Very impressive test for the Legend


why dont you perform the same test as shown in the video I posted with a DFX and see if it can perform the same as shown in the video I posted

the test you showed in the video you posted is no where near as impressive as shown in the video I posted show us apples for apples and then you can say the DFX is equal to in performance

and do not take me wrong the DFX from my understanding was a great detector have never used one but do an equal comparison Detector
 
why dont you perform the same test as shown in the video I posted with a DFX and see if it can perform the same as shown in the video I posted

the test you showed in the video you posted is no where near as impressive as shown in the video I posted show us apples for apples and then you can say the DFX is equal to in performance

and do not take me wrong the DFX from my understanding was a great detector have never used one but do an equal comparison Detector

I did this video nearly 13 years ago. It can perform the same test and that is why these iron nail tests have never impressed me. As long as pretty much any detector is adjusted with iron bias/discrimination close to the iron threshold, any nonferrous metal added will sound off.

In my experience the only true test of a detector is time. Will it remain a top contender or fade away is a matter of time in the hands of users.
 
Testing Detectors should included testing with difference Search Coil sizes and types. There can be a lot of difference in the results. And it ought to include various control adjustments in the test to find out two things:

1.. Does the adjustment setting, or multiple adjustment settings, improve performance in the test to handle the conditions or degrade the performance.

2.. Are the final setting adjustments not just 'functional' for that particular 'test', but are the final settings simple and functional as they are such that the detector can be turned on anywhere and used without a problem?

I have seen people make adjustment setting just to show off a particular test result with their detector, but it wasn't going to be very useful for any serious metal detecting task.

And then we have so many 'tests' that include Iron Nails, but the testing isn't often very practical or really duplicates any in-the-field experiences. Some have a non-ferrous target positioned off the end or head of a Nail swept "down-the-barrel" and others have them so they sweep across the Nail to encounter the desired target.

Both are good 'personal' tests just to give the detector user and idea about detector response-and-recovery, or separation, as well as how the Discriminate setting might affect the audio response as well as recovery or separation in a ferrous / non-ferrous environment.

After a very, very avid 57+ years of detecting, mainly old sites that are littered with Iron Nails and other ferrous debris, I know that far too often we are likely to have our most challenge from sites with an abundance of closely-spaced ferrous junk that can easily mask a non-ferrous target. Also I have fond that seldom is the undesirable target in a nice-and-proper orientation to a desired good target that it served as a good test example.

Back on Labor Day Weekend of '94 I was with a lot of folks from a couple of metal detecting clubs who gathered annually at a Utah ghost town. I was detecting, but also evaluating a newer detectors for a company to see how it handled dense Iron contaminated sites. It didn't do so well for those tasks.

As I walked up a slope to the old "school hill" with the building long gone I could see what almost appeared as a sea of Iron Nails. Everywhere! Close and typically exposed on top of the ground, but knowing that some targets are going to be just under the dirt from relatively shallow to the typical 1" to 4" depth range in most of the ghost towns I hunt. Both good and bad targets.

I wanted to Ground Balance so I looked down just ahead of me to try and find a clean area, but instead, right there in front of my feet, I spied a round disk-shaped target that was surrounded by 4 Iron Nails of different sizes and lengths and it was just a random "as-is" arrangement. A natural encounter.

I also had my notebook with me to keep noted of things I liked or didn't about the detector and coils. The first thing I did was brush a little dust of the coin to see it was an 188? Indian Head Cent. I didn't move or disturb the coin or four Nails. I checked that detector and it didn't do well at all.

I had three 'city' guys come try their White's 4-filter Coin Hunting detectors w/8" and 9½" coils and I used my screwdriver to mark 4 different sweep routes for them to follow. They were not impressed with the result they got since there were no more than 1 or 2 audio hits with a possible of 8, sweeping from the left and from the right on the 4 marked sweep routes.

