comparing detectors

I think what Youtube videos do show is that it is possible not that what you see can be expected. Kind of like drag racing videos. I watch a lot but I know just because this car beats that car doesn't mean your results will always be the same. It does, however, mean it is possible.

There are times when the V3i can go just as deep as the E-Trac, and visa-versa. That said, there are also some pretty set expectations one can deem reliable. For example you can just about always count on the E-Trac to get better depth on a silver coin in a worked over site than the Compadre. Not saying the Compadre is !!!!, just reality does apply no matter how experienced/good the operator is. User results ARE limited or boosted according to the detector being used most of the time.

Skill isn't everything. It makes the difference between two hunters when given equal or even near equal detectors, but, experience is only as good as the detector being used.

I agree with most and you can define get a good idea of what a machine can do based on experience. Most suspect to me is when a person grabs a newre machine and hitas the same spot they have hunted hard before and draws a conclusion it is either better or not due to a find or two, or lack there of.

My thought is the best equation to get the most accurate results would be as follows;

Detectorist(skill, energy & mindset) +detector (model, coil, + settings) +target(target, target surroundings, & groundconditions=best analysis

You have to keep as many constants as possible.
 
Please explain. No testing is real world hunting. First of all your mindset is different. But at least it's a while undisturbed target, with or without iron. It's true you may have found it with MD1 AND ate checking it with MD 2. If you are there on a different day with a different detector, does not matter wilhich one, uou cant assume you would hit it again even with the same detector.

I never assumed anything.

Just this backing off a known target or suspect target in the wild and you can hit with detector 2, is lacking full credibility is all I am saying. If this happened a super high percentage of the time when comparing it would carry more weight obviously.
But we don’t see folks usually comparing boatloads of targets in one you tube video.

But an onlooker could be mislead if not careful.

Oh yeah I studied Nox heavily when comparing, reported on it too. Multiple outings and multiple targets. And I liked what I saw. Some folks thought is was hype. Alright by me, if they don’t like their Nox 800 put it up for sale, someone will buy it.
 
I never assumed anything.

Just this backing off a known target or suspect target in the wild and you can hit with detector 2, is lacking full credibility is all I am saying. If this happened a super high percentage of the time when comparing it would carry more weight obviously.
But we don’t see folks usually comparing boatloads of targets in one you tube video.

But an onlooker could be mislead if not careful.

Oh yeah I studied Nox heavily when comparing, reported on it too. Multiple outings and multiple targets. And I liked what I saw. Some folks thought is was hype. Alright by me, if they don’t like their Nox 800 put it up for sale, someone will buy it.

So, I generally keep several browsers open on my tablet, so I can toggle between several Metal Detecting sights.....yes I lead a boring life, LOL

Anyway, someone copied this from Tom D, don't know where or when this is from, but I didn't pull it off Tom D's forum. He says the same thing I'm saying.....reduce the variables. Test gardens ok but wild targets head to head at the same time is best.

It's long and lengthy but a good read. Not sure that any of us would be properly equipped to argue with him.

