Findmall.com
 
 






White's Main Detecting Forum


Welcome! Log In Register
avatar
Re: The Whites QXT Is Way Better Than The IDX Pro
Posted by: tabman
Date: February 18, 2012 04:14PM
Monte you can write till the cows come home, It WON'T change what I think about the QXT. I like the IDX a lot, but so far I like the QXT much better. Period :smile:

tabman



Tesoro Tejon * Tesoro Outlaw * Fisher F75SE * Tesoro Compadre * Modded Cibola * Tesoro Golden u-Max * Bandido II µMax * Tesoro Silver uMax * Teknetics G2 * AT Pro * Tesoro Deleon * Garrett Pro Pointers * Lesche Trowels * Killer B Wasp Headphones * Predator Tool Little Eagle & Dixie Shovels

Location: Germantown Tennessee

You said: "I like the IDX a lot, but so far I like the QXT much better. Period"
Posted by: Monte
Date: February 19, 2012 04:09AM
tabman, I'm glad to hear you like one more than the other, just as I do. The main thing is that either one of them seems to provide each of us with a detector we will enjoy using afield, and that means fun, and FUN is what the hobby is all about.

Quote
tabman
Monte you can write till the cows come home, It WON'T change what I think about the QXT. I like the IDX a lot, but so far I like the QXT much better. Period :smile:

tabman
I like cows. They are slow-motion and serve a useful purpose, just like many good detectors in trashier sites. :)

I wasn't trying to CHANGE your mind, just express the things I have personally experienced, some things some avid detectorists I know have also experienced, and only suggesting that we all keep an OPEN mind as we work different makes and models under varying hunting conditions. Like Hombre stated, if a detector works for someone and they like it, then that's what counts. We all need to feel comfortable with what we use for the types of sites we hunt and conditions we encounter.

I will be interested, as will others, to read your posts in the future where you comment of the success you have with the QXT, and describe how/why it works for you. It might help others who are also shopping for a used model from the best manufacturer and, perhaps, if they locate one it will be of interest to them. And like I said, to me, the QXT is 'interestingly different' from the IDX Pro, but I am also in favor of a modified IDX Pro for more versatility.

Best of success as we progress through 2012! Not trying to cause any trouble, just offered a post of my own thoughts from personal experience.

Monte



"Your EYES ... the only 100% accurate form of Discrimination!"


Stinkwater Wells

Just a name that brings back fond memories of old alkali desert favorite sites in Utah, Nevada, and Eastern Oregon. There is no pastime I enjoy more than hunting old sites as best I can, doing research, and helping others learn more about this great hobby.:
My 'Tag-Along' buddies: White's MXT All-Pro w/9", MX5 w/6˝", and modified IDX Pro w/6˝".

My 'On-Call' detectors: Compass Coin Hustler & 99B TR's, Teknetics Euro-Tek Pro, Tesoro Bandido II µMAX and others I want to tinker with.

monte@stinkwaterwells.com
(503) 481-8147




Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/19/2012 04:10AM by Monte.

avatar
Re: The Whites QXT Is Way Better Than The IDX Pro
Posted by: Joel-Winnipeg
Date: February 19, 2012 09:05AM
Monte :thumbup:



We act as though comfort and luxury
were the chief requirements of life
when all we need to make us really happy
is something to be enthusiastic about.
___ Charles Kingsley___

avatar
Re: The Whites QXT Is Way Better Than The IDX Pro
Posted by: Critterhunter
Date: February 19, 2012 12:45PM
Ahhh Monte....My old nemesis who never liked the QXT. I'm one of those people who does like the QXT and feel it was the best Whites unit they ever put out for years. I liked it better than even the XLT. I did some in field comparisons of the two and the QXT was deeper, didn't suffer from software lag, and so on. Up until my now current Sovereign GT the QXT was the deepest machine I've ever owned. In my soil even my Explorers didn't get any deeper. 7 to 8" max due to my ground minerals, but that's a different story...

My only complaint about the QXT was no VDI numbers. You can, however, get around that by paying close attention to how the screen reacts to targets. With practice you can tell pennies, dimes, and quarters apart...and even tell when it's probably going to be silver by the sound and VDI.

Beyond that, I sure wish they would make a 12" Double D coil for the low frequency Whites lines (QXT, XLT, etc). I owned two brand new Hot Shots but they became unstable after about 5 or 10 minutes of use. If there was a larger DD coil for the QXT to push the depths further I'd still be using one. I'd love to see a SEF 12x10 for it. A low frequency machine with a larger DD coil to handle ground minerals better and hit harder on silver/copper would be killer.

