What is the difference between the DFX and the XLT ?
- Thread starter Bajanick
- Start date
CyberSage
Elite Member
THE DFX IS BETTER!!!
Sorry couldn't resist.
Here is a good place to start...
http://www.whiteselectronics.com/comparisonchart.html
Jack
Sorry couldn't resist.
Here is a good place to start...
http://www.whiteselectronics.com/comparisonchart.html
Jack
Cherry Picker
Forum Supporter
Right off hand I'd say the most obvious difference is 2(DFX) frequencies vs 1(XLT).
I've had both and while the XLT was a great detector, personally I saw a BIG difference in stability.
I find that the quality of detectors a bit like CD radios. That is to say while two people can purchase the exact same model they may not perform the same in the field. I understand that varying conditions play a part but I also think things like wrapping the coil wire can also play a part.
Try it some time. If you don't like the way your detector is preforming try wrapping your coil wire the opposite direction or using more wraps or shortening the poll.
I do believe there can be lemons but for the most part circuits either work or they don't work. A poor soldier connection is possible but not likely in todays manufacturing. Chances are that lemon only needs to get a different coil(coils can be poorly made) or just make some adjustments to your wire.
I've had both and while the XLT was a great detector, personally I saw a BIG difference in stability.
I find that the quality of detectors a bit like CD radios. That is to say while two people can purchase the exact same model they may not perform the same in the field. I understand that varying conditions play a part but I also think things like wrapping the coil wire can also play a part.
Try it some time. If you don't like the way your detector is preforming try wrapping your coil wire the opposite direction or using more wraps or shortening the poll.
I do believe there can be lemons but for the most part circuits either work or they don't work. A poor soldier connection is possible but not likely in todays manufacturing. Chances are that lemon only needs to get a different coil(coils can be poorly made) or just make some adjustments to your wire.
There are more options on the DFX to give you more of an advantage in different conditions. You have a sweep speed control and adjustable filtering (2 to 6) .The multi frequency has been debateable as to whether or not it is more effective but I like the fact that I can go into 3 khz or 15khz as well as multi. This can give me an advantage over a static single frequency detector. I've used both and although I loved my Xlt I would not go back now that I've used the DFX for awhile. 8)
DFX-Gregg
Elite Member
- Joined
- Jan 25, 2007
- Messages
- 1,168
The differences are many....Lets start with frequency. I will not rattle on, but will just name four>>>>>>>>>>>>.
1.The DFX is a dual frequency detector, operating in 3 kHz and 15 kHz. The xlt operates at only 6.6kHz.
What does this mean? At 3kHz the Dfx is set up for finding more copper and silver coins At 15kHz small jewelry and GOLD items are more likely to be found.
Here's the difference>>>xlt at 6.6kHz not good for small jewelry.
2. The dual filtering creates a two target response, resulting in a more accurate i.d., than the xlt response. Digital filtering<dfx analog >xlt
3. DFX two modes of operation, in multiple frequency configuration. Xlt>1
4. The Dfx has a superior display thanks to the newer software. It responds quicker and is clearer.
1.The DFX is a dual frequency detector, operating in 3 kHz and 15 kHz. The xlt operates at only 6.6kHz.
What does this mean? At 3kHz the Dfx is set up for finding more copper and silver coins At 15kHz small jewelry and GOLD items are more likely to be found.
Here's the difference>>>xlt at 6.6kHz not good for small jewelry.
2. The dual filtering creates a two target response, resulting in a more accurate i.d., than the xlt response. Digital filtering<dfx analog >xlt
3. DFX two modes of operation, in multiple frequency configuration. Xlt>1
4. The Dfx has a superior display thanks to the newer software. It responds quicker and is clearer.
booker
Forum Supporter
With all the high tech on the newer detectors does that cut down on some finds you might have with an older one that would go off on everything? Ok no laughing I am new at this --booker
--booker
Cherry Picker
Forum Supporter
Yes it does booker, but I also find far less junk. I'll be the first to admit that I find less today than I did 20 years ago on each hunt. What I find more of is keepers. I'm happy with the trade off.
The difference between the XLT and the DFX.
Let’s try, and put this in a nut shell, without getting into the tech. geek stuff.
The XLT was based on the 4900, 5900, 6000 series platform. Whites then used a microprocessor to control the functions, going digital over the analog controls on the base units. Controlling it this way gave the user the ability of a considerable amount of adjustments to set up for there detecting conditions. It is a single frequency detector. The XLT is considered a 4 filter detector, thus requiring a fairly fast sweep to achieve best ground control in mineralized ground, and best depth, ID.
