XLT vs DFX

[jlw]

There is not a big price difference with these two detectors, with the DFX having two frequencies I would think either the XLT would be less expensive or the DFX more. Anyone care to elaborate on this?

 

[Larry (IL)]

The main differences I can see would be the dual frequency of the DFX will be more stable on wet beaches and the DFX is a little hotter on small gold jewelry with the 15 kHz frequency. The DFX has a correlate mode that compares both frequencies with the target which is very good in bad EMI conditions if you need it. You also have a larger selection of compatible coils to choose from with the DFX. If you are a coin/ring hunter on dry ground though, it is hard to beat the XLT for performance and simplicity. The downside of the DFX is the learning curve is quite steep.

 

[Monte]

There is not a big price difference with these two detectors, with the DFX having two frequencies I would think either the XLT would be less expensive or the DFX more.

Actually, there is a good price difference between these two models, as well as some conclusions one might make.

First, there was very little difference in price between the XLT and DFX when both were in regular production and both came equipped with the 950 size coil. The XLT had been around for a long tome and was well proven, and the DFX was sort of built from the XLT design. It did cost a little more, but that was due top the dual frequency and related new adjustments it came with. As Larry (IL) stated below, the DFX might have required a little longer learning time to get things to happen the way the design engineer tinkered for.

Personally, having owned a LOT of XLT's and 4 DFX's, plus using others I borrowed, I found that both of them had adjustment function that could easily mess up the performance if they were activated, or if overly adjusted from the factory default. I know and I've seen it all too often. Adjustment features were added to the DFX that could make you think it was capable of working like many other models, but it fell/falls quite short of even matching the superior MXT.

I've watched a number of avid DFX users and even very savvy dealers to to adjust it to make it duplicate the MXT, but you can't. Each detector has its own character or personality and that's how it is. Just like meeting a stranger and spending a little time with them, you either like them or you don't and that how it is with detectors.

Of the two I definitely favor the XLT and have had a lot of very good success with it. Then, last year, the XLT was discontinued. You might check with a few dealers to see who still has one in stock or who might order one for you because they might make you a good deal. I will be picking up a new XLT this weekend, and this one will stay in my personal detector battery.

The DFX was also sold as the DFX 3000 and came with a different decal and the 12" (300mm) search coil. It sells for a higher price and, In my opinion, isn't one of the better marketing moves White's has offered. The 950 coil is by far more useful on this model. the result is that the current DFX 300 retails for quite a bit more, and the basic DFX w/950 is no more, unless a dealer has one. The XLT is no more, unless a dealer has one.

You could guess that maybe sometime soon the DFX will also be dropped as a newer model might take its place,. Now, that's just a guess.

If you don't have either and you're looking for a very good-to-excellent coin hunting unit,. I'd suggest the XLT. Use the stock 950 in open areas and buy the 6

 

[Jim West Pa]

n/t

 

[widebody]

[size=large]you seem to be jumping around on these machines. it's a hazard of metal detecting. it's like looking for the perfect pick-up truck.
in this case i can see you will love the mxt pro. just forget the dfx. too many couldn't understand it and it didn't live up to the hype. the mxt has the largest following
of any detector i've seen. i love my xlt but really want to get the mxt pro. won't sell the xlt though.
i'm just basing my opinion on your posts. i'd say you'll be very happy with the pro. jmoh[/size]

 

[kyledfx]

my opinion , get the newest flagship model [v3i] this will eliminate all the what ifs. besides would you want a computer designed in 1990? its a technology thing. my new v makes my dfx seem really outdated.

 

[Southwind]

Adjustment features were added to the DFX that could make you think it was capable of working like many other models, but it fell/falls quite short of even matching the superior MXT

Well I know you have a fan club and for the most part seem to be knowledgeable on some detectors, but I find this to seem more like the remarks of inexperience.

As a long time White's fan I used both the XLT and DFX extensively side by side and found completely the opposite. The DFX adjustment do very well at reproducing the abilities of detectors such as the XLT. I will agree with your statement about the MXT, which is a totally different machine altogether. Far superior ground tracking.

Anyway, The DFX was far more than a XLT with a few extra features. My god the difference between 6.5 KHZ and a detector that can do 3 KHZ, 15KHZ or both should make it quite obvious which should give superior performance in more conditions. Common sense people. It can go a long way toward making your own decisions.

