Metal Detectors - Standards or Snake Oil?

[DeepThought]

Ok...I've got the itch to upgrade already. With the cold weather (...remember the cold weather?), I read more than I dig & look at all those high-speed, low-drag detectors for sale by different companies. Trap is the more I look the less I see: there is no independent evaluator of MD performance other than the company claims. And testimonials are like vacationers to glamours countries: nobody wants to admit they paid good $ to be laid up with diarrhea during their stay. Thinking on it (no pun intended), are cockpit displays of VDI and depth estimates worth the cost .... if I am going to dig-all most of the time anyhow, and the estimates are ... estimates? In the final moments, how useful is discrimination when there is so much overlap between bands? Where's the meat? Actual detection performance (why we are here) of the various targets, under different - though relatively identical - conditions? It seems to this - granted, newbie - that the only way a person has of deciding if a particular MD will suffice is to buy it and try it. Not too efficient... When operating a taxi in NYC is sleek sedan necessary or will that Checker Cab perform just as well for the mission intended....make sense? If The electronics industry is built around standards, interfaces and protocols. Why not MDs? Thanks, all

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Cry Of The Eagle: History And Legends Of The Cherokee Indians And Their Buried Treasure - Grab it through Amazon!

[Tom_in_CA]

Ok...I've got the itch to upgrade already. With the cold weather (...remember the cold weather?), I read more than I dig & look at all those high-speed, low-drag detectors for sale by different companies. Trap is the more I look the less I see: there is no independent evaluator of MD performance other than the company claims. And testimonials are like vacationers to glamours countries: nobody wants to admit they paid good $ to be laid up with diarrhea during their stay. Thinking on it (no pun intended), are cockpit displays of VDI and depth estimates worth the cost .... if I am going to dig-all most of the time anyhow, and the estimates are ... estimates? In the final moments, how useful is discrimination when there is so much overlap between bands? Where's the meat? Actual detection performance (why we are here) of the various targets, under different - though relatively identical - conditions? It seems to this - granted, newbie - that the only way a person has of deciding if a particular MD will suffice is to buy it and try it. Not too efficient... When operating a taxi in NYC is sleek sedan necessary or will that Checker Cab perform just as well for the mission intended....make sense? If The electronics industry is built around standards, interfaces and protocols. Why not MDs? Thanks, all

Deep thought, if I am understanding your question correctly, it seems as though you lament why there isn't some sort of "consumer reviews", in much the same way as one would see consumer reviews compare, for example, cars to each other (with correlated columns so you can see MPG ratings, safety ratings, leg-room, trunk space, etc..). Or electronic appliance comparisons, etc.... Where comparing is easy as going down the columns, or seeing how many "stars" are next to the various models, brands, etc..... right?

Some people have wondered why there isn't such a thing for metal detectors too, afterall. I mean, for example, it would seem like "depth" (which we all love to compare and talk about, right?) can't just simply be a thing that you can just look at a chart of 100 different models, all lined up from deep, deeper, deepest, etc.... But NO. It's not that simple. Because there is a million variables where it's not so easy just to be able to discern "this model/unit gets a dime to XX inches deep". Because there infinate opinions on when the signal "stops". There's no one magical depth where it just ceases to "sound off". One person may say "I no longer hear it, so therefore this machine goes 8" on a dime". Whereas the next tester says "no, I still hear a whisper" and / or "if you swing the coin faster, then it still comes in". Or .... heck, .... there's machines that can air test a machine to get a dime (or a "staged" test in the ground) to 13" deep! But the disc. on that machine is all but useless beyond 6". Or there's machines that can get a dime to 18" deep! But lack ANY disc. whatsoever to do that. So as you can see, to make a "consumer review" on depth, has way too many variables, and there's way to many soils, conditions, skill-levels of actual ability to GET those results, etc.....

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

How to Research for Treasure Hunting and Metal Detecting From Lead Generation to Vetting - Grab it through Amazon!

[signal_line]

Remember your time is money. You spend a hundred hours and don't find too much, you have lost a lot of money and time. And you still won't have a good detector or know how to use one. Not only is better depth nice to have, the recovery speed and target separation and iron rejection, are just a few of the features that have vastly improved even in the last couple of years. And if you have a hot site, you will be missing many good, deep targets with the old antique clunker machines. Start doing some arm exercises because you are going to need it. Those machines are heavy, might even need surgery after you injure your joints. No, they don't tell you that.

