Nexus Standard MKII vs Garret ATX? Which is deeper?

[sirusramse]

Since I have recently purchased the Garrett ATX with 12" coil I now know the answer to this tread.
Nexus is deeper, way much deeper than ATX and that goes with any Nexus coil that I have including the #8, 4" coil.

I don't know what those guys from Garrett think, but this super heavy and damn expensive (2500 Euros in EU) detector could barely touch a 4" sardine can at 24" in air at maximum sensitivity and no discrimination what so ever.

I also tested it on a coin buried just 10" deep. No signal at all.

Garrett ATX it is a heavy piece of junk and I am getting rid of it. I wouldn't even bother to compare it any further to the other detectors in my collection after my Tesoro Cortes kicks the crap out of it on air tests.

The ATX will probably work on every soil on the planet since is not capable to pick up anything at decent depth.

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

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

[fella]

I find it funny you spent $10k (us) on detectors just to say "I told you so"!

Smells fishy to me!

 

[Fletch88]

I find it funny you spent $10k (us) on detectors just to say "I told you so"! Smells fishy to me!

Yes it does sound a little "extreme" to me also. Fella. I love to hear about all the different methods some people go through to call xyz detector "junk". Air tests, nail boards, extravagant tests beds with various depth tubes to insert targets, just get out and hunt before you "prove" to yourself the machine can't find anything over 4". I've seen people posting finds with the ATX at 18-24" so are their machines junk too? Besides who wants to dig deeper than 18-24"

 

[sirusramse]

Yes it does sound a little "extreme" to me also. Fella. I love to hear about all the different methods some people go through to call xyz detector "junk". Air tests, nail boards, extravagant tests beds with various depth tubes to insert targets, just get out and hunt before you "prove" to yourself the machine can't find anything over 4". I've seen people posting finds with the ATX at 18-24" so are their machines junk too? Besides who wants to dig deeper than 18-24"

18-24" on a big can perhaps, but so does just any other detector that costs many times less and have much lower weight.

Many people wants to dig much deeper than 24", but those are not Americans at the most part. Europe have a lot more to offer in the deep layers.

I certainly did not spend 10K to say "I told you so"
Why would I do that? I got nothing to prove to you guys.
The question is what would it take for you to understand that Garrett have lied a great deal about this detectors.

I will certainly make some videos, not for you to argue with me, because I am not interested, but for anyone to see what I see.

Alternatively you could spend 10K on your own so you can tell me - I told you so.

 

[sirusramse]

I find it funny you spent $10k (us) on detectors just to say "I told you so"!

Smells fishy to me!

This is called paranoia. But then I don't beat anyone on the head to believe me.
By the way I see you a Fisher man. The F75 did show better discrimination than Deus on some of the tests and is also easier to use. Is this fishy as well?

When someone is prepared to spend their own money to tell you facts that other wise will cost you a lot of money to figure out on your own you should show some respect, not paranoid facelift.

I could also shut the **** up if this is more convenient for you. No problems there.

 

[fella]

I could also shut the **** up if this is more convenient for you. No problems there.

Yes please!

 

[Fletch88]

Continue your tests, I understand why people in Europe want to dig deeper than in US. I would like to try a GPX over there one day if I was ever able. I just wouldn't call any machine in the experiment junk. Some people get very defensive and you are basically a newbie on every one of these machines, right? Please just state the results in an unbiased manner and let the card fall where they may.

Also, are you going to test the 17" coil on CTX. I've dug 1 coin sized target at 18" in dry sand with stock 11" coil. Only had a threshold pitch change to alert me to target, but it was there and repeatable. I will try same technique with 17" just to see how deep it can hit in same conditions.

 

[sirusramse]

Yes please!

I was joking. I certainly do not intend to please your majesty. So live with it.

 

[sirusramse]

Continue your tests, I understand why people in Europe want to dig deeper than in US. I would like to try a GPX over there one day if I was ever able. I just wouldn't call any machine in the experiment junk. Some people get very defensive and you are basically a newbie on every one of these machines, right? Please just state the results in an unbiased manner and let the card fall where they may.

Also, are you going to test the 17" coil on CTX. I've dug 1 coin sized target at 18" in dry sand with stock 11" coil. Only had a threshold pitch change to alert me to target, but it was there and repeatable. I will try same technique with 17" just to see how deep it can hit in same conditions.

No offence, but from this post what I can see is that you are the newbie here.
Do you honestly believe that I am some kind of rich fool that would spend all of his money to chase the wind and try to proof something to people that don't wan a know jack about other opinion? I am merely curious what the hype is about and I am well aware that is all hype and a lot of bollox.
Detecting in sand is the same as detecting in air, because sand is SiO2 which is non magnetic material and cause no loss of signal at all. So those are irrelevant tests same as air tests.