 

[Hombre]

Southwind, dude at 6:30 am, are you sure you had your morning coffee before you wrote this ?

Quote: "Well I know you have a fan club and for the most part seem to be knowlegable on some detectors, but I find this to seem more like remarks of inexperience."are you asking this about Monte???Get a grip on reality man, he has handled them all.

We have gone around on this subject before, and I hunted with you on your home turf last fall. I had an XLT for 6 years and traded "up" to a DFX in 2001 when they first came out. The XLT was much more stable than the DFX ever was on even 'good ground'. The DFX was more twitchy on ID than the XLT and I'm not so sure that the XLT was'nt deeper, if that is of any importance. The most important operating characteristics of a detector to me is how good it runs in the nails, in the old yards that I hunt alot in. The XLT was more calmer when running in the 'iron' than the DFX ever was, and I felt gyped by the upgrade when I traded. The 2,3,4 & 6 ground filters were a joke, I found the DFX much more stable in 3 filter, 2 filter......fagetabodit. 6......worthless in my ground and too much ring time and would mask badly. I now have a 6000 Pro XL, the analog version of the XLT, and to me is the best fast sweep detector I have ever used. You will have to come to my turf and hunt with me, it is an open invitation and will have a great time, I can line up some places.

Regards

 

[Larry (IL)]

Monte, Southwind, Hombre and many others are all right in their own ways. Those who used the DFX seem to either hate it or love it, it doesn't seem to be many that are riding the fence. I am one of those who had great success with the DFX, but I quite trying to convince others many years ago that one detector or another is the best. You either have a good relationship with your detector or you don't. Some people can use a detector for a few hours and they know they will never like it no matter what, it just never clicked with them. It took me a full year to understand the DFX and make it work for me, many don't have the patients and give up long before that happens to them.

All of the top of the line detectors are very good at what they do and some just work better for some people in their ground than others. In today's terms the DFX is seeing the end of it's life cycle just like the XLT has and the many dozens before them, technology has passed them by. What detector is best? It is the one you know how to use.

 

[Southwind]

Obviously the experience we have differ so all you can do is state your experience and not tell others what they will experience. That is what I don't like. People who tell others what they will experience based on what they believe. It doesn't happen that way. Since the experience of others can, and does, vary a lot, then all you can do is base a factual expectation based on the specs of a detector. Everything else is nothing but opinion. So here is the facts based on facts not opinion.

We all know higher frequencies perform better on low conductors such as gold. We also know that lower frequencies perform better on lower conductors such as silver and tend to penetrate deeper in the ground. All things being equal of course. OK with this knowledge it is not rocket science to see a detector that can operate at 3 KHZ, 15 KHZ or both would clearly out perform a detector operating at 6.5 KHZ, which is not optimized for either high or low conductors, all things being equal. It's not opinion it's science. That is what I'm talking about.

We also know, for a fact, that the right coil can improve performance. The DFX has far more optional coils than the XLT. Once again a fact that can't be denied that says the DFX has more capability to out perform the XLT.

With just these few facts about the difference between the XLT and DFX how can anyone intelligently claim the XLT is a better detector? I just think it's wrong to mislead people who may be new to metal detecting because some people like to believe their opinion is gospel and fact. It happened to me many year ago and I call people are the carpet for it now. If you're going to state it as fact then be ready to back it up with proof or be prepared to be called on it. If all your posting is your opinion then let it be know it's nothing more than your opinion.

I have used the Eagle Spectrum for 18 years, the DFX for 8 years and I used the XLT for more than 2 years I have hands on experience with both the XLT and DFX. The DFX blew away my XLT and I personally felt the XLT was simply a Eagle Spectrum in a smaller box. I pulled coin out of the same city park we hunted for year with the DFX after the XLT found noting. Of course that is only my experience, but you can't ignore that facts and the facts are the DFX should be all specs blow the XLT away in more conditions.

I do apologize to Monte for being so abrasive. I do have a short fuse when I feel people are being mislead.

 

[Monte]

Adjustment features were added to the DFX that could make you think it was capable of working like many other models, but it fell/falls quite short of even matching the superior MXT

Well I know you have a fan club and for the most part seem to be knowledgeable on some detectors, but I find this to seem more like the remarks of inexperience.

I don't know about a 'fan club,' but I do know some people appreciate some of the help I offer, and eve respect some of my personal opinions. For the most part I seem knowledgeable? Well, 'Thank You,' I appreciate that, and if I am unfamiliar with a model I generally state that. If I have some experience with it, I state that as well.