My "detecting buddy", Debbie, was just down-slope so I called her up to show the fellows how her detector worked. She looked down, saw the coin and nails and said, "Oh, that ..". The she swept fully across the targets and walked a circle around it. Sweep not just the 4 marked routes, but just did a 360° walk and swept back and fort ... and got a good hit on the Indian Head from any direction. Then she looked at the three guys, then looked at me and said "Is that what you wanted?" and I said yes then off she went to find good stuff.

We, Me and Debbie and Donnette her mom, and a few others had talked with the fellows the night before at camp and asked what they were using. We all suggested a different brand detector (we were all using Tesoro's) and also pick a smaller-size coil (which we naturally had attached to our detectors).

Since it was a challenging 'test' on a smaller-size coin and multiple Iron Nails, I used some paper from my notebook and laid it over the nails and coin. Got their impressions and traced the exact layout, then picked up the Indian Head an Iron Nails. That evening I used my note paper and the Iron Nails and a firm piece of cardboard and duplicated that exact layout. After I tot back home to Oregon I hired a sign maker to make an exact duplication using some plastic corrugated sign-board material.

I made these up into a 'kit' that I have been selling for almost 28 years now and have provided one of Monte's Nail Board Performance Test 'kits' to White's Garrett, Nokta/Makro, and several dealers. Many many more individuals have also acquired one. Since it is an actual in-the-field encounter 'test' and with the Nail Board solid and weatherproof and the Iron nails are always going to be in the same orientation, it makes a very fair and consistent 'test'


Detector: said:
I did this video nearly 13 years ago. It can perform the same test and that is why these iron nail tests have never impressed me. As long as pretty much any detector is adjusted with iron bias/discrimination close to the iron threshold, any nonferrous metal added will sound off.
I had four DFX's and they were kind of okay, but I have been using, and continued to use, and still have and use the XLT. In many side-by-side comparisons through the years the XLT was the winner (for me) but both are okay, especially for urban Coin Hunting. Not taking on really ugly ferrous contaminated sites.

Detector: said:
In my experience the only true test of a detector is time. Will it remain a top contender or fade away is a matter of time in the hands of users.
Well, the DFX as well as the XLT have "faded away" from the popular use crowd. There are some of us who happen to like them for certain applications and keep them in use, but they have faded from the modern-day popular detectors.

Monte

And for those who are curious, my friend Debbie was using an original Silver Sabre I sold her in May of '86 with a stock 7" Concentric coil. Today she still has and uses it as well as a White's Classic ID w/6½" Concentric coil she added a few years ago. and just this month she bought a Garrett Apex and a NEL 5" DD coil to learn..

I have an Apex, F75+, F19, FORS Relic, XLT and ORX ... but I always travel with a Tesoro Bandido II µMAX w/6" Concentric coil and it continues to serve me well.

Take a detector to a challenging site and learn it and what the best settings are. Just a natural, as-is environment. Remember that a lot of closely-positioned ferrous debris can easily mask a good target. Here is a short video that proves the point: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kIZYh3mIFq4
 
[QUOTE=Monte;
I made these up into a 'kit' that I have been selling for almost 28 years now and have provided one of Monte's Nail Board Performance Test 'kits' to White's Garrett, Nokta/Makro, and several dealers. Many many more individuals have also acquired one. Since it is an actual in-the-field encounter 'test' and with the Nail Board solid and weatherproof and the Iron nails are always going to be in the same orientation, it makes a very fair and consistent 'test'


Monte where can we purchase one of your kits from would love to have one for my own testing purposes.
 
All nail tests that don't vary the configuration over multiple trials are junk science:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iF-jrqk3YLY

The scientific illiteracy in the metal detecting community is baffling to me...

While I find most tests are sorely lacking in the proper scientific method, I'm curious to know what "variations" you are referring to. I mean, he's got iron elevated, then places nails right on the coin, then throws in a few more nails for good measure.

