDX Pro BETTER than the XLT. We all have favorites.

I did some in field comparisons of the two and the QXT was deeper, didn't suffer from software lag, and so on. Up until my now current Sovereign GT the QXT was the deepest machine I've ever owned. In my soil even my Explorers didn't get any deeper. 7 to 8" max due to my ground minerals, but that's a different story...

I haven't found the Explorer's to be the deepest seeking units, either, but my favorite pick goes to the XL Pro when I select a model where depth-of-detection is an important consideration.

My only complaint about the QXT was no VDI numbers. You can, however, get around that by paying close attention to how the screen reacts to targets. With practice you can tell pennies, dimes, and quarters apart...and even tell when it's probably going to be silver by the sound and VDI.

VDI numbers are fun to use, but I can live without them. I don't a;ways use visual TID that much anyway because sites I hunt usually mean I just reject iron nails and recover all other targets.

Beyond that, I sure wish they would make a 12" Double D coil for the low frequency Whites lines (QXT, XLT, etc).

Not me. I am not a Double-D fan, having used several factory DD designed and aftermarket DD coils on different available White's models, and comparing them side-by-side with a similar-size Concentric coil, the concentric wins out. A little better depth, better discrimination, easier pinpointing, and that makes it, to me, a better all-purpose search coil design.

I also am not excited about search coils getting too large because from ample in-the-field comparisons, you hit a point where the bigger coils cause more masking problems, impaired response to smaller-size targets, and they naturally 'see' more ground and that can also cut in on performance. Oh, and then there is the added weight and less than exciting balance they cause.

I owned two brand new Hot Shots but they became unstable after about 5 or 10 minutes of use.

I had them, I borrowed them, I helped others check theirs out and .... totally unimpressed! I agree with you on those coils.

If there was a larger DD coil for the QXT to push the depths further I'd still be using one. I'd love to see a SEF 12x10 for it. A low frequency machine with a larger DD coil to handle ground minerals better and hit harder on silver/copper would be killer.

I still don't think so and have tried as many production and prototype coil designs on those models as possible and still didn't like DD's or larger sizes.

Depth? I was hunting with a friend who was using his Minelab Explorer II, and it was using the 10

 

[deputydawg16]

Everyone keeps saying IDX Pro modified how is it modified?
I have the QXT Pro and do like it I have never used the IDX Pro so can't compare the two.
I have read post from Monte and Critter they have been fighting over the QXT for years, you can find the posts on many different forums they have been going at it for years.
I do know that no matter where you go on the web looking for QXT info you always get referred to Critters tips on it. No other real info exists on the QXT as far as tests or programs go. Monte seems to be the expert on the IDX and has many post about it.
I have been using mine for a few months now and find it to be good on depth great on ID and pinpointing. Yes it takes some getting used to but it does work well for ME it may not for someone else. I have detected for several years with a Garrett Ace 150 so I am no expert by any means. I can say at first I was doubting the thing but once I work with and learned how a whites works it is a breeze. I would like to try the IDX to see the difference. But when you look at it both are aging machines and an M6 is probably a better choice at this time.
No sense saying mine is better than yours. We all think about the next best and what I may find with it, the grass is always greener on the other side and what I might have found with a different detector but, it's a hobby for most so just find what works for you and enjoy.
Just my thoughts and if you want to settle the thing someone send me an IDX Pro and I will test them both side by side and give you honest results. LOL

 

[Monte]

If we both wallowed is disbelief of the other's personal opinions, then we would be wrong. If we doubted that a certain make and model did or did not work for the other, then we would be wrong. If we both felt that our personal preference for these two models was a bad pick, then obviously, Thomas would be wrong. .... Okay, Critterhunter, I just couldn't resist.

With any make and model (or models) that people personally pick to use, all any of us can hope is that they learn their detector well, learn and know the strengths and weaknesses (every detector has both), and then apply all we know about then=m and have learned about this great sport in our chosen types of searches, and in the ground and target (trash) challenges we face. Different locations, different ground, different general conditions makes it tough for one person to say the other is totally wrong. The best thing is to help them in their path to learn the 'How-To's' of mastering their detectors and wishing everyone the best of success.

Everyone keeps saying IDX Pro modified how is it modified?

While others can make some modifications,. the person who really started the Classic series modifications and has done the most with them is Bill 'Mr. Bill' Crabtree. Some people have asked how his modifications came about and 'Mr. Bill's' own reply to that is readable here: "It was Monte's fault."

It started with the White's Classic III SL which is a non-display model, and later 'Mr. Bill' continued to modify any of the Classic series, and my personal favorites are the modified IDX Pro (currently my main-use detector), and the modified Classic III SL (which I prefer with a 4" or 6

 

[basstrackerman]

glad you like it tabman.. that makes one of us. lol