sgoss66
Well-known member
I agree with this post from Always Curious, FWIW.
In my opinion, if you are going to "bin" things, your machine has to be extremely accurate, and even then, I feel you are missing some of what the machine's "language" is capable of.
To me, it's better to hear EVERYTHING the machine is trying to tell you. I dug a deep Barber Dime today, for instance, with NO ID at any point that was higher than 22. But I knew it needed to be dug, based on the way it was responding, and based on other good coins I'd dug. Once the plug was out of the hole, and scanning it from the side, I got the "right" tones, and ID. But in the ground, shallower/nearby trash was skewing the ID a little. "Binning" things too tightly may not have alerted me to that target nearly as well as the full 50 tones did...
An analogy for me (though not perfect one) is text, versus spoken language. I can write a sentence in text, and you can generally get the meaning. BUT -- I can add quite a bit of nuance/meaning, or even completely CHANGE the meaning, of the very same sentence, through my voice inflections (pitch/tone changes), etc. To me, running a few tones a detector is like reading a text message. Usually, you'll "get" what the machine is telling you. BUT -- running multi-tones (once you have given yourself the time to fully understand the machine's language) is much more akin to the SPOKEN word, with all the little voice inflections (pitch/tone/volume nuances) and such -- that really act "fill out" the meaning of what is being communicated...
Just my opinions/two cents...
Steve
In my opinion, if you are going to "bin" things, your machine has to be extremely accurate, and even then, I feel you are missing some of what the machine's "language" is capable of.
To me, it's better to hear EVERYTHING the machine is trying to tell you. I dug a deep Barber Dime today, for instance, with NO ID at any point that was higher than 22. But I knew it needed to be dug, based on the way it was responding, and based on other good coins I'd dug. Once the plug was out of the hole, and scanning it from the side, I got the "right" tones, and ID. But in the ground, shallower/nearby trash was skewing the ID a little. "Binning" things too tightly may not have alerted me to that target nearly as well as the full 50 tones did...
An analogy for me (though not perfect one) is text, versus spoken language. I can write a sentence in text, and you can generally get the meaning. BUT -- I can add quite a bit of nuance/meaning, or even completely CHANGE the meaning, of the very same sentence, through my voice inflections (pitch/tone changes), etc. To me, running a few tones a detector is like reading a text message. Usually, you'll "get" what the machine is telling you. BUT -- running multi-tones (once you have given yourself the time to fully understand the machine's language) is much more akin to the SPOKEN word, with all the little voice inflections (pitch/tone/volume nuances) and such -- that really act "fill out" the meaning of what is being communicated...
Just my opinions/two cents...
Steve
Always Curious said:I have 2 tones down really good after running my Etrac for several years now. I wish I could set up for 3 tones, High for Silver, Mid for Nickels, and the rest low, real low. If anyone has ever hunted a vacant lot that the house was demolished knows that the less tones the better, IMO, along with great separation...... If you're faced with this, why not cut through the clutter and try to sniff out that silver.
5 tones will have to do for now, for me, until!
I just don't think the binary (or 'trinary'--is that a word?) approach works with the Nox. I feel that the Nox is not as precise in its signals as the Etrac, and that I need as much of the surrounding information as I can get in order to make the dig decision (which is binary, I guess, but me making it, not the machine). Anyway, that's the hope and the reason I am now using 50 tones. We'll see if it works...