Head to Head Comparison Testing by Thomas J. Dankowski

Head-To-Head Comparison Testing

One person claims 7" on a dime in one State and another person claims 12" on a dime in another State. One person hunts a particular site with Brand-X detector, then, the very next day, he hunts the exact place again with Brand-Y detector and finds more good targets, then touts the Brand-X detector as inferior. These are very common and misleading occurrences.
A head-to-head comparison is VERY difficult to perform. Absolutely ALL variables must be removed if any form of validity is to be ascertained. The slightest changing variable can completely void the test. --- Let's get dirty and come away clean.
A textbook perfect test-garden is a good start, yet it does not represent the real world dirt conditions. This includes simplex and complex test-garden scenarios. The preferred method for head-to-head comparison takes place at several different sites with varying mineralization and with several different undug, undisturbed targets in their natural settings.
Let's say you have selected a local park. You have located several 'items of interest' and marked their exact pinpoint location with colored plastic poker chips. You turn off Brand-X detector and swap it out for Brand-Y detector. Here is where the difficulty begins. Was Brand-X detector control panel settings optimized for each individual target? Was the level & quality of signal documented (for comparison) on each individual target..... or are you ONLY seeking to find 'detectable' or 'not detectable' (go/no-go) scenarios to each detector being tested...... regardless of signal strength/quality? How high was the coil over the target(s)? How fast was the coil sweep speed? Are you aware that one detector may like a fast sweep speed.... and the other unit resolves better with a slower sweep speed? Were you facing the exact same direction when sweeping the coil over subject target? Was Brand-Y detector coil sweeping the subject target one inch further forward or aft of the exact pinpoint location? Was only one of the units properly ground balanced? Is this type of information potentially "interpretive"? Are you slightly biased more favorably towards Brand-X detector? Does Brand-Ex detector come standard with a 10.5" coil and Brand-Z detector is factory 8" coil equipped? What is categorized as 'fair' or 'unfair'? When you went back to the car to swap detectors, did the nearby local radio station switch from nighttime 10KW to daytime 50KW transmit power? Or did the A/C compressor and pool pump cycle 'on' at the nearby building? Were your steel-toe'd shoes and steel shovel a bit closer to the coil of Brand-X whilst comparing detectors? Is Brand-T detector more resonant on low conductors (nickels) and Brand-Z detector more resonant on high conductors (silver dimes)? Does one brand detector fall flat on its face in bad ground, yet it will trump all other detectors in fairly mineral-free dirt ---- and you only gave it one chance at one location ---- and came to one final conclusion? Are you trying to compare Brand-T detector equipped with a extremely tight electromagnetic footprint bi-axial elliptical DD coil to Brand-Z detector with a concentric coplanar coil? Are you seeking to find which detector is simply the deepest unit -- or which one presents the best enhanced adjacent target separation characteristics? Are you aware that one detector may be superior at finding coins next to pull-tabs (non-ferrous) trash and another detector may be superior at finding those same coins next to nails (ferrous) trash? Is one person operating Brand-X unit and a different person operating Brand-Y unit? Can you see where this might make a difference? Did you know that you can mark targets today --- and tomorrow you may or may not be able to detect these exact same targets? If tomorrow brings different humidity, temperature, rain or electrical interference, a whole new set of parameters exists. Are you aware that one detector may find one set of targets and another detector may find a completely different set of targets in the same field? Does this make one unit inferior/superior to another unit?
This brings up another interesting scenario/phenomenon. Say a [very small nail] is 6" deep --- and a silver dime is directly beneath the nail, one inch deeper -- at a total depth of 7". In your hands, you have one detector and two coils; a 5" coil and a 10.5" coil. With the small coil installed, the 6" deep nail is a moderate signal strength -- and the (one inch deeper) 7" deep dime is starting to "push the depth limits" of the small coil, yet still within detectable range; HOWEVER, the dimes signal strength to the small coil is much weaker than the shallower nail --- so the detector reports "iron". A one inch deeper depth to the small coil is a formidable signal strength reduction. x-x-x-x-x Now you install the large 10.5" coil. A target at 6" and a target at 7" is hardly even a difference to the larger coil --- the field intensity at 6" & 7" are nearly the same; HOWEVER, the detector reports "coin" because the dime has a larger mass as compared to the [very small nail]. Sometimes this phenomenon is referred to as the "wrap-around" effect. So, is this apples-to-apples... head-to-head comparison? Interpretive it is! In any case, armed with this knowledge can prove to be VERY fruitful. The same detector with different coils may 'light up' completely different targets in the same area. Keep that in mind.
As you can see, there are many things that can alter data resultants. One of the more common mistakes is to be facing, say West (270 deg.) while sweeping with Brand-X, then repeat the same process with Brand-Y detector in almost exactly the same direction, nearly due West (say 255 deg.). This slightly different (15 deg. difference) sweep angle, in many cases, is just enough of a difference to invalidate the comparison. A tight footprint DD coil can highly accentuate this common occurrence as you rotate your body around the target. This is also to say that you may have hunted a parcel of land numerous times, always walking South to North (facing North), yet you keep finding more targets. Maybe a particular target could only be electromagnetically illuminated when the coil is passed over the target from a Northwest-to-Southeast approach angle. One day you are facing (and walking) North again, but, this particular time the target is on your Right side of your sweep (vs. directly in front of you or slightly to the Left side); hence, your coil approach angle into the target is finally the correct angle and - "Bam" you get a good hit. Upon further examination, you decide to rotate your body around this specific target while sweeping --- only to discover that this particular target is detectable in a certain window-of-opportunity of body rotation --- and is undetectable from other approach angles,,,, possibly due to a co-located trash target in close proximity to the good target. You may or may not be able to hear the culprit trash item, because of masking, silent masking or your level of discrimination dialed in to your detector. (If you have tone ID capabilities, use zero discrimination for the full intelligence package of existing dirt scenarios). Depending upon how your coil approaches into the co-located targets, dictates how the detector will respond.
Find the right tool for the right job. Detectors are akin to eye-glasses. There are spectacles for specific tasks such as; near-sightedness, far-sightedness, high magnification macro viewing, long-range zoom viewing, reading glasses, 3-D viewing, Solar eclipse viewing, low-light/night-vision viewing, Sun shades and shades that are specifically designed for nothing ... except to just simply look "cool". And detectors with 'flames' to just simply look ****** ,,,,, you know the rest of the story!
All of this information sounds like 'data overload'. There are many additional scenarios that can void a head-to-head test. Sounds discouraging and difficult, doesn't it? The bottom line is; DO YOUR BEST! Remove as many of the variables as possible. If you can have your buddy standing behind you ,,, handing you detectors and equipment,,,, whilst you have your feet planted in the exact same unmovable spot........ chances are your head-to-head testing should generate valid results --- as sweep angle direction, temperature, ground moisture content, humidity, local electromagnetic interference, local ground mineralization content and other potential "variables" become "constants". When you become accustomed to this procedure,,,,, you will learn that it was not that difficult after all!!! Your conclusive analysis may very well present a resultant that is not in accord with your initial expectations. Keep an open mind and don't be biased ....and enhanced performance will ensue. Your increased awareness and intelligence will 'magically' increase your volume of "keeper" finds!!!