As for the "new" or "different " detectors folks with good back ground in electronics and electricity ( such as myself), know that this is a marketing hype.
All detectors use wire wound search coils. So it all begins from there and it ends there. The only advantage that can be achieved is by tuning the coils in complete resonance, because this will raise the signal to noise ratio of the detector and improve significantly the discrimination in the deep layers. This is how Nexus beats the others.

Now what I see consistently is a few folks in here trying again and again to belittle me and my posts.
I am sorry if my posts are damaging someones business, but I'v had enough of lies and hype. I am determined to expose as much of those as I can.
Make no mistake, I am a Nexus fan, but those are also not as perfect as one would want them to be, so I'll talk about that to.

 

[Fletch88]

Sorry for belittling you, it just seems a little over the top to some of us to spend that much money, if you are not wealthy, to perform these tests. I have spent a good deal of money myself because I have a serious passion for using these for the types of detecting I do, not to test against a favorite brand if mine. Peace and good will.

Walt

 

[sirusramse]

Sorry for belittling you, it just seems a little over the top to some of us to spend that much money, if you are not wealthy, to perform these tests. I have spent a good deal of money myself because I have a serious passion for using these for the types of detecting I do, not to test against a favorite brand if mine. Peace and good will.

Walt

It's ok buddy. I'm just a bit pissed with all the hype going around. Had too much of it.
I'm trying to be as objective as humanly possible and see with my own eyes what's what.
Nexus does have this nasty false signal when the coil is too close to flat ground, but it goes hell deeper than anything else I have tried. It's a trade off I suppose.
What i don't like about great many companies out there is the brain washing advertisement they do. Imagine if they spend all of that money to just develop something more real instead. Most detectors have been the same for the past 20 years and some are even declining in depth performance for the sake of cheap digital whistles.

 

[Cycluran]

So I ended up buying the ATX...and it proved its worth on the very first hunt. I went over a hillside that I had canvased with my Tesoro 10 months prior. Back then I pulled a dozen minnies there. The ATX had no problem finding the rest of them, six more, at around 18" deep. The ATX gives a strange multi-tone signal on lead; 'easy to recognize. Confident that the slope was free of all metal, I started swinging my way back up to the car and got a low-high signal right off the trail. It was loud and I thought it was probably a shallow square nail. But, this being my first hunt with the ATX, I pulled a plug. It was three feet before I saw the rust from a beautiful, Borman-fused 12 pounder. I had one more day to hunt before flying back home, so I went back to that hill; turns out there were a lot more goodies out there; no more cannonballs though.
Lohoffsson, your point about the weight of the ATX is a very valid one. It's been over a month since that trip and my right shoulder still reminds me of it every day. I don't mind trading a little soreness for relics, but it has got me thinking about the Nexus Standard MKII again. The ATX is a water-proof brute and I love it, but I recently got permission to hunt some land closer to home and I may just leave the Garrett at home and take my Minelab, which is just a little lighter. In hindsight, the Nexus may have been a better choice. I think, if there was someone out there willing to trade the MKII for my ATX, I would do it. I wouldn't be able to take it out if there was a chance for rain, but my right arm might once again last a full day's hunt.

 

[fella]

Yes it does sound a little "extreme" to me also. Fella. I love to hear about all the different methods some people go through to call xyz detector "junk". Air tests, nail boards, extravagant tests beds with various depth tubes to insert targets, just get out and hunt before you "prove" to yourself the machine can't find anything over 4". I've seen people posting finds with the ATX at 18-24" so are their machines junk too? Besides who wants to dig deeper than 18-24"

Exactly! All those "test" are 100% meaningless!

In order for sirusramse's test to be remotely valid, the machines need to be taken out in the field and targets found & compared BEFORE digging. Before that, a GOOD working knowledge of each machine is going to be needed. One can't just get a new to them machine, turn it on, fail with it and then proclaim it's junk.

I have no doubt that the Nexus are deep, but as I've read on other forums and reviews (mainly from the UK), they suck in heavily mineralized ground and horrible in iron infested sites. Probably why they just aren't popular over there despite their good depth. Not speaking from experience, just what I've read!

sirusramse, good luck on your test! Looking forward to your results once you become proficient enough with each machine to make an unbiased review like you claim you want to.

 

[sirusramse]

Exactly! All those "test" are 100% meaningless!

In order for sirusramse's test to be remotely valid, the machines need to be taken out in the field and targets found & compared BEFORE digging. Before that, a GOOD working knowledge of each machine is going to be needed. One can't just get a new to them machine, turn it on, fail with it and then proclaim it's junk.

