(11-13-2014 07:44 PM)NjNyDigger Wrote: [ -> ] (11-13-2014 07:35 PM)PittsburghWill Wrote: [ -> ] (11-13-2014 03:20 PM)NjNyDigger Wrote: [ -> ]Yes, only an opinion, yet, one I agree with FULLY. As I've mentioned before, I own a CZ3D, which was tuned by Dankowski himself. Crazy deep!!! However, it has a nasty habit of calling deep iron as 'good' targets. Now, in fairness, ALL detectors do once a certain depth bracket is exceeded, but it's MUCH more pronounced with the CZ. On just raw power though, it will meet, and probably exceed the depth of any Minelab, with the exception of the GPX's.
I'm a loyal disciple of hunting in all metal, except for the nastiest, trashiest of sites. I know people that just won't do it, though. Why? Beyond me. My hunting buddy Gerry is as experienced as they come, and he prefers discrim mode. I'll call him over to cross check my targets, and on a real deep one, HIS MACHINE WON'T EVEN HEAR IT! Or, it'll sound crappy & broken. Telling.
Why hunt in discrim when one loses so much depth?! Further, on ML's, there's the evil that is nulling, which is another reason to go all metal. Imagine if your machine nulled out over a piece of iron with a seated dime right next to it. You're screwed!
Joe
I've not used a Minelab. What is the all metal like on them. I have used all metal a little on the T2 and the Lobo ST. They both sound like sick squawky birds. What does yours sound like? I've heard that some machines have an "all metal" mode. It's really just a wide open disc mode. I thinks it's Garretts that I read that about.
They don't sound any different, Will, at least on my Safari they don't. The benefits though, are added depth & no nulling. The tones are the same. Now that I'm used to hunting in all metal, it's VERY difficult for me when I have to go into discrim at super trashy sites. I become very paranoid about depth, and worry that I'm missing stuff. Not comfortable.
Joe
Sounds like my T2 in disc wide open. That's how I use it when I use it. I haven't been using it much lately since I'm liking the TDI so much. I've thought about selling the T2 over the winter and trying a ML. I'm afraid I may regret it though.
(11-13-2014 08:12 PM)PittsburghWill Wrote: [ -> ] (11-13-2014 07:44 PM)NjNyDigger Wrote: [ -> ] (11-13-2014 07:35 PM)PittsburghWill Wrote: [ -> ] (11-13-2014 03:20 PM)NjNyDigger Wrote: [ -> ]Yes, only an opinion, yet, one I agree with FULLY. As I've mentioned before, I own a CZ3D, which was tuned by Dankowski himself. Crazy deep!!! However, it has a nasty habit of calling deep iron as 'good' targets. Now, in fairness, ALL detectors do once a certain depth bracket is exceeded, but it's MUCH more pronounced with the CZ. On just raw power though, it will meet, and probably exceed the depth of any Minelab, with the exception of the GPX's.
I'm a loyal disciple of hunting in all metal, except for the nastiest, trashiest of sites. I know people that just won't do it, though. Why? Beyond me. My hunting buddy Gerry is as experienced as they come, and he prefers discrim mode. I'll call him over to cross check my targets, and on a real deep one, HIS MACHINE WON'T EVEN HEAR IT! Or, it'll sound crappy & broken. Telling.
Why hunt in discrim when one loses so much depth?! Further, on ML's, there's the evil that is nulling, which is another reason to go all metal. Imagine if your machine nulled out over a piece of iron with a seated dime right next to it. You're screwed!
Joe
I've not used a Minelab. What is the all metal like on them. I have used all metal a little on the T2 and the Lobo ST. They both sound like sick squawky birds. What does yours sound like? I've heard that some machines have an "all metal" mode. It's really just a wide open disc mode. I thinks it's Garretts that I read that about.
They don't sound any different, Will, at least on my Safari they don't. The benefits though, are added depth & no nulling. The tones are the same. Now that I'm used to hunting in all metal, it's VERY difficult for me when I have to go into discrim at super trashy sites. I become very paranoid about depth, and worry that I'm missing stuff. Not comfortable.
Joe
Sounds like my T2 in disc wide open. That's how I use it when I use it. I haven't been using it much lately since I'm liking the TDI so much. I've thought about selling the T2 over the winter and trying a ML. I'm afraid I may regret it though.