Happy Intelligent Hunting! - Thomas J. Dankowski
 
So, I generally keep several browsers open on my tablet, so I can toggle between several Metal Detecting sights.....yes I lead a boring life, LOL

Anyway, someone copied this from Tom D, don't know where or when this is from, but I didn't pull it off Tom D's forum. He says the same thing I'm saying.....reduce the variables. Test gardens ok but wild targets head to head at the same time is best.

It's long and lengthy but a good read. Not sure that any of us would be properly equipped to argue with him.

Head to Head Comparison Testing by Thomas J. Dankowski

Head-To-Head Comparison Testing

One person claims 7" on a dime in one State and another person claims 12" on a dime in another State. One person hunts a particular site with Brand-X detector, then, the very next day, he hunts the exact place again with Brand-Y detector and finds more good targets, then touts the Brand-X detector as inferior. These are very common and misleading occurrences.
A head-to-head comparison is VERY difficult to perform. Absolutely ALL variables must be removed if any form of validity is to be ascertained. The slightest changing variable can completely void the test. --- Let's get dirty and come away clean.
A textbook perfect test-garden is a good start, yet it does not represent the real world dirt conditions. This includes simplex and complex test-garden scenarios. The preferred method for head-to-head comparison takes place at several different sites with varying mineralization and with several different undug, undisturbed targets in their natural settings.
Let's say you have selected a local park. You have located several 'items of interest' and marked their exact pinpoint location with colored plastic poker chips. You turn off Brand-X detector and swap it out for Brand-Y detector. Here is where the difficulty begins. Was Brand-X detector control panel settings optimized for each individual target? Was the level & quality of signal documented (for comparison) on each individual target..... or are you ONLY seeking to find 'detectable' or 'not detectable' (go/no-go) scenarios to each detector being tested...... regardless of signal strength/quality? How high was the coil over the target(s)? How fast was the coil sweep speed? Are you aware that one detector may like a fast sweep speed.... and the other unit resolves better with a slower sweep speed? Were you facing the exact same direction when sweeping the coil over subject target? Was Brand-Y detector coil sweeping the subject target one inch further forward or aft of the exact pinpoint location? Was only one of the units properly ground balanced? Is this type of information potentially "interpretive"? Are you slightly biased more favorably towards Brand-X detector? Does Brand-Ex detector come standard with a 10.5" coil and Brand-Z detector is factory 8" coil equipped? What is categorized as 'fair' or 'unfair'? When you went back to the car to swap detectors, did the nearby local radio station switch from nighttime 10KW to daytime 50KW transmit power? Or did the A/C compressor and pool pump cycle 'on' at the nearby building? Were your steel-toe'd shoes and steel shovel a bit closer to the coil of Brand-X whilst comparing detectors? Is Brand-T detector more resonant on low conductors (nickels) and Brand-Z detector more resonant on high conductors (silver dimes)? Does one brand detector fall flat on its face in bad ground, yet it will trump all other detectors in fairly mineral-free dirt ---- and you only gave it one chance at one location ---- and came to one final conclusion? Are you trying to compare Brand-T detector equipped with a extremely tight electromagnetic footprint bi-axial elliptical DD coil to Brand-Z detector with a concentric coplanar coil? Are you seeking to find which detector is simply the deepest unit -- or which one presents the best enhanced adjacent target separation characteristics? Are you aware that one detector may be superior at finding coins next to pull-tabs (non-ferrous) trash and another detector may be superior at finding those same coins next to nails (ferrous) trash? Is one person operating Brand-X unit and a different person operating Brand-Y unit? Can you see where this might make a difference? Did you know that you can mark targets today --- and tomorrow you may or may not be able to detect these exact same targets? If tomorrow brings different humidity, temperature, rain or electrical interference, a whole new set of parameters exists. Are you aware that one detector may find one set of targets and another detector may find a completely different set of targets in the same field? Does this make one unit inferior/superior to another unit?
