Deus 2 which is faster recovery, 5 Tones vs FULL TONES

[Cherry Picker]

As the subject says, which do you think would have the faster recovery time to get better separation, the 5 TONES or FULL TONE?

I guess it would depend on which uses more filtering. Common sense would say 5 TONES should be faster because it needs to produce less audio. FULL TONES would take more time to produce a more varied tone per target, but would probably give the more accurate VDI?

 

[Beachhunt1]

WAHT???

Recovery is a factor of the detector settings. NOT TONES!

 

[tnsharpshooter]

As the subject says, which do you think would have the faster recovery time to get better separation, the 5 TONES or FULL TONE?

I guess it would depend on which uses more filtering. Common sense would say 5 TONES should be faster because it needs to produce less audio. FULL TONES would take more time to produce a more varied tone per target, but would probably give the more accurate VDI?

Hmmm.
So why don’t you try and experiment. Not that you would be be able to measure necessarily.
Try the following.
Remember 2 different nonferrous conducive items can fall into same bin using 5 tones.
So intentionally move tone. In using 5 tones on 2 different coins or even 3 different coins. Say a zincoln, dime and quarter. Use 5 tones to modify tone bins to get the 2 or 3 different coins to give different tone. As close together as you can get them. Then move tone bin so all fall into one bin. And then sweep. Do you hear 3 tones and does detector seem to be able to be swept as fast as you could sweep when you had the coins hitting in different tone bins?

This may tell you some thing.

Or does having the coins setup in different bins tonslly give appearance Deus 2 is faster versus having all the coins assigned to same bin,

I may do a video and demo for folks.

Yeah I know what I say above doesn’t answer your question.

 

[bigtim1973]

The fastest I would think would be single or 2 tones, less processing to the disc circuit and faster audio response.

 

[Cherry Picker]

+

The fastest I would think would be single or 2 tones, less processing to the disc circuit and faster audio response.

Kind of my thoughts. Working with audio for many years I know a fuller tone takes up more time & space. How that may, or may not relate to the recovery speed of a metal detector processor would take some testing.

My thoughts are, the faster you can swing over a masked target and get the better clean response, should give you an idea of which has the faster recovery time. But I me be flawed.

 

[IDXMonster]

From my remedial understanding of the tone selections, PITCH is supposed to be more “reactive” to the ear, though it doesn’t fundamentally change how fast the machine is working. (Straight paraphrasing from the manual).

 

[too_pointer]

My tones, are me hollering when I find something, good question though, hope you get the answer your looking for, best of detecting.
too_

 

[AccurateCalls]

Modern detectors don't lack processing power. Changing tone options won't affect the performance in anyway.

 

[Cherry Picker]

+

Modern detectors don't lack processing power. Changing tone options won't affect the performance in anyway.

I'd like to believe that, but as a programmer, I understand how all processes of the processor work. All processes are handled in a sequential process. That means one process cannot start until the process before it has finished, or passed control to the next process. Kind of like having a car race where the finish line will only allow one car through the finish line at a time. One will always be behind. The question is not whether one is faster, but if it is a notable difference.

An audio tone/frequency of multiple waves would of course take longer to be analyzed & processed than a single tone/frequency. We all know and recognize that the fewer filters used in analyzing & processing a tone do in fact end with a faster response/recovery time. I think the same type of tests would show any possible advantages, or disadvantages, of the two. With a good target just on the edge of masking, swinging the coil over the targets and seeing which gives the best clean tone at the fastest speed, I think, should give an indication of which has the faster recovery, if any.

 

[AccurateCalls]

+

I'd like to believe that, but as a programmer, I understand how all processes of the processor work. All processes are handled in a sequential process. That means one process cannot start until the process before it has finished, or passed control to the next process. Kind of like having a car race where the finish line will only allow one car through the finish line at a time. One will always be behind. The question is not whether one is faster, but if it is a notable difference.

An audio tone/frequency of multiple waves would of course take longer to be analyzed & processed than a single tone/frequency. We all know and recognize that the fewer filters used in analyzing & processing a tone do in fact end with a faster response/recovery time. I think the same type of tests would show any possible advantages, or disadvantages, of the two. With a good target just on the edge of masking, swinging the coil over the targets and seeing which gives the best clean tone at the fastest speed, I think, should give an indication of which has the faster recovery, if any.

I've been a professional software engineer for 10+ years and started my own development company.

The digital sampling rate has an upper bound imposed by the Nyquist frequency that is far longer than a single processing cycle, thus digital sampling is the bottle neck and not cpu.

Modern software paradigms have a 'tick rate' that impose a regular processing interval to establish consistency and predictability using an internal clock. They don't just run wild in the way your example describes.

Sorry but you are simply incorrect in this regard. I know we have had this debate before so I won't reply any further.

 

[Beachhunt1]

With a good target just on the edge of masking, swinging the coil over the targets and seeing which gives the best clean tone at the fastest speed, I think, should give an indication of which has the faster recovery, if any.

