Who Thinks Detector Technology (Too Many Features) Is Actually Taking Away From The Joy Of Detecting? Stop The Train Because I Want To Get Off!

[Critterhunter]

Now, don't get me wrong. I want to know I'm using a machine that gets as much raw depth as any other, and one machine can be better than another in that ability due to how well they compensate for ground minerals. That's why I use a machine that has the best ground mineral ignoring capabilities I can find.

But, setting aside how well the machine can ignore the minerals in the ground as a non-issue and no longer a problem with the right machine, there are limits to the physics of VLF detector technology in terms of the depth and size of the detection field. Once that is maxed out (depth in terms of being able to ignore ground minerals, which it has been for the most part on some machines) you can't get any deeper unless you go to a bigger coil due to the laws of physics that govern the traits of the generated magnetic fields the coils can generate. Sure, some machines got less depth due to how they handled the ground signal than others, but on some machines that's no longer a limiting issue. And that doesn't affect the physical size of the magnetic field the coil is putting out, but rather how well the detector can process and ignore the ground signal while reporting the target found within.

Once you've resolved the effects of ground mineralization in processing the signal (which certain machines do better at than others), there is no other way to "see" deeper unless you use a bigger coil to generate a bigger detection field. Well, there is one exception to that rule...You can provide more voltage to the TX winding in the coil to generate a bigger field but that has it's drawbacks. I know on one machine there was an aftermarket amp designed to feed more voltage to the coil but for many people it showed less depth due to the ground "glare" created by the stronger detection field with the higher voltage it used. That's why most machines have a static TX power setting that can't be changed, because the strength of that field has already been maxed to where anything beyond would actually cost you depth. Sensitivity control only adjusts the gain or amplification of the received signal from the RX coil (received signal), and doesn't affect the transmitted signal into the ground. Really if a machine is very good at ignoring the ground signal the only pratical way to increase depth is by increasing coil size. That has it's limits too, as a bigger coil can see too much ground matrix and actually wash away or degrade the target signal that is mixed in with it.

Beyond that, separation ability also follows the laws of physics. A detection field can't see around corners. Nor can it go past a shallower trash signal that it's also lighting up to see a deeper coin signal near it. The field warps or bends and stops with the first peice of metal it hits. Recovery speed can be an issue for those who like to swing faster, but if you swing slow enough it's a non-issue for slow recovery machines. Where unmasking or separation ability really matters is in just how sharp the detection field is that the coil is generating so you can "light up" one signal and not the target next to it.

No amount of cramming electronics into a machine can change these depth or separation limits in the laws of physics. Sure, if the machine can't handle ground minerals as well as some others then that will cost you depth. But if it does well at ignoring the ground minerals then it's limited by the share size of the detection field based on coil size. There is a point where you reach a glass ceiling, and no amount of electronics can do anything better with the limits of what the physical size of the detection field can reach.

Having some programming features are nice but there comes a point when handy features become a tacky boondoggle. All I really care about is raw depth and the sharpness of the detection field (which is why I use a SEF 12x10 with it's super tight left/right compressed field). All the rest of the stuff doesn't really matter for performance. They are just fancy flashy features designed to get you to shell out more cash. I just want the raw power in the ground and I'll let my eyes and ears do the rest, which are your best discriminating tools. I don't even prefer machines that have a highly software processed VDI or audio report because that puts you further away from the true nature of the original signal. I want the raw data to see and hear and go from there.

 

[Larry (IL)]

You seem to do a lot of complaining about the newer detectors with a lot of features.......... is someone making you buy them? What is your beef with free enterprise? The Metal Detecting manufactures are trying to make a buck by filling a niche to a limited market....... how is all of this affecting you and your detecting?

 

[TerraDigger]

Advanced features are good. One can choose to use them...or not. But as Larry pointed out. Its up to the detectorist to buy what suits them.

 

[mudpuppy]

When compounds came on the market, you could buy a sweet recurve for 5 bucks, and I did, a lot of them...then compounds continued to get more and more complecated with sights, stabilizers, overdraw systems, etc...arrows too...technology just kept coming, and plenty of people are buying, shooting, and hitting farther and more accurate than an instinctive shooter with a recurve can...still, as in this sport, it boils down to knowing what your effective range is with the gear you prefer, your target signs, and lots of practice... I like the width of the technology available in both worlds, amazing accomplishements are made by both the techies and the primitive, and we all enjoy and cheer each other on!.