This brings up another interesting scenario/phenomenon. Say a [very small nail] is 6" deep --- and a silver dime is directly beneath the nail, one inch deeper -- at a total depth of 7". In your hands, you have one detector and two coils; a 5" coil and a 10.5" coil. With the small coil installed, the 6" deep nail is a moderate signal strength -- and the (one inch deeper) 7" deep dime is starting to "push the depth limits" of the small coil, yet still within detectable range; HOWEVER, the dimes signal strength to the small coil is much weaker than the shallower nail --- so the detector reports "iron". A one inch deeper depth to the small coil is a formidable signal strength reduction. x-x-x-x-x Now you install the large 10.5" coil. A target at 6" and a target at 7" is hardly even a difference to the larger coil --- the field intensity at 6" & 7" are nearly the same; HOWEVER, the detector reports "coin" because the dime has a larger mass as compared to the [very small nail]. Sometimes this phenomenon is referred to as the "wrap-around" effect. So, is this apples-to-apples... head-to-head comparison? Interpretive it is! In any case, armed with this knowledge can prove to be VERY fruitful. The same detector with different coils may 'light up' completely different targets in the same area. Keep that in mind.
As you can see, there are many things that can alter data resultants. One of the more common mistakes is to be facing, say West (270 deg.) while sweeping with Brand-X, then repeat the same process with Brand-Y detector in almost exactly the same direction, nearly due West (say 255 deg.). This slightly different (15 deg. difference) sweep angle, in many cases, is just enough of a difference to invalidate the comparison. A tight footprint DD coil can highly accentuate this common occurrence as you rotate your body around the target. This is also to say that you may have hunted a parcel of land numerous times, always walking South to North (facing North), yet you keep finding more targets. Maybe a particular target could only be electromagnetically illuminated when the coil is passed over the target from a Northwest-to-Southeast approach angle. One day you are facing (and walking) North again, but, this particular time the target is on your Right side of your sweep (vs. directly in front of you or slightly to the Left side); hence, your coil approach angle into the target is finally the correct angle and - "Bam" you get a good hit. Upon further examination, you decide to rotate your body around this specific target while sweeping --- only to discover that this particular target is detectable in a certain window-of-opportunity of body rotation --- and is undetectable from other approach angles,,,, possibly due to a co-located trash target in close proximity to the good target. You may or may not be able to hear the culprit trash item, because of masking, silent masking or your level of discrimination dialed in to your detector. (If you have tone ID capabilities, use zero discrimination for the full intelligence package of existing dirt scenarios). Depending upon how your coil approaches into the co-located targets, dictates how the detector will respond.
Find the right tool for the right job. Detectors are akin to eye-glasses. There are spectacles for specific tasks such as; near-sightedness, far-sightedness, high magnification macro viewing, long-range zoom viewing, reading glasses, 3-D viewing, Solar eclipse viewing, low-light/night-vision viewing, Sun shades and shades that are specifically designed for nothing ... except to just simply look "cool". And detectors with 'flames' to just simply look ****** ,,,,, you know the rest of the story!
All of this information sounds like 'data overload'. There are many additional scenarios that can void a head-to-head test. Sounds discouraging and difficult, doesn't it? The bottom line is; DO YOUR BEST! Remove as many of the variables as possible. If you can have your buddy standing behind you ,,, handing you detectors and equipment,,,, whilst you have your feet planted in the exact same unmovable spot........ chances are your head-to-head testing should generate valid results --- as sweep angle direction, temperature, ground moisture content, humidity, local electromagnetic interference, local ground mineralization content and other potential "variables" become "constants". When you become accustomed to this procedure,,,,, you will learn that it was not that difficult after all!!! Your conclusive analysis may very well present a resultant that is not in accord with your initial expectations. Keep an open mind and don't be biased ....and enhanced performance will ensue. Your increased awareness and intelligence will 'magically' increase your volume of "keeper" finds!!!

Happy Intelligent Hunting! - Thomas J. Dankowski

Very familiar with this article.
Good info.
 
..Every Human is wired a bit differently, how their ears and CPU work...so theres a detector out there thats absolutely Perfect for them and them alone, their AO and how they process incoming data...might be a cheapy intro, might be top shelf, ya just dont know until you have a few years behind a coil and follow the video comparison tests...and get to know yourself and what you are capable of, and what rig makes the most sense to you...

Some rigs tones are not 'pleasing' to some people...some are too heavy, some are not ergo, some are too fast and some are too slow, some are just plain stupid or broke down all the time..

.A guy has to find a rig that meshes with the majority of their physical strengths in conjunction with their AO...Something they REALLY like to hunt with! It might be the right rig for you, but not to the next guy...The comparisons are very helpful for a guy to narrow it down to maximize his finds and enjoyment in the short time we have here on this Planet.....

So yeah, Thank You to all who take the time and effort to do the comparisons and vids and such...It is very helpful...
 
Nothing personal, but I've never been a big fan of Dankowski's hypothesis. I think it is that they never seem to accurately reflect my in the field results. A "head-to-head" is quite easy to accomplish and with accurate results. For a given set of conditions of course. Now one might use the excuse no two people are going to face the same exact conditions, which is true, but, there will still be a common factor for most that will give a fair assessment of expectations.

A valid head-to head is done in the wild when one detector finds what it deems something to recover in its natural state, you simple run the next detector over the target and compare the results. Does one give more acceptable and accurate info to the user? Then unless the conditions are extreme and or unique you can call the results valid expectations.

I have tested many and found this to be accurate enough to make a valid comparison.
 
Nothing personal, but I've never been a big fan of Dankowski's hypothesis. I think it is that they never seem to accurately reflect my in the field results. A "head-to-head" is quite easy to accomplish and with accurate results. For a given set of conditions of course. Now one might use the excuse no two people are going to face the same exact conditions, which is true, but, there will still be a common factor for most that will give a fair assessment of expectations.

A valid head-to head is done in the wild when one detector finds what it deems something to recover in its natural state, you simple run the next detector over the target and compare the results. Does one give more acceptable and accurate info to the user? Then unless the conditions are extreme and or unique you can call the results valid expectations.