The QXT is deadly in trash thanks to it's fast recovery speed, virtualy no software lag, and the ability to assign and listen for high tones among the lows. Assign high tones to the zones you want, keep ALL zones (including ground and iron) accepted, and listen for the high tones mixed in with the lows. Can't tell you how many coins I've found in trash by just listening for that high pitched peep among lows.

For those who have read my QXT Tips. I can't remember but I might have said at that time to use ground tracking. Don't. That can track out deep targets. Instead turn it off and manualy ground balance yourself every 30 minutes or so. Turn OFF noise reduction (will give more depth). Turn ON VCO. Set the sensitivity as high as it will remain stable. From memory I think that's about 16 on the QXT and about 18 on the QXT Pro. Accept ALL zones including iron and ground. Assign high tones to the zones you want. Set pinpointing at like 16.

The QXT has a very forgiving sweep speed. You can go from ultra slow to ultra fast with it. I prefer a medium sweep speed for best depth, and do short fast sweeps over deep targets to try to achieve proper ID. This will get you that little extra depth on a target that at first (with normal sweeping) might only appear as a trash target. Doing short fast sweeps over it will pull the proper ID and audio out of it.

On ring hunting: From memory most gold rings will read one zone below nickles on the QXT, or will evenly bounce between that zone and nickle as you sweep over it. So I'd dig that zone if you are gold ring hunting. Of course many will also be in the nickle range but from memory most will read one zone lower. Can't remember off hand what zone that is...Foil I think?

The QXT was the black sheep of the Whites line. Many dealers didn't like selling it because it wasn't as costly as the XLT. They didn't take the time to learn it for that reason IMHO. It's a misunderstood detector, but set up right it really has alot of ability.To me it's still my favorite Whites ever made. I don't care for the high frequency line of detectors they have these days. They don't do well in my soil and do not hit on silver/copper coins as hard as a low frequency machine will. I wish Whites would enter into the low frequency field again and put out some larger coils for those. That would be a killer silver and copper coin combo as low frequencies penetrate ground minerals better, get deeper, and hit on silver/copper harder. If they'd stop relying on offering endless software programming features like they do these days and come out with a low freq. machine with just enough software to get the job done (like the QXT) to avoid software lag and such then they'd have me back as a customer.

Like the QXT, the Sovereign is the black sheep of the Minelab line these days. Everybody goes for the flash...and just like it was the XLT back in the QXT days, these days it's the Etrac or Explorer over the Sovereign. Having owned three Explorers I can say the Sovereign GT is my choice these days. It's the deepest detector I've ever owned, has the best audio I've ever heard on a machine (nice and long and drawn out), and it very easy to set up and use. You can get a great deal on an older Sovereign model (they all get about the same depth but the GT is a tad deeper) for only $300 or so. A fantastic machine at that price that will beat anything on the market IMHO. It has a slow recovery speed but that just means you have to sweep slower to avoid target masking. And, it's Iron Mask feature unmasked coins in iron and other trash better than anything I've ever used (including fast recovery machines).



mining members for own forum



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 02/19/2012 12:56PM by Critterhunter.

Re: The Whites QXT Is Way Better Than The IDX Pro
Posted by: WILL_PENNY
Date: February 19, 2012 03:12PM
Quote
Hombre
Quote
tabman
Well it's not completely auto. You follow the on screen directions, pump the coil, then pull the trigger. That's auto to me when comparing it to pumping the coil and turning a knob on my Vaquero until the sound levels out. I have not been detecting with it yet, except for testing it on some targets on my driveway and yard. I have a few more weeks to go before my broken arm heals. I set mine up like Hill said he mainly uses in his article and then set the high tone for nickels and coins. I like to dig nickel signals because it gives me a chance at finding a gold ring. The QXT not having VDI numbers is big plus to me, because once I set my mind to dig everything in the nickel range I'm going to find more gold rings. Sometimes VID numbers will convince you not to dig when you really should be digging. This detector is a real sleeper.

tabman

tabman,

If you have not been detetecting with your new to you QXT,.....How do you know that it is way better than the IDX Pro? You would know if you used them side by side to check detected targets in the ground, not by just using the QXT for testing targets in your driveway and yard. When you posted in the past,,, back when you owned the IDX Pro,,, you thought the IDX Pro was too heavy for you, I replied to one of your posts that you should try the 6˝" coil and reduce weight and have better balance. The QXT is Not any lighter than the IDX Pro, so if that was one complaint about the IDX Pro, then you still have that problem with a weight issue with the QXT. I could go on and on about the pro's and con's, but I will level with you, I have never used the QXT, and have only read about them. I do know the IDX Pro very well and have used it as my main use detector in the old house sites that I like to hunt, it is deep and accurate and it works almost as good as my old Bandido in the iron nails found in these old sites. Have fun with your new QXT and report back with your findings when you get a little more experience under your belt with it, and hope you have a speedy recuperation with your broken arm. Good luck with the new to you QXT.
.....:clapping:...Tabman,That is what I call telling it like it is...:rant:

avatar
Re: The Whites QXT Is Way Better Than The IDX Pro
Posted by: Critterhunter
Date: February 19, 2012 05:24PM
Forgot to mention on setting the QXT up. First load the coin program so SAT speed and such is set properly, then make the adjustments I went over.



