Right on Terry, those two Tesoros very likely would have waxed the detectors in the video for recovery time and target separation. They can keep the 3030, I never have been impressed with it. The Blisstool did 2nd worst because it sounds like a clipped sawtooth or square wave signal. I wouldn't dig that chopped Blisstool sound in a hundred years, it sounds clearly like a Fisher iron signal to me. The Deus was almost as bad, the F75 not doing well either. HOWEVER, the discrimination increments could be unmatched/unequal in all the detectors, thereby decreasing or increasing the voltage, hence regulating a cleaner/less clean, signal, a more/less distinct signal. Overall, the test needs some prep work to prove that ALL the detectors are set to reject or not reject the nail AND the coin, or either, and before hand too. That Blisstool is somewhat tempting though for its strong signal, as long as the dirt isn't too high in iron, or if it is being run in all-metal. However, running a vLF detector in all-metal is not reasonable to me since I have a PI that goes deeper to start with. Yes, I too would opt for either of the Tesoros you mentioned, and in that type of soil the Vaquero would likely win the race and be my first choice for cherry-picking/conductivity sampling.
BTW, a Teknetics Omega or a Compass Gold Scanner Pro would have spanked them for iron separation and recovery time too.
Also, Tesoros are world-wide known to be uncommonly good at target separation, fast recovery time, and iron discrimination.
Some comparisons for us all: And the newer Vaquero and Cibola outshine these older Tesoros in that regard. The 3030 struggles with these tests, and the Blisstool gives out a sound like a linear piece of iron, a double-blip.
The blisstool:
The Minelab 3030. Rather embarrasing too:
