• Forum server maintanace Friday night.(around 7PM Centeral time)
    Website will be off line for a short while.

    You may need to log out, log back in after we're back online.

Etrac VS CTX Would like others thoughts on it

I will limit my comments here to etrac and CTX.

First and foremost CTX recovers faster than etrac,,,meaning it should alert on more solo pieces of iron p than etrac ( same sized coils),, and should also alert moreso on nonferrous targets commingled with ferrous materials ( if detecting scenario will allow). Remember it is possible the detecting scenario won't allow either detector to sound off on a nonferrous target also.

Running 0 disc on etrac,,,really can only be done in a few ways,,,but these methods a are flawed somehat, 4 tone ferrous,,and 2 tone ferrous.
You can't run O disc in conductive mode ( nails and silver sound the same) tone wise,,,sure you could still find some coins by doing,,,by constant staring of screen would need to be down,,,plus you would likely negate allowing the etrac to alert you on a say coin higher conductor colocated with nail by doing.

2 tone ferrous
First and foremost,,only a higher tone is provided on nonferrous,,,so all nonferrous sounds the same. Also due to the way etrac is engineered,,for example 2 tone ferrous has a present tone break of 17 ferrous,,,meaning any target reporting with a higher than 17 ferrous number will report low tone-- hence operator will walk right by.

4 tone ferrous is similar,,,but has tone breaks at different levels for the 4 tones setup,,,but again an operator has no clue based on tone what they have condcutive wise under their coil.

CTX,,,different ballgame,,,first and foremost,,CTX engineered to give ferrous number closer to the 12 ferrous line ( using ferrous coin) process.

But even if the ferrous number strays off the 12 line,,an operator can by using combined mode,,,,have their tone bin pattern set,,for example to give non iron tone on targets reporting say all the way up to line 25 ferrous.

Tone bins can be set up,,,and using conductive scale,,,target conductivity can be determined by tone.

Even nickels can be set to tone in like silver coins if user wants.

So using combined,,,with CTX,,an open screen can be used,,,,op can hear iron,,and nonferrous targets-- depending on tone bin setup target conductivity can be derived by tone.

Hopes this explains.

Remember,,even using CTX,,depending on detecting scenario on any target,,,ideal tone that represents targets-- not absolute all the time,,,same with etrac.

But the fbs/fbs2 detectors, especially etrac and CTX,,far more accurate most times vs many other detectors.
At least my experiences. (Using conductive based program).

Thanks for the info, much appreciated. I didn't realize the CTX was that configurable.

I also agree with your point that just because two different machines can see and properly identify a known target, that isn't the same as initially locating a target. Sometimes a big difference.
 
The CTX can see multiple targets at once. It is better at unmasking because of this. Depth is the same. The CTX has a much better tone system. The tones are that good and offer full customization so you really don't have to look at the screen if you don't want to. The CTX is a better detector. Is it worth the extra $$$$? It depends how much you hunt in my opinion.
 
I have not used the CTX so I cannot comment on that machine. I not impressed by the etrac, and I've used Minelabs for years. I've done comparison swinging with two different etrac units set up and equipped exactly the same, so it's not my machine. I paid good money for it but sits alone with my old DFX.
 
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 in fact alert user to when swung over. But when one is out a hunting and locations of targets are unknown--- and a person has to initially locate,,,,believe me this can make a big difference.

Never said you said or implied head to head were all together worthless, i was responding to your comment that they don't paint a true picture. That statement, IMO was what i disagree with.

Here is my point, Features and benefits are great, but the core of what I believe a user wants, is accurate target ID. In a nut shell, we want to pass over the junk with out missing the goodies. some may say Target separation is preferred, but that also boils down to Accurate target ID. Manufactures apparently see it that way, just look at many of the lines and how they promote them.

Swing speed, Coil positioning (to the ground), along with user settings, are all user related issues. The guy who swings a slower Etrac would get beat up if he says its not as good as his harbor Freight unit because his swing speed is too fast. this is a part of learning a machine.

Coil position, I believe you were indicating angle of approach, would be mostly luck, since we don't know where the target is to approach from a particular angle.

If you had 10 machines with the same price, all with different features, benefits, weight, but one was the clear winner in Target ID, I'd feel pretty confident that the sales of that one would be well above the others.

There are very few head to Head comparison videos on undug targets(compared to the volume of MD videos). But making a decision based on those, and still not being satisfied. is part of human nature. we tend to always think the grass is greener on the other side.

