A worthy subject for discussion.
There have been improvements made I think.
They are smaller,,and the problem is they are scattered moreso among many detectors.
Nail board tests are good,,,but just like head to head videos comparing detectors on live digs,,,don't paint the whole picture.
Target alerting is a quality I value highly,,,just get me to stop and at least investigate,,,means a great deal.
Some detectors I think are better at this than others.
Audio of detectors,,,I think some improvements made here as well.
Ground balance,,,being more of a digital process less error and more minute adjustments can be had.
Graphics have improved,,CTX 3030 has some of the finest as far as information,,actually seems the data presented here graphically outdoes the audio.
Detector performance,,meaning comparing like models,,I think this here overall more uniform when compared.
Materiel used in construction,,metal seems is going by the wayside,,plastic now being used.
Internet sharing of data,,detector reviews,,interaction by some manufacturers, videos,etc,,this too I think has improved detectors overall,,,some manufacturers still fall short here IMO.
Mineral handling-- I think some advances here have been made,,FBS/fbs2 and Xp I think are moving in the right direction.
Other overseas manufacturers.,,I truly think this is where the bonafide detector will be hatched that truly does give us more depth,,as far as a Vlf detector being able to mitigate the minerals in the ground.
If we right now could take the best features off of every detector made,,and some way be able to incorporate them into one single detector for a reasonable price,,,I think folks might just be surprised at how good this detector would be.
I'm thinking of a hybrid FBS/ more typical Vlf detector all in one.
The gears are turning at the different manufacturers plants,,there are both successes and failures at these same plants,,,trial and error being done,,constructive arguments,,teamwork,,and even disagreements.