So, I've never swung the CTX, with less than six months with the Etrac, So I'm certainly not qualified to argue one direction or another.
But this point TNSS, i would completely disagree with. The only true way to compare responses from one machine to another, is on buried undue targets. I've consistently heard of particular machines that don't air test well, or aren't effective on test gardens due to the lack of the halo the effect.
Comparing the way "MD A found the '41 Merc in a park I've hit with MD B hard before and never found", is nearly the poorest way to compare detectors. Too many variables with a that method.
Swinging over a target, probably has more to do with the detectorist, than anything else. The way the MD, responds to that target, is what each of us are looking for.
I never said head to head comparisons were altogether useless,,,just that they don't paint the true pic.
After already knowing where a coin is buried for example ( discovered with another detector),,,sure another detector may infact alert user to when swung over. But when one is out a hunting and locations of targets are unknown--- and a person has to iniatially locate,,,,believe me this can make a big difference.
For example some detectors are just by design,,,more swing speed friendly,,some provide correct tone on initial pass of coil over target ( reflects more accurate conducitivty) than others..
And there is also,,,,just how simple is the detector to setup,,,to be more successful on average???
This too plays a part.
Head to head tests,,,,do we always know for example each detector is set for optimum for detection. And remember this optimum for detecting say a one target scenario for head to head,,,,are the settings used,,,can these same settings be used generally to hunt a site and be successful???
I am sure lots of folks have bought detectors based on videos depicting head to head test.
Have all been satisfied with the detector they bought by doing???
Don't think so,,,and just maybe,,,some of what I have talked about above,,,may be the reasons why.
And EMI hasn't been talked about.
For deep targets,,,EMI can definitely affect.
If anyone for example thinks a White's V3i is not more supceptable to EMI vs fbs detectors,,,,I got some beach front property in Az to sell someone.
This not a hit job on White's or the detector,,,but one can look at head to head test between fbs and V3i,,,,and both may be seeing target in video,,,,but overall on average FBS will kick butt in more places around modern devices being run that produce EMI.
For folks watching head to head,,when you watch them,,,yes pay attention to the signal provided,,,but also pay attention to how critical when compared ( coil position),,, and swing speed (how critical),,, and see if the person doing video,,if they comment on ground minerals levels. Coil height above ground comparisons should be watched too. And when coil height above ground are optimum,,swing speed are optimum,,how consistent between passes of coil over target,,,does the detector report--- both tone and correct ID (or closer to being more accurate).
These all will usually provide clues,,if watching and thinking about a future purchase.
A entire thread dedicated to head to head testing,,,maybe a good idea.
And some videos placed in thread,,,so some discussions can be had.
Really if in the end,,,folks are more apprised,,so they can make a purchase that satisfies them-- all good.
And may just maybe some folks who post here,,make them more conscious about their head to head videos,,and in doing so they do better videos.