 

[Jason in Enid]

Remember your time is money.

No, this is a hobby. It's about enjoyment and relaxation not ROI.

 

[DeepThought]

You're right, but speaking of how the MD is used (and hence, performs). I am speaking of performance independent of usage in the field. think of a car. it is delivered with a BASELINE performance profile based upon standardized testing. Actual performance (i.e. mileage) is how the user APPLIES the car in actual usage. Give me 5 MDs and I will give you a comparison. You may send them to ....

 

[Tom_in_CA]

... I am speaking of performance independent of usage in the field.....

Then .... for pete's sake, what the h*ck good is that information?? You would have the "deepest" machine shown on there (for example, a nugget machine that can "get a nickel to 2 ft. deep"), and what good would that do the person who wants to go hunt coins? Or a machine that has disc. that can get that nickel to "12 inches deep" in the air test. But pity the poor fellow who tries to use that machine in mineralized soil, or who discovers the TID wanes after 6", etc...

So .... no ... you can not have "consumer reviews" devoid of "in field performance". And unfortunately, that "in field performance" is a LOT connected to the user, and millions of different scenarios, his patience, his tastes, etc...

For example: a Compass 77b is a 35 yr. old machine with limited depth, lacks in minerals, lacks disc [for the most part], etc.... Yet it will will kick an Explorer's b*tt in some hunt conditions. There is utterly no "consumer reviews" that can endlessly take a million factors into consideration. At least not without oodles of "footnotes" for the "gotchas", etc.....

So your effort to compare it to something as easy as "mpg" comparisons in cars, isn't quite able to work.

 

[DeepThought]

actually I think it is spot on. Independent testing of performance under various conditions is standard stuff in the engineering and software development worlds. In speaking with a co-worker tonight he was aghast that the MD industry (supplier, consumer or reviewer) didn't do the same. Granted, you can't measure everything under every condition....especially user proficiency. But you can do so for key areas such as depth sensitivity, discrimination of different materials under different conditions, target identification accuracy, etc. and so on. We don't care about user variability .. we're measuring the devices, not people, where variability is the greatest. That just leaves features and bells & whistles - again, irrelevant to performance testing. Field testing inputs from the user are subjective and so treated that way: informative but not definite. If you can afford to toss a thousand $ out every time you want to try a detector & see if it fits the bill, no problem. but if you're budget is a little less, you probably want a good feeling for how that particular MD fits your need for your area. When I see my Dad this Christmas, I've already planned tests of my Tracker IV to his Whites big-boy, just for grins and giggles before spending 900$

 

[Tom_in_CA]

deep thought, just curious: How long have you been detecting? How many machines in that time have you had experience with using (or working along-side of other users extensively)? What's the oldest coins you've found?

Don't take this wrong, but your lack of understanding of what several people here are trying to tell you, leads me to think you are new to this (if not in years, then at least in exposure to the various things we're saying).

Sure, you can "measure the device" all you want in air tests. Sure, you can develope columns where the consumer reading the review merely flies down the list, sees which one is "deepest", sees which one has or doesn't have TID, sees which one is "lightest", and all the other functions you can think of to side-by-side compare. But I'm telling you, it will be of next to no use in the field. You will not be able to replicate those functions, or if you did, the "gotchas" downsides to those "plusses" would kill you.

I mean, think of it deep-thought: just the mere simple point of a tester determining "how deep does it go", even THAT (in a supposedly easy "air test") is filled with arbitrary "feelings". I mean what is the tester's criteria for when the signal disappears to the point where it is "no longer there"? A simple occasional "crackle"? or "whisper"? Or when it ceases to be heard both ways? Or when the TID ceases to pop up on the screen? And ... heck, if he swung the target a little faster (or a little slower), then he'd get a different result (of an inch more, or an inch less), etc....