I have tested many and found this to be accurate enough to make a valid comparison.


None of any of this was taken personally. Just a open and friendly debate over opinions, personal beliefs and personal experience.

I agree with this statement. I guess when I look at it I'd like to remove as much of the human error an ground change as possible. And if both detectors a and b sound off on the target, make an honest opinion if it's a yes or maybe with each machine then dig.. The difference i believe is wild trash and how it impacts your readings and when one picks up a target and the other does not, then dig it and see what it is.

I understand all we speak of is theory, and opinions. But that's the nature of forums, to lead people to what we think is accurate. LOL
 
I don't believe most comparison videos, because most are biased only showing what the person doing the video wants you to see.

Anyone doing videos needs to have equal time on the detectors, and know how to set them the best for the conditions they are testing them in.
 
I don't believe most comparison videos, because most are biased only showing what the person doing the video wants you to see.

Anyone doing videos needs to have equal time on the detectors, and know how to set them the best for the conditions they are testing them in.

Granted. So a guy has to weed through any kind of product comp vids with a wide angle view...taking into account all of this marketing crapolla...waiting on the infield input from people you trust....Just to say, even with every product hyped...Case in point...

I'm seriously looking at getting myself a Prius!....based upon in field usage and feedback from people I know and trust.. its like damn...OK..watching and following all these years...a guy has to sooner or later recognize tech advancements and how they can help a guy...
 
My opinion on Detector comparisons is that they are a waste of time,and prove nothing as far as finds go.
Why? Because I have taken the Etrac,deus,and F75ltd2 out on numerous occasions and came home broke.Went out the next time with the at pro,omegga or 705 and came home with silver,clad or gold.
Seems to me people should be concentrating more on location than the machine.Thats what should be talked about,and possibly compared,locations.
Lots of debates on this is better than that machine for whatever reason.Kinda Funny cause your not finding much in debates,and the old nail test videos only finds the coin placed there.
All machines are good, and better is a matter of opinion.No joke,location is the key and not to be a jerk,but if guys would spend more time actually searching for good locations you wouldn’t need to worry about if this machine finds somthing your current one won’t.
I use ,buy ,sell and trade a lot of machines.Not because I’m looking for the ultimate machine,or because I care to know which is better..I use multiple machines IN The field,not testing ,,because I just like to try them out.No other reason,I don’t buy them to compare..
And I gotta say,I’ve made nice finds with everything from the ace 350 to the Etrac...Want nice finds,stop worrying which machine finds a nickel better.Do some research,get some old locations and get the goods.
 
Last edited:
I see some great responses here. This is turning out to be a good go-to source for those new to the hobby and begin to wonder about why they see so difference results on video.

We have learned over time that what detector you chose to call your magic wand has far less to do with what fills your pouch than the right location and knowing how to get the best out of what you have.

It's like I've said many times. I feel just as well equipped when using my 15 year old Whites DFX as I do the Deus or the NOX 800. When it comes to hunting gold in tot lots I'd bet the farm my 15 year old DFX will go toe-to-toe with any modern top seller. Deep coins? um... not so much LOL. Right tool for the right job is what matters.

Comparing detectors, is it really a possibility? To some degree I believe they can, but at the end of the day it is location, and a dash of luck, that fills the pouch!
 
I see some great responses here. This is turning out to be a good go-to source for those new to the hobby and begin to wonder about why they see so difference results on video.

We have learned over time that what detector you chose to call your magic wand has far less to do with what fills your pouch than the right location and knowing how to get the best out of what you have.

It's like I've said many times. I feel just as well equipped when using my 15 year old Whites DFX as I do the Deus or the NOX 800. When it comes to hunting gold in tot lots I'd bet the farm my 15 year old DFX will go toe-to-toe with any modern top seller. Deep coins? um... not so much LOL. Right tool for the right job is what matters.

Comparing detectors, is it really a possibility? To some degree I believe they can, but at the end of the day it is location, and a dash of luck, that fills the pouch!