Maybe you should learn about the reactivity setting?

 

[Cherry Picker]

Modern software paradigms have a 'tick rate' that impose a regular processing interval to establish consistency and predictability using an internal clock. They don't just run wild in the way your example describes.

LOL yes, I remember. Even tick rates can only happen one at a time, and you know this. One must happen before the other.

The question is not whether one is faster than the other, science and common sense dictate that fact, but IF the difference is notable. It is easier to just avoid the question we don't understand. Testing may tell the tale.

 

[AccurateCalls]

You can't process data faster than it is sampled.

If all it took was for Minelab to put in a faster processor and they would unmask and separate better and destroy the competition, they would.

 

[Diga]

The digital sampling rate has an upper bound imposed by the Nyquist frequency that is far longer than a single processing cycle, thus digital sampling is the bottle neck and not cpu.

I'm fairly certain that even a lowly Intel 4004 would suffice for metal detecting needs


I'm also fairly certain that speed isn't a hardware limitation. I'm thinking the top detectors aren't designed to go any faster, otherwise audio clipping would result, as well as abnormally low TIDs, due to insufficient information from the target.

 

[Cherry Picker]

I'm fairly certain that even a lowly Intel 4004 would suffice for metal detecting needs


I'm also fairly certain that speed isn't a hardware limitation. I'm thinking the top detectors aren't designed to go any faster, otherwise audio clipping would result, as well as abnormally low TIDs, due to insufficient information from the target.

And yet, it is ALWAYS recommended to use the fewest filters needed for the best detector performance HUM. Someone is in left field.

Not sure what you're referring to AC. Of course, you can't sample data before you get it, and Not sure where it was said a faster processor had anything to do with it, but thanks for the input.

 

[AccurateCalls]

And yet, it is ALWAYS recommended to use the fewest filters needed for the best detector performance HUM. Someone is in left field.

Not sure what you're referring to AC. Of course, you can't sample data before you get it, and Not sure where it was said a faster processor had anything to do with it, but thanks for the input.

Its because filters alter the signal and these alterations can result in weaker /fringe targets being ignored, not because they are too costly in terms of processing and slow the detector down.

"... you can't sample data before you get it..." Sampling IS the process of getting the data, so you are not making any sense.

Also detectors don't have "discrimination circuits" anymore, so much of this discussion is outdated.

Quite frankly I'd also argue that a 2-tone scheme is more processed than a raw full tone scheme. But anyway...

 

[Diga]

And yet, it is ALWAYS recommended to use the fewest filters needed for the best detector performance HUM.

That could very well be a leftover from the old analog days. I've never seen any legitimate performance hit when using filters on my digital detectors.

Then again, what filters, and what is defined as performance? (TID accuracy, depth?)

 

[AccurateCalls]

That could very well be a leftover from the old analog days. I've never seen any legitimate performance hit when using filters on my digital detectors.

Then again, what filters, and what is defined as performance? (TID accuracy, depth?)

Yeah it used to be every analog filter component would introduce noise and degrade the signal along the processing chain.

With digitally sampled data the original signal is stored in memory and can be referenced by each individual process in the chain, thus not degrading the performance.

So in analogue more filters means more noise, but not with modern digital detectors.

 

[Diga]

Yeah it used to be every analog filter component would introduce noise and degrade the signal along the processing chain.

With digitally sampled data the original signal is stored in memory and can be referenced by each individual process in the chain, thus not degrading the performance.

So in analogue more filters means more noise, but not with modern digital detectors.

I'm trying not to get too off topic, but to give an example, when I'm cherry picking high conductors and notch out everything below copper / silver, I don't lose any depth, or performance in any way.

Although, I would sure like to know the exact scientific reason why recovery speed has a massive effect on depth. I mean whether my recovery speed is at minimum or maximum, it's the same electromagnetic field that is penetrating the ground, so is it the actual saturation time of that field that results in such a massive depth change?, or something completely different?

 

[AccurateCalls]

I'm trying not to get too off topic, but to give an example, when I'm cherry picking high conductors and notch out everything below copper / silver, I don't lose any depth, or performance in any way.

Although, I would sure like to know the exact scientific reason why recovery speed has a massive effect on depth. I mean whether my recovery speed is at minimum or maximum, it's the same electromagnetic field that is penetrating the ground, so is it the actual saturation time of that field that results in such a massive depth change?, or something completely different?

Yup notching won't affect performance as you described.

You can think of recovery speed as being comparable to shutter speed on a camera (not a perfect analogy but close). The longer the shutter is open the more light is gathered, but things also get more blurry. Faster shutter speed gathers less light but handles faster motion better.

Also detectors take advantage of the fact ground signals change slowly over time where as a coin for example creates a more sudden change. So you can amplify or reduce a signal based on how quickly the signal is changing. Recovery speed also likely changes the rate of acceleration / amplification of signals. Which is why lower recovery speed produces a longer tone than a higher recovery speed's shorter tone on the same target. E.g. you can amplify based on the derivative of a signals change with respect to time.