As for inexperienced, I might suggest that all of us are. I have always wanted to learn more, or understand better, how metal detectors work and differ from the competition, and I like to know their strengths and weaknesses, too. I was in my 6th year of detecting when, in 1971, I evaluated my approach to metal detectors and detecting and concluded that there were two things I wanted to do whenever I handled any detector.

It didn't matter if I picked a detector up in the house to tinker with, used it in the yard, or went detecting, I could try helping an individual with theirs, be in a dealer's shop, doing a field evaluation on a new model, it didn't matter. The 1st thing I want to do whenever I turn a detector on, back then or now, 40 years later, is to learn something new or refresh my memory about something I have learned in the past.

The 2nd thing I wanted to do was enjoy the hunt and find something of interest. The harder I work at achieving #1, the better my success and comfort at achieving #2.

Personally, having owned a LOT of XLT's and 4 DFX's, plus using others I borrowed, I found that both of them had adjustment functions that could easily mess up the performance if they were activated, or if overly adjusted from the factory default. I know and I've seen it all too often. Adjustment features were added to the DFX that could make you think it was capable of working like many other models, but it fell/falls quite short of even matching the superior MXT.

As a long time White's fan I used both the XLT and DFX extensively and found completely the opposite. The DFX adjustment do very well at reproducing the abilities of detectors such as the XLT. I will agree with your statement about the MXT, which is a totally different machine altogether. Far superior ground tracking.

I'm glad you're also a fan of White's products. I guess I should say SOME of White's products because I suspect you don't like them all or use them all. You've narrowed your selection to a model(s) that satisfy your needs, and that's good.

Note that I have owned them both. Both have some similar adjustment functions that, and this is from experience and is a conclusion of both fact and opinion, use of or over-adjustment of these, on both the XLT and DFX, can result in terrible performance.

It's also a fact that while the DFX is newer and does provide some adjustment of the Auto-Trac speed and recovery rate, etc., that some people can be misled to think it can be made to work like other models. It pales in comparison to White's own MXT. That's both fact and opinion.

Anyway, The DFX was far more than a XLT with a few extra features. My god the difference between 6.5 KHZ and a detector that can do 3 KHZ, 15KHZ or both should make it quite obvious which should give superior performance in more conditions. Common sense people. It can go a long way toward making your own decisions.

I would say the DFX has more features, but not really 'far' more, or that they really make all that much difference. Some will, a little, and some won't. For example, I like to be able to fine-tune some of the more versatile adjustments of a model, like Pre-Amp Gain. I like the 1 to 15 adjustment settings of the XLT to the 1 to 4 choices with the DFX.

As for operating frequencies, if two are better, at 3 kHz and 15 kHz, why aren't you using a Minelab Sovereign with 17 frequencies, or the Minelab Explorer FBS series with a suggested 28 frequencies? Wouldn't that be even better?

Just because a model offers more than one frequency doesn't really mean that it works better than a model with only one frequency or fewer frequencies. The BBS and FBS models from the other guy don't really transmit all those frequencies at the very same time, and multi-frequency operation comes with its own sets of trade-offs, I'm sure. The DFX does as well.

Have you used the DFX in highly mineralized park soil that has a Ground Phase setting of 81

 

[TerraDigger]

Last I heard....your a human being.....of course your going to have opinions & favorites. We love your op's & fav's.

 

[Joel-Winnipeg]

Good post
I,ll stick with both my XLT and MXT

 

[Southwind]

Naturally, we each have our own opinions about two similar yet conflicting models. I'm a devoted follower of one while you apparently favor the other.

Now, let's all go detecting!

Ah! Something we can agree on!

 

[gambler13]

Monte,
Don't allow one individual to change your sharing your "opinions". I have learned a great deal from you and your experience as I'm sure many others have as well. You, and Digger on a different forum, have been a wealth of knowledge to me and both of you have responded to all my pm's also. I personally thank you for your opinions and advice as well as that from others. It is advice, if you like it then go with it, if you don't then ignore it. One thing any person in this hobby has to remember is that "your" ground and the way you hunt can make a huge difference to machine comparisons.

 

[Southwind]

Ah I don't see Monte as the type to let a person like me stop offering advice. We may not agree on a lot of things, but as I said I believe he is very knowledgeable and seems more than willing to help. Can't fault a person for that.