Well said
 
I see some great responses here. This is turning out to be a good go-to source for those new to the hobby and begin to wonder about why they see so difference results on video.

We have learned over time that what detector you chose to call your magic wand has far less to do with what fills your pouch than the right location and knowing how to get the best out of what you have.

It's like I've said many times. I feel just as well equipped when using my 15 year old Whites DFX as I do the Deus or the NOX 800. When it comes to hunting gold in tot lots I'd bet the farm my 15 year old DFX will go toe-to-toe with any modern top seller. Deep coins? um... not so much LOL. Right tool for the right job is what matters.

Comparing detectors, is it really a possibility? To some degree I believe they can, but at the end of the day it is location, and a dash of luck, that fills the pouch!

Some truth here , i was hunting an old house site and a guy showed up with a 35 year old Jetco detector and asked if he could join me. He found a few things but spent most of his time watching me dig up coin spills and other nice finds. Ya he did find some keepers, but at the end of the day his finds compared to mine ,,,, well lets just say he was very envious. But still what you guys are saying there is very much truth in. You can take a great location and a 25 dollar machine and find some goodies.

My problem is when i hunt I WANT IT ALL! I want to leave there pretty darn sure if some one with a great unmasking machine comes behind me, he will think man there was not much left at this site!!

If we were to take his machine and mine and start doing to ground testing i gotta hunch the results would be just about like what was experienced in the field in real life targets.

Is a Ace 150 better than his Jetco. Yep, and at what point would a At Pro do the same to the 150 as the 150 did to the Jetco?

But i do understand not everyone is as blessed as some of us and can own 10 to 15 or so of the top of the line machines and compare them. But if i were a newbie i would take what i read on comparisons to heart to find the machine that works best for my circumstances where he likes to hunt.

I am one of those guys i gotta see it for myself ,,,, so i own 10 top of the line machines and i have found that for the most part what was reported on videos and posts on forums shapes up to be for the most part, fairly accurate and i could have saved myself a ton of money if i had just used the info out there to make my decisions.

There are many variables , but i promise you beyond a shadow of doubt there is a ton of difference in capabilities of machines, and it does not take a rocket scientist to see these differences.
 
Is a Ace 150 better than his Jetco. Yep, and at what point would a At Pro do the same to the 150 as the 150 did to the Jetco?

And this is where comparisons matter. You need the right tools for the job. Location only matters if you have the right tools. Try to take that AT Pro/Ace150 where I detect and you will maybe get 1'' on a dime if you are lucky. Take the EQX, Excal, CZ21 and you will get a solid 10-12'' on a dime.
 
And this is where comparisons matter. You need the right tools for the job. Location only matters if you have the right tools. Try to take that AT Pro/Ace150 where I detect and you will maybe get 1'' on a dime if you are lucky. Take the EQX, Excal, CZ21 and you will get a solid 10-12'' on a dime.

You must have some nice dirt to get 10 inches on a coin with those machines,any machine for that matter.Thats great! Im glad I’m in Pennsylvania,cause the at pro gets a solid 8 inches here,pretty much what all other machines I’ve used get..aside from that,location is still the key to success in metal detecting.,machines in my soil from midrange price and up are all pretty equal with in a inch or 2,,and that’s splitting hairs at that..Can’t say I’ve really found many great finds past 6 inches,but I’ve found lots in the 6 inch range..And if any machine goes deep it would be the Etrac,which I’ve used extensively.
 
Lots of good information on this thread. I will probably repeat some of what's already been said so apologize in a advance.

I think we can all agree that a $200 machine isn't going to perform the same as a $1000 machine or even a $500 one, I'm talking retail pricing not used. I think we can also agree that almost any detector will find a 2" quarter in clean ground. But when things like trash, ground minerals, EMI, etc are introduced into the equation, it becomes evident that some metal detectors perform better than others.