For example: The Fisher 1266 is "hands down" super deep (a quarter to 1.5 foot deep in an air test, wohoo!). And it has discrimination, woohoo! But anyone with any in-field experience will (if you press them...) admit that these type results are only attainable on clean white dry non-mineralized sand. In all other conditions, your disc. hits a "brick wall" after 6", and all targets "sound the same" beyond that. So you are MUCH better off with an Explorer, for junky parks, that gets a measily 11" on that same quarter air-test. Do you see? But, sure, if you're going to hunt in the middle of the sahara dry desert, then sure, the 1266 will knock 'em dead I suppose. Do you see? Any such "consumer reviews" might be cute and interesting to beginners, but pity that poor beginner that just goes down the column and assumes that what he's reading, will just net him the "best" detector. Yes, a person can do that for a home stereo or car on the consumer reviews, but no, not for detectors.

But alas, I fear that this is useless. I don't think we're going to convince you.

 

[TerryC]

Lots of good posts above. I will just add..... better to learn a $500 detector WELL, than scratch your head over the bells and whistles of a $5000 detector. That coin or relic don't know one from the other. TTC

 

[DeepThought]

funny...I'm feeling the same way. Granted, I am new to this. However my background includes electrical engineering, software development, program management and a certified black belt in lean six-sigma ...so I am not new to the concepts of testing requirements. That said, I defer to your experience.

Help me then on this: I want to pick up a new detector but am torn between a device with a VI & bells/whistles....or a sound only devices such as a Tesoro. In reading posts, etc...most everyone agrees "dig all" is the best approach. A sizable number also feel VIs are "best guesses" and accurate only 60% of the time. My question then, for the experienced folks, is why should I spend twice as much for a VI device instead of sound only? I was looking at a Whites MXT, but it is 10 years old, has that VID and weighs near twice as much as the Tesoro, which is rated equal or better ... for depth and accuracy.

...exactly why I intend on playing with my Dad'd Whites & comparing to the lowly Tracker IV. Thanks for all you advice - seriously

 

[jffbrk]

I think there is some truth to your observations. I've had the cheapos and the more expensive units. The biggest real difference is the depth it will reach to detect a target. Depth readings are all undependable. If we could get a reading on the shape and size of the object, it would be helpful because I would immediately know that the 18 inch signal is another can. But, do you really want the government regulating this hobby Let's keep the politicians out and take our chances on the sales hype.

 

[cudamark]

funny...I'm feeling the same way. Granted, I am new to this. However my background includes electrical engineering, software development, program management and a certified black belt in lean six-sigma ...so I am not new to the concepts of testing requirements. That said, I defer to your experience.

Help me then on this: I want to pick up a new detector but am torn between a device with a VI & bells/whistles....or a sound only devices such as a Tesoro. In reading posts, etc...most everyone agrees "dig all" is the best approach. A sizable number also feel VIs are "best guesses" and accurate only 60% of the time. My question then, for the experienced folks, is why should I spend twice as much for a VI device instead of sound only? I was looking at a Whites MXT, but it is 10 years old, has that VID and weighs near twice as much as the Tesoro, which is rated equal or better ... for depth and accuracy.

...exactly why I intend on playing with my Dad'd Whites & comparing to the lowly Tracker IV. Thanks for all you advice - seriously

Please do your test against your Dad's machine and let us know the results. Personally, I would rather have a machine with VDI than one without. I gives you one more indication on whether to dig or not. It's kinda like buying a car. You can feel it, hear it run, smell the interior, even taste if you want to but it's always a good idea to look at it before you decide.

 

[gleaner1]

Its a free market I can produce a metal detector. I dont have to use any standards. But I must conform to FCC rules. I can produce a car, it would use standard parts like screws and tires, maybe struts, but all the rest of the car is not really standardized, but it must meet DOT requirements. Your point is an example of wasting too much time thinking about a certain product. Nobody will ever standardize metal detectors. It would be like standardizing washing machines. Not gonna happen.

 

[Rawhide]

Terry called it Deep Thought. I like my VDI, light weight, and deep machine. There is so much going on with modern VDI I cant cover it here. Forget the hype, see what your friends are using, and go have fun.

 

[WildDigger]

Well my .02 is that yes in some places all you need is a beep and dig but in most that I hunt you will be done in a matter of minutes due to the high volume of trash. I love the At Pro for the screen and disc. I will bet anyone that if you come hi t most any of my sites you WILL NOT dig everything. You can not swing 1/2 a foot without getting a crap target.