mining members for own forum

Re: The Whites QXT Is Way Better Than The IDX Pro
Posted by: provantage
Date: February 19, 2012 05:29PM
hey critter i have tried the 18 sensitivity and seems to get a little unstable i keep mine at 16 as well as my pinpointing. also ground tracking big fields i have found out just bumping it up to one helped a bit.

avatar
Re: The Whites QXT Is Way Better Than The IDX Pro
Posted by: Critterhunter
Date: February 20, 2012 08:53AM
On the regular QXT usualy 16 was the highest I could set sensitivity. Sometimes 18. On the QXT Pro I could usualy run it at 18. The QXT Pro and regular QXT are identical machines but Whites must have used slightly better (less noisy) electronics in the QXT Pro so that it could normaly run at 18. A QII or regular QXT with older software can be updated to the current QXT software by sending the unit in to Whites. There were some QXTs out there that had an older version of software that gave them trouble ground balancing in certain places. Those older versions read 1c to $1 in the coin zone instead of "COINS". I would recommend updating a QII to QXT software as they are both the same machine other than the software features.

In my QXT Tips page I suggested running ground tracking in large open areas. I no longer recommend that. It won't give you as good of depth as turning off ground tracking and setting it manualy.



mining members for own forum

'Critterhunter', finally responding back. I've been busy detecting a bit and
Posted by: Monte
Date: February 23, 2012 10:39AM
taking care of our detector group meeting schedule, plus detecting when I could. I finally have the time to get over to these Forums and check in on what I've missed. One thing we have in common, Thomas, is that we each have a certain passion for this sport, and the desire to select the best detector(s) for our hunting needs, and then learn to get the most out of them that we can. In addition to that, we have each done what we could through the years to help contribute tips and suggestions to help others newer to the hobby, and new to the models we tend to prefer.

Quote
Critterhunter
Ahhh Monte....My old nemesis who never liked the QXT.
Well, I wouldn't say 'never' because there was a time I did welcome them. The first time I got a chance to try them out was with one of the design engineers who, quite different from so many detector designers, actually enjoys going to detecting and has been especially successful through the years. We were at a club competition hunt and we discussed this new project and he let me check them both out (the Quantum II and Quantum XT).

I had been using the XLT, which I do like for certain uses, but for many searches I like a slower-sweep detector. Also, in seminars I was/am often asked about detectors with an LCD display but are less complicated than the XLT when it comes to adjustments. There were things I liked, such as the excellent packaging, and they had fewer adjustments and were more simple than the XLT. I hoped that when I used one in some of my favorite hunting sites they would prove to be impressive.

At the time I put in some part-time work at a local detector dealer's store where I had ample opportunity to get consumer feedback when they checked them out both in-store and outside where coins and other targets had been planted long ago. I helped the original owners secret a few coin targets in their yard. They started the business in '68 and might have hidden some coins early on, but I helped plant some of them in different areas of the front yard and side yard in '72 to '78, so twenty-some years later I had an advantage when it came to testing buried samples, planted before we had VLF Ground Balanced detectors, before GB'ed motion Discriminators, and long before there was visual Target ID.

Interest in, and sales of, the Quantum's was not well received. A customer or two who did buy one, and who had a good background in coin hunting, complained about the peculiar sweep speed needed for best performance in our very mineralized soils. I was able to 'borrow' the display model to work with on a couple of weekends and came to a personal conclusion that, for me and the sites I hunt and the ground environment I tend to hunt in, the Quantum's just weren't for me.

I had friends who were/are detector dealers in several towns and cities in Oregon, Washington, Idaho, Utah and Arizona who I talked with and, even a year or two ofter their release, they told me the Quantum's either did not sell, or didn't sell well. Better still, for me, I knew these dealers were not just sales points, but they were also avid hobbyists and got out as often as they could. Not one of them personally liked the Quantum's or used them. Initially they really tried to get comfortable with them, but it just didn't happen.

I like simple. I do not care for a lot of complex adjustment features because I prefer to make a quick adjustment when I want it or need it, but have it be an adjustment that makes some simple, functional changes. I just prefer to keep things simple. I like to find stuff, and I like to find it in some very challenging ground mineral environments as well as some trashy conditions. AS an example, I might point to the MInelab Sovereign GT you use because, in many ways, it is more 'simple' than the more complex Explorer/E-Trac series by the same manufacturer Simple.