I own and have owned many brand metal detectors over the past 35 years and compared them to one another at one time or another. I think it's foolish to not compare them. How will you ever know if you like one over the other if you don't either make the comparison yourself or watch one on youtube. I post youtube comparisons from time to time myself and I thank others that take the time to do the same. Until you do it yourself, you don't realize how much time it really takes to video the comparison, edit the video and post it to the world. The only thing I dislike about them is when someone gets a hold of a new detector and knows absolutely nothing about that detector.

There a 4 areas I can think of where comparing metal detectors can be really useful. I want to repeat what others have said, other peoples videos can be biased. It's best if you can make the comparison yourself, but youtube is a great starting point.

First, learning a new metal detector. If you bought or want to buy a new metal detector, you can watch videos to learn how the metal detector operates and what it's strengths/weaknesses are. Questions such as ease of operation, included accessories and sounds the metal detector makes can all be useful to a new purchaser. This is especially true if you can find a video comparing the metal detector you want to one you already have.

Second, depth comparisons. Now this can be tricky because soil conditions vary all over the country. But it still gives you an idea based on that persons soil and experience with the metal detector. In most cases a comparison with like priced detectors is the most useful.

Third, the metal detectors ability to handle ground minerals, related to above. In general pulse induction machines handle minerals the best and get the most depth followed by multi frequency and finally VLF. Coils also play into how the metal detector performs. If you've got a particularly difficult area to hunt, such as those that hunt the red clay of Virginia for relics, you want to do your research. I can assure you that you don't want to show up to a Diggin' in Virginia hunt with a an inexpensive VLF. Most participants use pulse induction machine these days.

Finally, trash density. Let's face it, most of the good stuff left in the easily accessible sites is being masked by junk. Not all metal detectors are created equal in this department. To say that a $200 metal detector is going to clean out a site is ridiculous. There are endless scenarios that determine whether or not a good signal will be located. Angle of approach, iron next to or above, coil size, target size, conductivity of target, phase of the moon LOL, etc, etc, etc.

All this being said I feel that test gardens are good starting point but in-field comparisons can tell us so much more. We can't recreate every target orientation scenario in a test garden. There may be multiple factors such as trash, depth and ground minerals at work on one target simultaneously. Like I said before, I've compared many metal detectors to each other in the field over the years. I've found that most high end detectors will see any given target. The thing that makes them differ is how they report the signal to the user and how the user interprets it. This is why knowing your machine is so important.

One metal detector may scream COIN! while another says, could be a nail. But, from experience you think it could be a coin and dig it to find it is in fact a coin. Or one detector says definitely junk from all angles, but the other gets a solid chirp from one direction so you dig it to find it's something good really deep. Or my favorite, one detector says Silver Dollar at 6" and the other says flat tin to find out it is flat tin. One I've personally experienced, was a time a piece of coke was coming in really good on one detector but the other one was clearly calling it junk. Having the best metal detector money can buy won't help you if you don't know what it's telling you.
 
You must have some nice dirt to get 10 inches on a coin with those machines,any machine for that matter.Thats great! Im glad I’m in Pennsylvania,cause the at pro gets a solid 8 inches here,pretty much what all other machines I’ve used get..aside from that,location is still the key to success in metal detecting.,machines in my soil from midrange price and up are all pretty equal with in a inch or 2,,and that’s splitting hairs at that..Can’t say I’ve really found many great finds past 6 inches,but I’ve found lots in the 6 inch range..And if any machine goes deep it would be the Etrac,which I’ve used extensively.

Salt Beach. Wet sand/Water. Only options are multifrequency/PI. Targets range in depth based on the day. Some days everything is one scoop others its 3. Sand/beach conditions change so often you just don't know what you are going to get until you get there. But I'm not complaining...you can search the same patch of beach everyday and find totally different things due to erosion/recent drops - its awesome! Just really hot and crowded right now!
 
Salt Beach. Wet sand/Water. Only options are multifrequency/PI. Targets range in depth based on the day. Some days everything is one scoop others its 3. Sand/beach conditions change so often you just don't know what you are going to get until you get there. But I'm not complaining...you can search the same patch of beach everyday and find totally different things due to erosion/recent drops - its awesome! Just really hot and crowded right now!
You beach guys got it made!
 
Back
Top Bottom