 

[Sandman]

Ford's and Cadillac's are different and meet certain requirements and standards. It comes down to which one you would have more fun driving. Some people like Jeeps but they are lousy on gas and look better with mud on them. Many, myself included, like to drive them, but not on the expressway in dry weather. How can you measure the fun level?

 

[Tom_in_CA]

deep-thought, your quandry (not an uncommon one) about the pros and con's of "bells and whistles" verses a "no frills beep and dig" machine, is a perfect example. It illustrates how such a side-by-side consumer reviews column-like study would and could not answer such a question. Because that is inherently a site-specific and goal-specific dilemna, that no amount of consumer reviews can answer. I have machines for various types, using your exact examples: a Tesoro silver sabre, which has no TID, no ground balance, no tones, etc.... It is good for nail-riddled sites, where depth isn't an issue, and I intend to dig all conductors. Because it sees through and around iron better (eg.: coins under nails, like at ghost-town type sites). But its depth is limited, and it lacks much TID, unless someone cares to scroll the disc. dial up and down constantly to test things. And then I have an Explorer, for sites like wild-digger alludes to, that it just doesn't merit the "las vegas odds" of "digging all". Because, lets face it, there are some sites where you'd just go psycho trying to "be a hero" and digging all the surface foil and tabs. Yet those same sites might hold deep silver coins, that are worth chasing. Does that mean that (gasp), you "might miss a gold ring" ? SURE! But for pete's sake, if gold rings are your goal, then why oh why are you hunting blighted inner city junky parks, or under bleachers (where it can be an ocean of aluminum, yet riddled with coins too), TO BEGIN WITH? Why not just go to the beach (either a lake or the ocean beaches), if jewelry were your goal?

And even for some sites where you or I might intend to "dig all" anyhow, yet having a bells and whistles machine is still often fun, and enhances it. I have hunted side-by-side with a fellow, in a furroughed field site where our mindset was "relic" mindset. He had a beep and dig machine, and I had my Explorer. Night after night I kept coming in with the higher coin and button counts. But when we sat down and counted the actual target count, (once you included aluminum shrapnel, green blacksmithed copper doohickeys, etc....) the actual target count was about the same. So he accused me of "cherry-picking" for the round-coin-like signals, since I had tone-ID. But I insisted that I had been "digging all", despite this feature of my machine. FINALLY the truth occurred to each of us, that what had been going on, is that I had been subconsciously favoring the nice-clean signals, while subconsciously poo-pooing the whispy junky signals. This is an easy trend to fall into, when there is no shortage of signals to choose from (which was the case when we first started hitting this historic site field). So while it wasn't purposeful, and while I didn't consciously mean to pass any and all conductors, you can see that it added a "plus" to have it. Ie.: you can have the "best of both worlds", if you need it. Because, sure .... if targets get sparse and hard to come by, then sure, I start grasping for whispers, etc....

 

[jffbrk]

I have the AT Pro ...the Audio Iron button saves time digging trash if you use it a lot you learn to differentiate between good and bad signals

 

[kayden]

I think people take all this way to serious. If it beeps dig it or don't. It's just a hobby. It's not rocket science. If your not having fun with it move on to something else. I use the V3i it's the best tector out there because its the one I own.

This!

 

[EastHavenCT-ACE350]

I think your screenname says it all, You are a deepthinker so you are probably OVER thinking this whole thing, I do the samething, The best advice I have seen so far in multiple posts is to "Get out there and start digging" ...I think all this education and training in "Electronics" DOESN'T help you here either because once again it's causing you to go deeper "No pun intended" then you need to go, Besides depending on your field or expertise in Electronics it may all but mean nothing when it comes to Metal detecting, I'm in the same boat as you dude, I'm a Newbie, I bought an ACE350 and after an hour with it thought it was the biggest piece of trash out there but I kept going out and digging and coming home and watching video and learned it's going to take time to even learn this basic machine... Good luck and stop thinking so much and get out there and do...

 

[DeepThought]

Roger that - "paralysis by analysis". All is good, though....I've picked up a lot of good information from a lot of experienced people. A great hobby - the first time in years I've slowed down to have one - that I thoroughly enjoy.