Findmall.com
 
 






Whites DFX Users Classroom Forum


Welcome! Log In Register
Filter ? on the DFX
Posted by: colt
Date: February 20, 2011 09:28PM
I have the DFX 300 and know it can run up to 6 filters, reading the manual it states that two filters is best for target separation in areas with lower mineralization. I have used the Classic IDX's in the past and they are one of the best coin shooters I have used, would the DFX using two filter be about the same performance as the IDX. Right now I have the stock 12" coil and I know a smaller coil would help in higher trash areas.

Colt

avatar
Re: Filter ? on the DFX
Posted by: Wayfarer
Date: July 31, 2012 01:42AM
I know this is an old post, but would be nice to get this answered. I'm considering the purchase of either an IDX Pro/Classic IDX or DFX for use in heavy trash. With as high as IDX Pro's are going for nowadays, I could spend just a little extra and get a used DFX.

From everything I've read, the DFX on 2-filter setting would just about exactly duplicate the IDX Pro. In fact, there was a discussion here a few years ago where Jeff Foster said that White's told him that the DFX 2-filter mode was designed to duplicate the Classic IDX/IDX Pro. The 2-filters on the DFX are analog and so the response is instantaneous, whereas when you start adding 3rd and 4th filters, those are done in software and therefore introduce some delay in the response as well as requiring a faster sweep speed.

All this is just hearsay. Let's hear from some experts who have actually used the DFX in 2-filter mode as well as the IDX Pro and can compare. Like I said, the two are "supposed" to be identical, but it'd be nice to know from actual field experience.

avatar
Re: Filter ? on the DFX
Posted by: Larry (IL)
Date: July 31, 2012 06:55AM
I can't answer your question because I have never used a IDX but the IDX is a 6.9 KHz machine and the DFX is 3 and/or 15 KHz. I never paid much attention to the filters and their use because 4 filters always did the best job for me in my ground. I know two filters are better in trash in separating but I didn't hunt much in the trash.

Here is the manual and it tells a little bit about the filtering http://media.whiteselectronics.com/manuals/DFX%20Manuals/DFX%20Spectrum%20Instruction%20Manual.pdf

I would buy a DFX because it is a DFX, not because it might be able to emulate an IDX but that is just me.



Bells and whistles are nice, but nothing will substitute for the basic understanding of the hobby.

:minelab: CTX 3030, :whites: V3i

avatar
Re: Filter ? on the DFX
Posted by: Wayfarer
Date: July 31, 2012 02:52PM
Thanks Larry. I already have an XLT and like it very much... has worked very well for me for 17 years. The only shortcoming is the XLT's inability to work really heavy trash. I was going to get an IDX Pro and use it along with my XLT, but then I started reading about the DFX 2-filter (and to some extent 3-filter) ultra-slow sweep capabilities and thought maybe I could just upgrade to a DFX instead of carrying around two separate detectors. If the DFX 2-filter mode works about like the old Classic/IDX detectors, which Jeff Foster says it does, then I will just go ahead and get a DFX. However others, such as Monte, Hombre, et al, say that the DFX is no where near the equal to the IDX Pro in slow-sweep trashy-environment use. Don't know who to believe, so I was hoping someone who had both detectors could answer this one for us.

avatar
Re: Filter ? on the DFX
Posted by: Mike Hillis
Date: August 03, 2012 03:30PM
I don't know about the IDX. But you can put your filters on 3, drop your sweep speed to 1, and then adjust your recovery speed for your target density and do pretty good. But that 12" coil is too large for large amounts of trash.

HH
Mike



Fisher F5
Teknetics EuroTek Pro
Fisher CZ 5 Quicksilver
Whites Sierra Gold Trac
Tesoro Compadre
Tesoro Golden Sabre II

avatar
Re: Filter ? on the DFX
Posted by: Wayfarer
Date: August 03, 2012 08:05PM
I was thinking about trying 2 or 3 filter with the Eclipse 5.3 or the shooter 4x6. That ought to do pretty well in heavy trash, right?

avatar
Re: Filter ? on the DFX
Posted by: Mike Hillis
Date: August 03, 2012 08:46PM
Yep...either of those coils will do great.

Remember to bring your sweep speed down, and leave your recovery speed as the last setting adjusted so that you can get to it with the arrow buttons. With the Filters and Sweep Sweep adjusted, you can drive it with just the Recovery Speed setting. Start around 25 or so and when the trash gets heavy raise it, and when you hit areas where the trash dies down abit, lower it.

HH
Mike



Fisher F5
Teknetics EuroTek Pro
Fisher CZ 5 Quicksilver
Whites Sierra Gold Trac
Tesoro Compadre
Tesoro Golden Sabre II

Something you could try with your XLT for trash is ...
Posted by: Va Dave
Date: August 12, 2012 12:02PM
Turn your SAT speed to "10" for a much better separation of targets. No mention of this in the XLT manual, just something I picked up on in my 20 years of XLT use. Only con is it slightly throws of VDI calibration, meaning the VDI''s your used to on common targets at common depths might differ a little (typically a higher VDI). Unfortunately this same technique won't work on the DFX however, seems SAT actually does do what it was meant to do on this unit. Give it a try, always worked well for me at house sites.

avatar
Re: Filter ? on the DFX
Posted by: Wayfarer
Date: August 22, 2012 10:35PM
I've had a couple of weeks to do side-by-side comparing of the DFX and the IDX Pro. The filters on the DFX definitely work as advertised. The higher filters are better for mineralized ground, but they clip or attenuate good signals too. The lower filters allow you to sweep slower, and separate in trash better. 3 seems to work the best in general...however in my soil it is borderline able to handle the mineralization, 4 works best for me here in my medium mineralized soil.

I tested this on numerous deep coin signals...and filter definely make a difference. I'm convinced that people who do not like their DFX never figured out the filter adjustment properly. There is a big difference between 3 and 6 and if you get it wrong, your detector will run like crap. Here's an easy way to learn how to set your filter on your DFX: run the stock coin and jewelry program and go find a deep coin signal. It doesn't have to be real deep, something around 5-6" will do. Now change your filter to 3, re-ground balance, and see what that does to the target response. Try different physical sweep speeds. Then go back to 4 filters and see if 3 or 4 is better. If 4 is better, then go to 5 and see if that is better. When I do this in my soil, I find that 4 works the best (I also find that a sweep speed setting of 5 works best for me on either 3 or 4 filters and recovery speed of 25 is best for general hunting).

OK, now back the original question: 2 filters on the DFX does work better than 3 for going real slow in heavy trash and IS a useful option. However, the DFX on 2 filter is still nowhere near as smooth and responsive nor forgiving of faster or slower sweep speeds as the IDX Pro. 2 filters on the DFX is roughly similar to how the IDX behaves, but just not as good, not by a long shot. I think it has to do with the digital processing with the DFX vs the straight analong of the IDX. So for anybody thinking that the DFX 2 filter setting can fully substitute for having an IDX Pro in the trash, it can't. You still need an IDX in your arsenal if you regularly hunt the trashiest of spots.

The adjustable filters on the DFX are still really great and allow the user to really tailor the detector to ground conditions. (Btw, The DFX is like having a slick 5-speed manual transmission, where the XLT is like driving a car that is always stuck in 3rd gear.)

So, after a year and a half, and only by buying both detectors and trying them out, can I finally post a half-way answer to the original poster's question. :clapping:



White's: VX3, XL Pro, XLT, 6000 Di Pro SL, Coinmaster 2DB
Fisher: Gold Bug 2, Gold Bug Pro

Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.

Click here to login