Avid hunters know that trash can mask a desired target, and that means it can vastly alter the visual TID reading, as well as the audio Tone ID. Thus, I only use Tone ID for some 'casual cruising' in more open, lower-trashed sites. Tone ID responses are grossly distorted, even to the point of uselessness, with many Tone ID models in most tough target environments. I like the XLT, but I don't use Tone ID when hunting in ghost towns, when searching for deeper targets in large open parks and such, and while I have Tone ID 'On' with my most used program, I turn it 'Off' when I get into challenging ground mineral conditions, or when I hunt most multi-target sites.

And, keeping with simplicity, I also like to have more operator control for certain functions. One important feature, for me, is having a variable Discrimination control rather than a block or segment accept/reject option form of discrimination. Finally, to this segment of my reply, I will add that I found the Quantum's to have a more specific sweep speed requirement, or better stated maybe is a sweep speed limitation for many of the types of sites I hunt.


Quote
Critterhunter
I'm one of those people who does like the QXT and feel it was the best Whites unit they ever put out for years.
Terrific! No problem here. I like the M6 and MXT, but actually feel the M6 is better ... for most people ... than the MXT. It is simpler, and many I meet prefer it to the MXT. White's has made some terrific detectors through the years.


Quote
Critterhunter
I liked it better than even the XLT.
I didn't, and while I DO like the XLT, I also like the XL Pro and a modified IDX Pro BETTER than the XLT. We all have favorites.


Quote
Critterhunter
I did some in field comparisons of the two and the QXT was deeper, didn't suffer from software lag, and so on. Up until my now current Sovereign GT the QXT was the deepest machine I've ever owned. In my soil even my Explorers didn't get any deeper. 7 to 8" max due to my ground minerals, but that's a different story...
I haven't found the Explorer's to be the deepest seeking units, either, but my favorite pick goes to the XL Pro when I select a model where depth-of-detection is an important consideration.


Quote
Critterhunter
My only complaint about the QXT was no VDI numbers. You can, however, get around that by paying close attention to how the screen reacts to targets. With practice you can tell pennies, dimes, and quarters apart...and even tell when it's probably going to be silver by the sound and VDI.
VDI numbers are fun to use, but I can live without them. I don't a;ways use visual TID that much anyway because sites I hunt usually mean I just reject iron nails and recover all other targets.


Quote
Critterhunter
Beyond that, I sure wish they would make a 12" Double D coil for the low frequency Whites lines (QXT, XLT, etc).
Not me. I am not a Double-D fan, having used several factory DD designed and aftermarket DD coils on different available White's models, and comparing them side-by-side with a similar-size Concentric coil, the concentric wins out. A little better depth, better discrimination, easier pinpointing, and that makes it, to me, a better all-purpose search coil design.

I also am not excited about search coils getting too large because from ample in-the-field comparisons, you hit a point where the bigger coils cause more masking problems, impaired response to smaller-size targets, and they naturally 'see' more ground and that can also cut in on performance. Oh, and then there is the added weight and less than exciting balance they cause.


Quote
Critterhunter
I owned two brand new Hot Shots but they became unstable after about 5 or 10 minutes of use.
I had them, I borrowed them, I helped others check theirs out and .... totally unimpressed! I agree with you on those coils.


Quote
Critterhunter
If there was a larger DD coil for the QXT to push the depths further I'd still be using one. I'd love to see a SEF 12x10 for it. A low frequency machine with a larger DD coil to handle ground minerals better and hit harder on silver/copper would be killer.
I still don't think so and have tried as many production and prototype coil designs on those models as possible and still didn't like DD's or larger sizes.

Depth? I was hunting with a friend who was using his Minelab Explorer II, and it was using the 10˝" DD coil. The site was an older park that had been massively re-landscaped a few years before to re-contour it to make a sloped section more usable. He was trying to get a good handle on hearing a 'deeper' coin target, such as 6" or greater, and I said I would help him out by locating a potential coin. Soon I found such a target. My detectors mostly locked-on a 1˘/10˘ TID. Checking it closely, the Coin Depth reading suggested it to be 8"-8˝" deep.

I marked off about a 4-foot square area and told him there was a deep penny or dime in that square, about 8" deep. He searched and search the 4' square and finally located it, asking, "I think I found it, is this it?" I confirmed. Carefully he plugged the ground, then after removing a neat plug he used the in-line Sunray Probe to work his way down to the target, a little at a time, so he could measure the depth. He got to it and it measured 8"-8˝" from the soil surface. (I had compressed the 2" of grass when I swept across ti to pinpoint and get a depth measurement.)