Depends what you want to find. Coins? You will NOT regret it. Beach? Same deal. Relics? I'd stick with the T2. Of course, as I always say, machine comes after the SPOT in terms of importance, IMO.
Joe
(11-13-2014 08:23 PM)NjNyDigger Wrote: [ -> ] (11-13-2014 08:12 PM)PittsburghWill Wrote: [ -> ] (11-13-2014 07:44 PM)NjNyDigger Wrote: [ -> ] (11-13-2014 07:35 PM)PittsburghWill Wrote: [ -> ] (11-13-2014 03:20 PM)NjNyDigger Wrote: [ -> ]Yes, only an opinion, yet, one I agree with FULLY. As I've mentioned before, I own a CZ3D, which was tuned by Dankowski himself. Crazy deep!!! However, it has a nasty habit of calling deep iron as 'good' targets. Now, in fairness, ALL detectors do once a certain depth bracket is exceeded, but it's MUCH more pronounced with the CZ. On just raw power though, it will meet, and probably exceed the depth of any Minelab, with the exception of the GPX's.
I'm a loyal disciple of hunting in all metal, except for the nastiest, trashiest of sites. I know people that just won't do it, though. Why? Beyond me. My hunting buddy Gerry is as experienced as they come, and he prefers discrim mode. I'll call him over to cross check my targets, and on a real deep one, HIS MACHINE WON'T EVEN HEAR IT! Or, it'll sound crappy & broken. Telling.
Why hunt in discrim when one loses so much depth?! Further, on ML's, there's the evil that is nulling, which is another reason to go all metal. Imagine if your machine nulled out over a piece of iron with a seated dime right next to it. You're screwed!
Joe
I've not used a Minelab. What is the all metal like on them. I have used all metal a little on the T2 and the Lobo ST. They both sound like sick squawky birds. What does yours sound like? I've heard that some machines have an "all metal" mode. It's really just a wide open disc mode. I thinks it's Garretts that I read that about.
They don't sound any different, Will, at least on my Safari they don't. The benefits though, are added depth & no nulling. The tones are the same. Now that I'm used to hunting in all metal, it's VERY difficult for me when I have to go into discrim at super trashy sites. I become very paranoid about depth, and worry that I'm missing stuff. Not comfortable.
Joe
Sounds like my T2 in disc wide open. That's how I use it when I use it. I haven't been using it much lately since I'm liking the TDI so much. I've thought about selling the T2 over the winter and trying a ML. I'm afraid I may regret it though.
Depends what you want to find. Coins? You will NOT regret it. Beach? Same deal. Relics? I'd stick with the T2. Of course, as I always say, machine comes after the SPOT in terms of importance, IMO.
Joe
What would make the T2 better for relics? I know a guy up in NY that found over 100 silvers one year with the T2 I have now. It finds everything. Everyone says the MLs are best for deep silver though. That guy that had the T2 uses a ML now.
I have another theory on screen vs no screen. If you have no screen the screen can't make you second guess the sound. That doesn't make the machine go deeper, but it makes you believe in the sound more. I know I've caught myself spending way too much time looking at the screen and swinging over a target trying to get a solid ID. At this point my time would be way better spent just digging the target.
(11-13-2014 09:12 PM)PittsburghWill Wrote: [ -> ]I have another theory on screen vs no screen. If you have no screen the screen can't make you second guess the sound. That doesn't make the machine go deeper, but it makes you believe in the sound more. I know I've caught myself spending way too much time looking at the screen and swinging over a target trying to get a solid ID. At this point my time would be way better spent just digging the target.
VERY true. While I could easily go without having a screen in a snap, if the machine was good, having a screen on the RIGHT machine (accurate at depth) is pretty tough to beat. I don't hunt by tone alone, or screen/VID for that matter, either. I use ALL available info on each and every target, in this order...
1. Tone. Is it clear? Broken? Loud? Faint?
2. VID #. Is it in the range I'm targeting? Nickel, and then penny & up. Nothing in between unless I'm at the beach or a special dig-it-all kinda spot. Is the # steady? Bouncy? How much of a bounce?
3. Depth. This is a critical one. I seldom dig shallow targets unless I'm at a super old spot. Is it surface? Deep? How deep?