There's only so much you can do when there are so many variables. Otherwise, all you would be doing is test variations and never detecting :)

With that said, the main point of the test, was to show just how critical a manual iron bias control is, and I believe that objective was achieved.
 
While I find most tests are sorely lacking in the proper scientific method, I'm curious to know what "variations" you are referring to. I mean, he's got iron elevated, then places nails right on the coin, then throws in a few more nails for good measure.

There's only so much you can do when there are so many variables. Otherwise, all you would be doing is test variations and never detecting :)

With that said, the main point of the test, was to show just how critical a manual iron bias control is, and I believe that objective was achieved.

I'd recommend checking out that video, as it states, the configurations needs to be randomized by a computer to eliminate bias and any unforeseen relationships between coil geometry and target separation / iron unmasking.

These people are testing specific scenarios. I am interested in the detector that wins a higher percentage of randomized scenarios, because that detector will unmask more over the long run, via the law of large numbers.

One thing I think is missing from the iron-unmasking discussion is the concept of false-positives. e.g. one could hypothetically design a detector that gives a non-ferrous tone on all ferrous signals and then when subjected to these iron-unmasking "tests" it would appear to succeed in all of them, but when taken out into the field, it would obviously be problematic.

Specifically, if one detector unmasks more than another, you would also have to know their comparable false-positive rates to then decided which detector performs better for your needs. E.g. if you are at a hunted out site, accepting better unmasking in exchange for more false positives would be optimal, but the opposite might be optimal at a fresh site.
 
One thing I think is missing from the iron-unmasking discussion is the concept of false-positives. e.g. one could hypothetically design a detector that gives a non-ferrous tone on all ferrous signals and then when subjected to these iron-unmasking "tests" it would appear to succeed in all of them, but when taken out into the field, it would obviously be problematic.

100% agree.

Sure, lower the iron bias on D2, Legend, Nox, etc, to pass an unmasking air test, but how much iron falsing will you get in the field? The solution of course, is using the iron bias low enough to unmask all you want, but not to the point where you're sick of digging nails and/or steel bottle caps :D
 
BTW- I was well aware of Loren's video, and have previously reposted it numerous times.
 
I've been waiting for Paystreak to post his extensive field tests that he has done with the Legend's new update. No, he does not like air tests of any kind.

He has just posted a summary of his thoughts on the update, and explains why he hasn't released all of his field test videos yet. If you don't want to watch the video, then long story short, he say's that the new Iron Filter, pitch tones, and M3 are, "killin' it".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KRi4qV-M_10
 
Last edited:
I've been waiting for Paystreak to post his videos of his extensive field tests that he has done with the Legend's new update. No, he does not like air tests of any kind.

He has just posted a summary of his thoughts on the update, and explains why he hasn't released all of his field test videos yet. If you don't want to watch the video, then long story short, he say's that the new Iron Filter, pitch tones, and M3 are, "killin' it".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KRi4qV-M_10

If you have a Legend watching Paystreak is a great way to learn the nuances of the detector.

He seems to be very impressed.

As soon as I get this update I am going back to rescan my main permish.

Highly mineralized, compacted soil packed with iron, this will be interesting.
 
If you have a Legend watching Paystreak is a great way to learn the nuances of the detector.

He seems to be very impressed.

As soon as I get this update I am going back to rescan my main permish.

Highly mineralized, compacted soil packed with iron, this will be interesting.

I'll be going back to a site that I've pulled a lot of silver out of, but is loaded with massive amounts of old rusty nails. Given the Legend's high iron bias preset, I suspect to pull out about 30% more silvers with the new iron bias control.

Also, Paystreak has massive amounts of experience with the D2, and many other detectors, that he posts about.
 
oldkoot: said:
Monte where can we purchase one of your kits from would love to have one for my own testing purposes.
Just drop me an e-mail to either address in my Signature and I will get back to you.

Monte
 
Back
Top Bottom