He said he could hear it, but it wasn't the strongest or most impressive target hit, but we agreed that any coin down that deep, especially smaller size, can be a tough find. What magic did I use to detect that coin and get a proper TID and depth reading? A White's (of course) XL Pro, but not a DD coil, or a larger coil. Not even the stock 950 or an 8" coil. Nope, I was using a favorite coil, the 6˝" diameter Concentric 5.3 BullsEye coil.


Quote
Critterhunter
The QXT is deadly in trash thanks to it's fast recovery speed, virtualy no software lag, and the ability to assign and listen for high tones among the lows. Assign high tones to the zones you want, keep ALL zones (including ground and iron) accepted, and listen for the high tones mixed in with the lows. Can't tell you how many coins I've found in trash by just listening for that high pitched peep among lows.
There is some software 'lag' with the XLT and quite a few other model that employ more 'digital' processing. But when I hunt trashy sites I use a quick-response/fast-recovery modified IDX Pro most of the time. No Tone ID, but I have found the sites I hunt to fool virtually every TID model out there anyway.


Quote
Critterhunter
For those who have read my QXT Tips. I can't remember but I might have said at that time to use ground tracking. Don't. That can track out deep targets. Instead turn it off and manualy ground balance yourself every 30 minutes or so.
I agree with you here, Thomas, and that's how I treat the M6, MXT, XL Pro and XLT. I almost never use the Auto-Trac® tracking feature, preferring to lock a GB (just slightly positive) and updating it when and if it is necessary.


Quote
Critterhunter
Turn OFF noise reduction (will give more depth).
I agree.


Quote
Critterhunter
Turn ON VCO.
Always, so we agree here as well.


Quote
Critterhunter
Set the sensitivity as high as it will remain stable. From memory I think that's about 16 on the QXT and about 18 on the QXT Pro. Accept ALL zones including iron and ground. Assign high tones to the zones you want. Set pinpointing at like 16.
Scary, but once again I agree, always using the highest stable Sensitivity level I can. On several same-production QXT's I compared, one could be at '16' and another at '18.' I believe it is just part of the little differences that come in the way of manufacturing and component selection.


Quote
Critterhunter
The QXT has a very forgiving sweep speed. You can go from ultra slow to ultra fast with it. I prefer a medium sweep speed for best depth, and do short fast sweeps over deep targets to try to achieve proper ID. This will get you that little extra depth on a target that at first (with normal sweeping) might only appear as a trash target. Doing short fast sweeps over it will pull the proper ID and audio out of it.
I always find the best sweep speed for any model, knowing the limitations helps, but I found with every Quantum I used, speed kills. Too fast a sweep, especially if covering a larger sweep area, always impaired the performance, but that's due to the nasty mineralization I often hunt in.


Quote
Critterhunter
On ring hunting: From memory most gold rings will read one zone below nickles on the QXT, or will evenly bounce between that zone and nickle as you sweep over it. So I'd dig that zone if you are gold ring hunting. Of course many will also be in the nickle range but from memory most will read one zone lower. Can't remember off hand what zone that is...Foil I think?
Most gold rings I find read from the Iron/Foil fringe reading on up to and through the 5˘ coin range. Some common to larger men's gold rings go up-scale fro 5˘ through the old Pull Tab zone above the 5˘ range/zone.


Quote
Critterhunter
The QXT was the black sheep of the Whites line. Many dealers didn't like selling it because it wasn't as costly as the XLT.
You struck on a point I have mentioned often, and at the time the XLT was the top dog and they were so often smaller dealers pushing the higher-dollar model. Later, they would push the DFX and now a couple of years promoting the Spectra series. All the while, many dealers ignored the excellent 6000 Pro XL/XL Pro, the Quantum's, and my favourites the Classic series.


Quote
Critterhunter
They didn't take the time to learn it for that reason IMHO. It's a misunderstood detector, but set up right it really has alot of ability.
Just like many didn't learn the XL Pro or the Classic's either. Heck, too many dealers also didn't learn the XLT or more recent higher-cost models, but they promoted them via the videos and glossy fliers and such.


Quote
Critterhunter
To me it's still my favorite Whites ever made. I don't care for the high frequency line of detectors they have these days. They don't do well in my soil and do not hit on silver/copper coins as hard as a low frequency machine will. I wish Whites would enter into the low frequency field again and put out some larger coils for those. That would be a killer silver and copper coin combo as low frequencies penetrate ground minerals better, get deeper, and hit on silver/copper harder. If they'd stop relying on offering endless software programming features like they do these days and come out with a low freq. machine with just enough software to get the job done (like the QXT) to avoid software lag and such then they'd have me back as a customer.
There are still XLT's and XL Pro's and Classic's and, even a few Quantum's, out there for us to still own and use. That's what makes up my personal most-used detector battery (my modified IDX Pro, XLT and Classic II) and I hope to find a choice condition XL Pro soon, then I will have all I need.