4. Circle the target. I do a compete circle/walk around on every signal. Does all of the above info hold true? Do the #'s & tone change dramatically as I circle the signal? Does the depth change at all? This is a very telling move. Many times, what sounded initially like a great signal will turn out to be a 'bleeder' signal (surface hit that sounded deeper because I wasn't swinging directly over the target). Iron can also sound great from one angle, but reveal itself during the walk around.
5. Target size when pinpointing. If all of the above info is to my liking, I'll then pinpoint the target. Is the pinpoint loud? Soft? Large? Small? Tight? Drawn out?
I do this religiously on 95% of my signals. While it sounds like a pain in the ass & complicated, it's not. Second nature, and only takes a few seconds. Yet, it's the perfect 'qualifier' for me, as it cuts down on digging a lot of what I don't want to.
Joe
(11-13-2014 09:42 PM)NjNyDigger Wrote: [ -> ] (11-13-2014 09:12 PM)PittsburghWill Wrote: [ -> ]I have another theory on screen vs no screen. If you have no screen the screen can't make you second guess the sound. That doesn't make the machine go deeper, but it makes you believe in the sound more. I know I've caught myself spending way too much time looking at the screen and swinging over a target trying to get a solid ID. At this point my time would be way better spent just digging the target.
VERY true. While I could easily go without having a screen in a snap, if the machine was good, having a screen on the RIGHT machine (accurate at depth) is pretty tough to beat. I don't hunt by tone alone, or screen/VID for that matter, either. I use ALL available info on each and every target, in this order...
1. Tone. Is it clear? Broken? Loud? Faint?
2. VID #. Is it in the range I'm targeting? Nickel, and then penny & up. Nothing in between unless I'm at the beach or a special dig-it-all kinda spot. Is the # steady? Bouncy? How much of a bounce?
3. Depth. This is a critical one. I seldom dig shallow targets unless I'm at a super old spot. Is it surface? Deep? How deep?
4. Circle the target. I do a compete circle/walk around on every signal. Does all of the above info hold true? Do the #'s & tone change dramatically as I circle the signal? Does the depth change at all? This is a very telling move. Many times, what sounded initially like a great signal will turn out to be a 'bleeder' signal (surface hit that sounded deeper because I wasn't swinging directly over the target). Iron can also sound great from one angle, but reveal itself during the walk around.
5. Target size when pinpointing. If all of the above info is to my liking, I'll then pinpoint the target. Is the pinpoint loud? Soft? Large? Small? Tight? Drawn out?
I do this religiously on 95% of my signals. While it sounds like a pain in the ass & complicated, it's not. Second nature, and only takes a few seconds. Yet, it's the perfect 'qualifier' for me, as it cuts down on digging a lot of what I don't want to.
Joe
Joe,
I follow that same procedure as well. In a lot of cases, on some of my finds, I've been up against a tree where the coil is not centered on the target. In some cases I get the tone I want but the VID numbers are off, not by much, but off. I think this is because the accuracy of the VID comes from the center of the wave cone. If you can't get right over the target the VID won't match. But the tone is the give away in all cases. The only time I really rely on just the tone is when I have other targets at various depths. When I can find and hold tone in a trashy area, I dig a wider plug and usually come out ok.
As far as having a VID and using it vs. a sound only machine, I agree with Wayne. Both machines were designed for maximum depth in all metals with no disc whatsoever. Once you start tweaking either type, the depth goes with it. Both were engineered that way. The more filtering you do, the less speed and the less depth you get. IMHO and with some experience.
I've never used a sound only machine (Detector Pro for example) and when I was first looking at them they didn't make much sense to me. I understand it better now and have seen some pretty good stuff dug up with them so they do work. It would make me uneasy though as I am so used to looking at the damn VID.
Ed
Good question Joe, Well I can give you a yes and no. Depending on which machines you are talking about and what targets you are looking for. I have detected with or used a lot of machines over the years some meter some not. The machines with meters that get great depth are the explorers and whites MXT when guys with me were using shadows X5 good machine but no meter we both had depth but they couldn't tell what there targets were I had to check them all the time and when I stopped doing that they switched machines .
Probley it would be more fair to test machines in same price range than to test meter or not. Sure a non meter machine like shadow would go deeper than a ace 250 with a meter