ME&MYACE400
Elite Member
I am making a wish list on what i want in my next detector. First is the depth accuracy on the target. Which one would you recommend?
Thank you
Thank you
Which Detector Has The Best Depth Signal
- Thread starter ME&MYACE400
- Start date
woodbutcher
Forum Supporter
Never owned a 3030,but the Etrac Has the best audio at depth I’ve heard.
detectorben
Elite Member
Same here. It seems the CTX is just a slightly better version of the Etrac with some bells and whistles so I would put CTX as #1. The Etrac is a very good #2 though[emoji6]
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
There is no right answer here really.
Depends on what kind of target.
Minelab XS explorer best Etrac and Etrac best CTX IMO on higher conductors.
Equinox best I've heard on low conductors.
Another detector in the running here might be AKA Signum MFD, I have not used it but have used MFT model. MFD model evidently is deeper.
Speaking of deeper.
In the higher mineralized ground the Minelab Equinox might just be tops.
Don't know for sure yet. But I highly suspect. Based on some folks experiences they have posted where they have used Nox. And in the higher mineralized ground Nox could get top honors for both high, medium and low comductive targets.
I could be leaving out some units here too.
And so folks understand my higher mineralized soil comment above.
Folks living in states like Az, Ca, Nm, Ca, North Ga, North Al, Western Va, Eastern Ky, East/SE Tn, there are more places these the ones I am familiar with cause I talk to folks and read folks threads about what they witness as far as detecting using general purpose VLF detector.
Depends on what kind of target.
Minelab XS explorer best Etrac and Etrac best CTX IMO on higher conductors.
Equinox best I've heard on low conductors.
Another detector in the running here might be AKA Signum MFD, I have not used it but have used MFT model. MFD model evidently is deeper.
Speaking of deeper.
In the higher mineralized ground the Minelab Equinox might just be tops.
Don't know for sure yet. But I highly suspect. Based on some folks experiences they have posted where they have used Nox. And in the higher mineralized ground Nox could get top honors for both high, medium and low comductive targets.
I could be leaving out some units here too.
And so folks understand my higher mineralized soil comment above.
Folks living in states like Az, Ca, Nm, Ca, North Ga, North Al, Western Va, Eastern Ky, East/SE Tn, there are more places these the ones I am familiar with cause I talk to folks and read folks threads about what they witness as far as detecting using general purpose VLF detector.
Cherry Picker
Forum Supporter
I agree a lot of variables involved, but as far as in general, I'd have to go CTX.
ME&MYACE400
Elite Member
So you would be saying that the CTX would be best in telling me if the target is three inches deep you would not be seeing it register on the screen as six inches deep? I find that the Ace 400 is off by a long ways when picking up a target. So frustrating the least
woodbutcher
Forum Supporter
So you would be saying that the CTX would be best in telling me if the target is three inches deep you would not be seeing it register on the screen as six inches deep? I find that the Ace 400 is off by a long ways when picking up a target. So frustrating the least
As far as registering on the depth meter,all fbs I’ve used were really good,from the xs explorer to the Etrac..the depth meter is usually spot on.i think you’d be good with a safari or explorer.I know the explorer xs is (old news) to some,,but it was probably the only machine I ever regretted selling..it’s that good imo
Stiffwrists
Elite Member
So you would be saying that the CTX would be best in telling me if the target is three inches deep you would not be seeing it register on the screen as six inches deep? I find that the Ace 400 is off by a long ways when picking up a target. So frustrating the least
Most detectors' depth meter is based on a coin sized target. If you are detecting something considerably larger or smaller, the depth accuracy may differ.