Quote
Critterhunter
Like the QXT, the Sovereign is the black sheep of the Minelab line these days. Everybody goes for the flash...and just like it was the XLT back in the QXT days, these days it's the Etrac or Explorer over the Sovereign. Having owned three Explorers I can say the Sovereign GT is my choice these days.
Thomas, you have, once again, shown a similar feeling we have about things as I owned several Sovereign series models (my personal favorite was the XS-2a), as well as 2 Explorer XS, 2 Explorer II's and an SE Pro, plus used others. I like the Sovereigns over the Explorers, too.


Quote
Critterhunter
It's the deepest detector I've ever owned, has the best audio I've ever heard on a machine (nice and long and drawn out), and it very easy to set up and use. You can get a great deal on an older Sovereign model (they all get about the same depth but the GT is a tad deeper) for only $300 or so. A fantastic machine at that price that will beat anything on the market IMHO. It has a slow recovery speed but that just means you have to sweep slower to avoid target masking. And, it's Iron Mask feature unmasked coins in iron and other trash better than anything I've ever used (including fast recovery machines).
Even the Sovereigns haven't matched the depth I usually got from some XL Pro's I had. For me, the XLT is a 'back-up' to my modified IDX Pro, and when I locate a nice XL Pro the XLT will be tied for 2nd or slip to 3rd place, with the XL Pro filling the #2 role.

As I always say, there is no such thing as a 'perfect' detector. There are, or have been, quite a few better-than-average models so we just need to find the one (or ones) that are going to handle our needs and help us to continue enjoying this great sport.

All the best to you afield this year!

Monte



"Your EYES ... the only 100% accurate form of Discrimination!"


Stinkwater Wells

Just a name that brings back fond memories of old alkali desert favorite sites in Utah, Nevada, and Eastern Oregon. There is no pastime I enjoy more than hunting old sites as best I can, doing research, and helping others learn more about this great hobby.:
My 'Tag-Along' buddies: White's MXT All-Pro w/9", MX5 w/6˝", and modified IDX Pro w/6˝".

My 'On-Call' detectors: Compass Coin Hustler & 99B TR's, Teknetics Euro-Tek Pro, Tesoro Bandido II µMAX and others I want to tinker with.

monte@stinkwaterwells.com
(503) 481-8147


Re: The Whites QXT Is Way Better Than The IDX Pro
Posted by: deputydawg16
Date: February 23, 2012 05:16PM
Everyone keeps saying IDX Pro modified how is it modified?
I have the QXT Pro and do like it I have never used the IDX Pro so can't compare the two.
I have read post from Monte and Critter they have been fighting over the QXT for years, you can find the posts on many different forums they have been going at it for years.
I do know that no matter where you go on the web looking for QXT info you always get referred to Critters tips on it. No other real info exists on the QXT as far as tests or programs go. Monte seems to be the expert on the IDX and has many post about it.
I have been using mine for a few months now and find it to be good on depth great on ID and pinpointing. Yes it takes some getting used to but it does work well for ME it may not for someone else. I have detected for several years with a Garrett Ace 150 so I am no expert by any means. I can say at first I was doubting the thing but once I work with and learned how a whites works it is a breeze. I would like to try the IDX to see the difference. But when you look at it both are aging machines and an M6 is probably a better choice at this time.
No sense saying mine is better than yours. We all think about the next best and what I may find with it, the grass is always greener on the other side and what I might have found with a different detector but, it's a hobby for most so just find what works for you and enjoy.
Just my thoughts and if you want to settle the thing someone send me an IDX Pro and I will test them both side by side and give you honest results. LOL

deputydawg16, let me explain the "modifications" and ...:punch: fight? Heck No! :beers: We're really on the right side of things.
Posted by: Monte
Date: February 23, 2012 07:38PM
If we both wallowed is disbelief of the other's personal opinions, then we would be wrong. If we doubted that a certain make and model did or did not work for the other, then we would be wrong. If we both felt that our personal preference for these two models was a bad pick, then obviously, Thomas would be wrong. :rofl: .... Okay, Critterhunter, I just couldn't resist. :surrender:

With any make and model (or models) that people personally pick to use, all any of us can hope is that they learn their detector well, learn and know the strengths and weaknesses (every detector has both), and then apply all we know about then=m and have learned about this great sport in our chosen types of searches, and in the ground and target (trash) challenges we face. Different locations, different ground, different general conditions makes it tough for one person to say the other is totally wrong. The best thing is to help them in their path to learn the 'How-To's' of mastering their detectors and wishing everyone the best of success.