I have no doubt that the Nexus are deep, but as I've read on other forums and reviews (mainly from the UK), they suck in heavily mineralized ground and horrible in iron infested sites. Probably why they just aren't popular over there despite their good depth. Not speaking from experience, just what I've read!

sirusramse, good luck on your test! Looking forward to your results once you become proficient enough with each machine to make an unbiased review like you claim you want to.

This is how the brains of uneducated people are been washed. Not proficient with this machine, tests are meaningless etc, etc.
I am an electronics engineer if you know what this means. To me no metal detector is a secret. All metal detectors use wire wound search coils and work with roughly the same extend of capabilities unless they are resonant tuned.
I could explain here all day long what this means, but I suppose the urban legends are urban legends. Is it not after all how all of these companies have been pushing mediocre detectors after only changing appearance , whistles and bells.

Cycluran will have an impossible time to convince me that he found even a train 3 feet deep as the ATX does not get any normal size object that far in air at no settings.
Perhaps he can suggest some secret setting that I have missed out of the very few buttons.
But the general consensus is that no detector can detect deeper in ground than in air. The reason is that in ground there are losses of signal and in air there are non, period.

Proficient or not I will believe anyone's story only and only when I see with my own eyes the impossible - a detector going deeper in ground than in air. Beyond this point it's all bollox.

As for the UK comments.
Educate your self first. Those are on the old Nexus models. They were with slow recovery speed and even so were pretty good in iron infested fields if any of those UK genius users bothered to use the small 4" coil. I learned my English in the UK and know very well how English would judge anything.
The Bulgarian Nikolay Malchev from Florida, US managed to work with old Nexus on the Florida black sand beaches where no other detector can ever work (by his statement on forums), but the royalties from UK happened to have even worse ground conditions. That's so stupid. I'v been in the UK and as far as Scunthorpe there was no such mineral ground that Nexus would not work on it.

No detector can exceed its performance that have been measured in well controlled underground tests. So every advise for the real life search is nothing, but sending folks for green caviar.

 

[Fletch88]

But the general consensus is that no detector can detect deeper in ground than in air. The reason is that in ground there are losses of signal and in air there are non, period.


Siruramse , Sorry but I disagree with the above statement. I know I am not an electrical engineer, but I do know first hand that multiple freq Minelab machines are not very good at air tests, but will hit targets much deeper that have been in the ground matrix for several years. Don't be surprised if the CTX doesn't do as well in your test as some of the others.

 

[fella]

Proficient or not I will believe anyone's story only and only when I see with my own eyes the impossible - a detector going deeper in ground than in air. Beyond this point it's all bollox.

Fine…Likewise shut your piehole and start delivering. Get ALL your fancy machines (that I question you actually own) out and do some vids. I'm sure they WON"T be anything valid but go ahead do SOMETHING…ANYTHING! Just shut up and put your money where your mouth is.

Also find it funny that talk down to everyone on this forum when anyone challenges anything you are trying so hard to cram down anyones throat. Then you get all pissy and start belittling people. You're such a hypocrite!

 

[Fletch88]

I would like to see all machines tested on targets in the field also. Not a freshly prepared test beds either, real world situations. Then dug up to reveal depth, size, content , ability to see through trash, etc.

 

[sirusramse]

But the general consensus is that no detector can detect deeper in ground than in air. The reason is that in ground there are losses of signal and in air there are non, period.


Siruramse , Sorry but I disagree with the above statement. I know I am not an electrical engineer, but I do know first hand that multiple freq Minelab machines are not very good at air tests, but will hit targets much deeper that have been in the ground matrix for several years. Don't be surprised if the CTX doesn't do as well in your test as some of the others.

Targets that were buried for many years are more difficult to detect than freshly buried ones, because they have formed on their surface an oxide layer than is a perfect electrical insulator. If any metal target is insulated from the soil is it also less detectable.
The halo effect is a great urban legend invented by the big boys to fool with the general public.
Multifrequency detectors are worse when it comes to depth. They do have some other advantages, like excellent discrimination (CTX3030), but the depth is not as good as a single freq. detectors can show.

 

[sirusramse]

Fine…Likewise shut your piehole and start delivering. Get ALL your fancy machines (that I question you actually own) out and do some vids. I'm sure they WON"T be anything valid but go ahead do SOMETHING…ANYTHING! Just shut up and put your money where your mouth is.

Also find it funny that talk down to everyone on this forum when anyone challenges anything you are trying so hard to cram down anyones throat. Then you get all pissy and start belittling people. You're such a hypocrite!

I hope this is good evidence for you.
My money are exactly where my mouth if. Where are yours cowboy?
I am not here to pick a fight, but if you really want to play the big man I can assure you you will get your ass kicked.

 

[Fletch88]

I'm curious as to what parameters you are testing the VLF machines on. Are you using all metal modes, auto sensitivity and looking for a target response or maybe even a threshold change?