In summary actually getting a full swing over a desired target, has everything to do with anything BUT the MD. it is how the machine responds to that target, that peaks our interest. this is why i say if you want to compare the performance of one detector to another, you need to swing over the same target, and while it is more difficult to do, it is best to be on a target that has yet to be dug.
 
Never said you said or implied head to head were all together worthless, i was responding to your comment that they don't paint a true picture. That statement, IMO was what i disagree with.

Here is my point, Features and benefits are great, but the core of what I believe a user wants, is accurate target ID. In a nut shell, we want to pass over the junk with out missing the goodies. some may say Target separation is preferred, but that also boils down to Accurate target ID. Manufactures apparently see it that way, just look at many of the lines and how they promote them.

Swing speed, Coil positioning (to the ground), along with user settings, are all user related issues. The guy who swings a slower Etrac would get beat up if he says its not as good as his harbor Freight unit because his swing speed is too fast. this is a part of learning a machine.

Coil position, I believe you were indicating angle of approach, would be mostly luck, since we don't know where the target is to approach from a particular angle.

If you had 10 machines with the same price, all with different features, benefits, weight, but one was the clear winner in Target ID, I'd feel pretty confident that the sales of that one would be well above the others.

There are very few head to Head comparison videos on undug targets(compared to the volume of MD videos). But making a decision based on those, and still not being satisfied. is part of human nature. we tend to always think the grass is greener on the other side.

In summary actually getting a full swing over a desired target, has everything to do with anything BUT the MD. it is how the machine responds to that target, that peaks our interest. this is why i say if you want to compare the performance of one detector to another, you need to swing over the same target, and while it is more difficult to do, it is best to be on a target that has yet to be dug.

You are assuming it is superior target ID a person wants.

But what about just locating suspect good targets.

For example when the Deus first came to USA many folks questioned this detector.

Many didn't like it's ID system--- it is lacking on average vs say etrac and CTX,, yet the detector seems to sell well.

And IMO,,,the Xp Deus has even upped the game for other manufacturers,,,for example I strongly suspect the Makro and Nokta manufacturers have to a point tried to get some similar performance with some of their recent models.

Look around,,,you will see many folks who used to run for example explorers and etracs,,even CTXs,,,they are rehunting sites,,,and at first they couldn't believe what they were finding.

Now I just used Deus in this example,,,some other detectors I could say the same or similar things about,

Now,,head to head testing,,,just don't show the whole true pic,,like I've said before.

For example, looking at a head to head on a buried target,,say comparing etrac and Deus,,,could one just by looking at video,,,would the point that much more ground can be covered in same time with Deus vs Etrac,,,and the Deus being quite efficient,,,,would a person realize??? I don't think so.

If a person also thinks,,that Etrac or CTX for example,,IDs targets correctly all the time??? They don't.

And my comments relating to soil minerals are spot on. Why??
Go east of me a few miles,,,just try to get CTX to even detect a 8" penny,,much less ID accurately.
I could show a video like that,,,and it would paint the CTX maybe in a worse light--- vs what would be the norm for a lot of places inside the USA.

Actually Etrac is more accurate on average vs CTX ( conductive number),, so if it is just Target ID one is concerned with solely,,,buy the etrac.

But even just saying this,,,the CTX does do some other things better than etrac.

Some of the features a detector possesses,,,yes they can be shown in video,,,but again a person watching,,,might not get true full picture of how it works or how dependable it is when in the field.

I think it is a fair statement to make here.

Not all videos showing metal detectors in action,,,are equal,,,some better than others.

Also,,rememember some folks have different styles in which they will hunt,,some folks are satisfied with sweeping slow,,creeping their coil around,,,some folks want to move faster when detecting.

You can go back and look at over the last decade,,,and this will bear itself out,,,,folks have tried explorers and etrac and switched,,and other detectors and switched,,,,because the detector didn't match their style of hunting.
 
I bought and read Andy's book recently for the CTX3030. He goes into a lot of history about the development of the BBS, then FBS detectors and what the engineers sought to gain from each successive offering.

In an nutshell, the ETrac was designed to stabilize the conductive reading on deeper targets, though the ferrous numbers could be quite different on the same target at different depths.

The CTX, they worked at stabilizing the ferrous number on deeper targets. Of course, they also introduced FBS2 coils and moved signal processing into the coil itself. The signal going to the control head on CTX is a digital data stream which is more immune to outside noise than an analog signal. This helps the CTX operator find deeper targets with better ID. That's the reason the coils are special. But the 4 coils that are available cover a good range of size and I can't really see anyone needing much more than what's already offered.

Great analysis.
 
Back
Top Bottom