Quote
deputydawg16
Everyone keeps saying IDX Pro modified how is it modified?
While others can make some modifications,. the person who really started the Classic series modifications and has done the most with them is Bill 'Mr. Bill' Crabtree. Some people have asked how his modifications came about and 'Mr. Bill's' own reply to that is readable here: "It was Monte's fault."

It started with the White's Classic III SL which is a non-display model, and later 'Mr. Bill' continued to modify any of the Classic series, and my personal favorites are the modified IDX Pro (currently my main-use detector), and the modified Classic III SL (which I prefer with a 4" or 6˝" coil for the trashiest of sites, or even the beach with a 950, because TID isn't useful or necessary).

My modified IDX Pro keep the 6˝" concentric coil mounted full-time (it's the 5.3 BullsEye), and here are what the modifications are, and their benefits.

1.. Bill adds and external 1-turn Threshold Tuner control. This eliminate the need to open the control housing and locate the VR4 trimmer to make the Threshold adjustment. Often no adjustment is required once it is set, but it might need a little gentle tweaking if it is a windy day, you are hunting close to traffic, surf or other noise, or if you change search coils, etc.

2.. Also added is a 1-turn external manual Ground Balance control. With the Classic series you can peel up the USA flag on top of the control housing to access the GB trimmer, but trimmers should be adjusted often, and this provides easy set-up for any serious detectorist What I like about the Classic series is that, by design, frequent GB adjustment isn't really necessary. Once you have the Ground Balance set for a very slightly positive GB in the All Metal/Pinpoint mode, you seldom have to tinker with it.

Some models have a GB circuitry that is very touchy and calls for constant monitoring and frequent adjustment. That's not the case with the Classic series. Instead, you simply set the Frequency Shift control (on the Classic III SL, Classic IDX and IDX Pro models) at the factory 'Preset' marker, then adjust the Ground Balance for a very slightly positive setting over the more mineralized ground in your area. Once done, leave it alone!

Now you might ask, "Do you ever need to change the Ground Balance setting? To that, the answer is Yes. I always check the GB setting by triggering into the Pinpoint function when I get to a site and, if the GB is slightly positive, I just release the trigger and hunt away. These are the times when I need to make an adjustment with the Ground Balance.:

a.. If I relocate to a more mineralized environment.
b.. If I change search coils (different coils can alter the previous GB setting).
c.. If I use the Frequency Shift (on the three models mentioned). This is one of the very important reasons to have manual GB.

If I am using any Classic series models, without a manual GB control, and I end up close to anyone else using a similar 6.59 kHz frequency model,(such as an XLT, 6000 Pro XL/XL Pro, 5900/6000 Di Pro SL, some older same-frequency White's or Bounty Hunter or Teknetics models, or any of the regular Classic series models .... or, the Quantum series offerings ... there will be interference. The three Classic models that feature a Frequency Shift have the ability to turn the variable control enough to shift the frequency and eliminate interference from, or to, a nearby model That's good because the other guy/gal can continue to search w/o interference.

The problem we face, however, is that you usually need to rotate the Frequency Shift control about ˝ turn toľ of a turn to shift the frequency and eliminate interference. Doing so, however, will also shift the Ground balance setting, usually more negative, and the result is a lot of falsing with the model that is now negatively GB'ed! Rest assured, however, that if you have a modified IDX Pro or other with a Frequency Shift, in only takes about 5 to 10 seconds to adjust the Frequency Shift to eliminate the interference, and make a quick, yet functional, Ground Balance adjustment and be back to hunting.

A third thing 'Mr. Bill' does is boost the upper-end Sensitivity just a little bit.


Quote
deputydawg16
I have the QXT Pro and do like it I have never used the IDX Pro so can't compare the two.
I am glad you like the QXT Pro because,as we know, it will be a good 'fit' for some people and their hunting needs.


Quote
deputydawg16
I have read post from Monte and Critter they have been fighting over the QXT for years, you can find the posts on many different forums they have been going at it for years.
Not really 'fighting,' just voicing our personal opinions and preferences.


Quote
deputydawg16
I do know that no matter where you go on the web looking for QXT info you always get referred to Critters tips on it. No other real info exists on the QXT as far as tests or programs go.
From what I have seen and know, the Quantum series, as a whole, wasn't really all that well received, and you comment here basically supports that. Critterhunter's comments are generally the ones everyone is referred to, and one reason is that not many others found as strong a bond with the Quantum's, perhaps, as has Thomas. He does provide some good tips and, if you note in my response to him below that I made today, I am basically in agreement with his suggestions. At least most of them.