The DFX was Whites answer to rushing into the multi-frequency arena. They leased/purchased, the circuit rights from Minelab, a early Minelab 3 frequency circuit that was never put into production by Minelab. Whites changed the circuit around dropping 1 frequency, making it the two frequency unit it now is. The first version of the new Whites multi-frequency unit was the Beachunter ID model. At the same time Whites was developing a microprocessor controlled circuit for this new unit, similar to what they did with the XLT. This design became the DFX. One does have more user adjustments on the DFX than the XLT, most of them because there’ 2 frequencies to play with.
What one to purchase is a difficult decision. I’m a beach jewelry hunter, and I have never bee too impressed with the response the DFX has to low conductive gold jewelry. I feel the XLT does a better job in this department. In some certain heavy ground mineralization conditions, the 4 filter single frequency XLT could work better than the DFX. Out side of this scenario, the DFX would operate smoother on tough ground, and the salt beach. The XLT has a faster sweep, covering more ground quicker. The DFX is a slow sweep unit, requiring meticulous movement of the coil to achieve maximum depth, and target separation. It would do well at coin hunting in a trashy area this way.
I still use a XLT on the salt beach. I grew up in the detector world using a XLT on the beach, so it’s something I’m very familiar using there. I don’t have my DFX any more.
Mr. Bill
[email protected]
Let’s try, and put this in a nut shell, without getting into the tech. geek stuff.
The XLT was based on the 4900, 5900, 6000 series platform. Whites then used a microprocessor to control the functions, going digital over the analog controls on the base units. Controlling it this way gave the user the ability of a considerable amount of adjustments to set up for there detecting conditions. It is a single frequency detector. The XLT is considered a 4 filter detector, thus requiring a fairly fast sweep to achieve best ground control in mineralized ground, and best depth, ID.
The DFX was Whites answer to rushing into the multi-frequency arena. They leased/purchased, the circuit rights from Minelab, a early Minelab 3 frequency circuit that was never put into production by Minelab. Whites changed the circuit around dropping 1 frequency, making it the two frequency unit it now is. The first version of the new Whites multi-frequency unit was the Beachunter ID model. At the same time Whites was developing a microprocessor controlled circuit for this new unit, similar to what they did with the XLT. This design became the DFX. One does have more user adjustments on the DFX than the XLT, most of them because there’ 2 frequencies to play with.
What one to purchase is a difficult decision. I’m a beach jewelry hunter, and I have never bee too impressed with the response the DFX has to low conductive gold jewelry. I feel the XLT does a better job in this department. In some certain heavy ground mineralization conditions, the 4 filter single frequency XLT could work better than the DFX. Out side of this scenario, the DFX would operate smoother on tough ground, and the salt beach. The XLT has a faster sweep, covering more ground quicker. The DFX is a slow sweep unit, requiring meticulous movement of the coil to achieve maximum depth, and target separation. It would do well at coin hunting in a trashy area this way.
I still use a XLT on the salt beach. I grew up in the detector world using a XLT on the beach, so it’s something I’m very familiar using there. I don’t have my DFX any more.
Mr. Bill
[email protected]
CyberSage
Elite Member
Great history lesson Mr. Bill. Thanks! Very interesting.
Jack
Jack
Sweep speed
DFX-Gregg
You are correct about the sweep speed adjustment on the DFX, but increasing the sweep speed on it does not improve it's performance, it just makes it so it will work in a fast sweep mode. It will degrade the overall performance of the detector. It also takes a lot of adjustment on the other settings to optimize it. Just bumping up the sweep speed control is just one part of the equation.
The DFX works best in a slow sweep mode. Sweep speed about like the sweep used on a Minelab Sovereign should work fine, maybe a tad faster.
Mr. Bill
DFX-Gregg
You are correct about the sweep speed adjustment on the DFX, but increasing the sweep speed on it does not improve it's performance, it just makes it so it will work in a fast sweep mode. It will degrade the overall performance of the detector. It also takes a lot of adjustment on the other settings to optimize it. Just bumping up the sweep speed control is just one part of the equation.
The DFX works best in a slow sweep mode. Sweep speed about like the sweep used on a Minelab Sovereign should work fine, maybe a tad faster.
Mr. Bill
