You may need to log out, log back in after we're back online.
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 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: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.
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.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.
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.
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...
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.
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.
Just drop me an e-mail to either address in my Signature and I will get back to you.oldkoot: said:Monte where can we purchase one of your kits from would love to have one for my own testing purposes.