 

[Jason in Enid]

If you want off this train then you better jump sucker! This train ain't slowing down, and there's no way that finding more goodies without digging every piece of trah in the dirt is a bad thing!

 

[thump7]

When they make a machine that can identify gold, I will acknowledge that an improvement has been made. Until then why spend big $$$ on any new machine that may or may not I.D. a target as well as a trained ear and a good analog audio?
IMHO.

 

[John(Tx)]

That is exactly how I feel, when a machine comes out that can give you the exact image of the item in the ground I will buy it in a heartbeat, until then..........

 

[wasp]

Critter, sounds like you've been off the train for a long time. Jumped or pushed??

Not me, I want to ride that baby as far as I can.

 

[matthias]

I guess I like it all. Thats why I own a Sovereign GT without a meter and I own a White's DFX. I feel both detectors have there time and place. HH. Matt

 

[widebody]

[size=large]sounds like you'd like to be a purist but need the improvements that have been made up to a limit. everyone needs sensitivity and ground bal. and the basics you find on all the machines. what i hear is you don't want the extra bells and whistles that just make things a little easier for some or more fun. like purist fishermen. if it ain't a fly it ain't fishing. bait fishermen cheat and so on. it's all on you as to what or how much you want to use. i think you know that. i don't think one can say the manufacturers have gone to far. you could say they've gone to far for your taste. because of the improvements i bought my whites and then because i saw some better improvements i bought my minelab. then garrett came out with still a better machine for my needs and wants and i got one. all much better than my radio shack machine. there are those who agree with you. you're not totally wrong but you're not right either. balance for yourself.you can teach someone else to rely on their eyes and ears then you've made another purist.

HH

 

[Nauti]

I think what you are saying Critter is that a lot of the new technology that is coming out is a waste of time and i agree.A lot of the new features that come out are for the benefit of the marketing men and do nothing in the way of enchancing performance for the metal detectorist.The thing is that when a new feature comes out most of us get sucked in because we think that another new feature will improve our finds rate when in reality.....if we are honest......most of these features are just gimmicks.

 

[Critterhunter]

A lot of good conversation from some. For others, please try to share without getting personal in the defense of your views. After all, interesting conversation is what these forums are all about, isn't it? Of course many of us may differ in our views in these conversations and that's what makes it interesting, otherwise topics would be pretty boring to read, wouldn't they? So hopefully the conversation is conducted in a non-personal way with no need to attack another point of view in a personal manner.

Here's how I look at it. There comes a point, beyond raw depth and a good sharp detection field with the proper coil, where a feature is not really doing anything to improve the ability to see deeper targets in the ground or between targets to unmask then. As an example, some prefer fast machines. While it can be fun to swing faster, separation (or more precisely recovery speed) is not really an issue if you keep your sweep speed slow enough.

Beyond all that, let's delve a little deeper into what I'm trying to say so you can make sure you are getting upset or are agreeing with the point I'm trying to make. Let's look at cars. Some have tire pressure sensors for instance. Does that get you from point A to point B any faster? Of course not, it only is a useful reminder to some people who don't make it a habit to look at their tires here and there before getting in the car. There are countless other features (I say gimmicks) on cars that don't really do anything to improve it's reliability, or it's speed, or it's handling ability. In short, many of these things don't do anything for the actual performance of the car when driving down the road. Yet these days you are forced to pay extra for those features even on the most base line model a company makes.

That's where my main point is in metal detecting. I don't really care about a lot of the extras that have been crammed into some detectors that don't really do anything to help the two most important factors in terms of performance...Those being depth and separation abilities. So long as the machine has good ability at ignoring the ground signal, those two factors are largely (I would argue entirely) based on the size of the coil and the sharpness of the detection field. In terms of separation, so long as you swing slow enough separation (or more precisely recovery speed) is a non-issue.

Yet much of the cost of some machines is justified by the manufacturer by just how many features, useful to depth or separation or not, they can cram into the machine. Everybody has to draw their own conclusions in terms of criteria for just what is a gimmick and what is an actual useful feature that they will actually want in the field. That's all this thread is about. Where do you draw the line in those terms? I think the conversation on this topic could be very interesting, so please try to keep it civil and share your perspectives in those respects.