Quote
deputydawg16
Monte seems to be the expert on the IDX and has many post about it.
Let's just take 'Expert' and change that to 'Experienced'. Maybe the same thing, but I can tell you that I have relied on both unmodified and modified Classic SL series models (except for the basic Classic I) since they came out. Actually, before that as I was raising praise for the Coinmaster Classic III-Plus before they made the revisions and went to the SL control housing and 8-AA slide-in battery system.

In the past 16/17 years, since '95, I have found more gold jewelry with a Classic model. More old coins from numerous ghost towns and renovation site work in Utah, Idaho, Oregon, Arizona and Nevada, than with any other make or model. Sticking to urban detecting the Classic series has produced the greatest quantity of coins for me during any single year since '95, too. I have my Classic II and modified IDX Pro, and during this span I mention I have also used the Classic III SL, Classic ID and Classic IDX models at different times.


Quote
deputydawg16
I have been using mine for a few months now and find it to be good on depth great on ID and pinpointing. Yes it takes some getting used to but it does work well for ME it may not for someone else. I have detected for several years with a Garrett Ace 150 so I am no expert by any means. I can say at first I was doubting the thing but once I work with and learned how a whites works it is a breeze.
There's the key! If the QXT Pro works well for [You, that that is a model to rely on to get the search accomplished in a pleasing manner. It works for you and, as you stated, it may not work well for someone else. I love the general handling, build quality, and pinpointing abilities of White's products, too.


Quote
deputydawg16
I would like to try the IDX to see the difference. But when you look at it both are aging machines and an M6 is probably a better choice at this time.
Yep, the Quantum's are all log out of production, as are all of the Classic series, the 6000 Pro XL/XL Pro, and the XLT. However, White's products work well and I rely on all of my 'discontinued' models they work, work well, and continue to produce rewarding results afield. What more could we ask for?

As for their current production, they have several models I like more than others, but to me, the 'sleeper;' is the M6, just as you stated. I have owned them, and MXT's, and Visions/Spectra's, and the DFX's, and for the average hobbyist, and most are what I call Traditional Coin Hunters, the M6 is a very good detector. :thumbup: My oldest son, decided to move up to a newer and more featured White's last February, just after his 39th birthday, and that was what I found for him. He uses a choice M6 and the 5.3 Eclipse coil (6˝" diameter) for most coin hunting, and keep the 950 on a spare lower rod for trips to the beach now and then. More White's Dealers need to use them. learn them, and promote them.


Quote
deputydawg16
No sense saying mine is better than yours. We all think about the next best and what I may find with it, the grass is always greener on the other side and what I might have found with a different detector but, it's a hobby for most so just find what works for you and enjoy.
Right again. It is a hobby, and as such we should approach it with the attitude of just having fun! I enjoy fishing a little bit, but use the same rods and tackle I've had for the past several years .... and it still catches fish. I love to hunt, and game seems to find its way to my freezer or oven of frying pan using a good old .30-30, .22 LR or 20 ga. shotgun, and they aren't new and modern and flashy.

I use what works. I don't care to use cheap and crappy-built products, and I also don't need to spend a bunch of money for gear that isn't really that much better than what I have for where I like to go (hunting or detecting).


Quote
deputydawg16
Just my thoughts and if you want to settle the thing someone send me an IDX Pro and I will test them both side by side and give you honest results. LOL
Honestly, if I had a spare modified IDX Pro I would send you one to evaluate, learn and compare for 30 days and then hear your report (while it was on the way back to me :)).

Unfortunately, I set a New Years Coin-Count Goal of 10,000 coins and that means you have to average 833.33 coins-per-month and I am a bit behind from January and so far this month. It's been too wet for me and my health isn't great. A friend of mine, however, started out with a brand new DFX w/12" coil in July of 2010 and ended December 31st of 2011 with 7,380 coins.

Over 17 months that makes an average of 434.12 coins-per-month. Then, I sold him a 6˝" coil the first of January and on about the 6th of January he received his new-to-him modified IDX Pro he bought from Mr. Bill. He mounted the 6˝" coil and has used it exclusively, leaving the stock 950 at home. He found 833 coins in January, and as of last night (the 22nd) he has found 696 so far in February. It's winter and it has been cold, snowy a day or two, and more rain that I care for, but if he doesn't get out hunting again between now and next Wednesday (23rd thru 29th) he has found 1529 coins since January 6th, so over 2 months that would make a monthly average of 764.5 coins.

Guess what? He is another new member to the 'I love my modified IDX Pro' group.

Anyway, if you like your QXT Pro and feel you are learning it more and more, we can all start to refer Quantum inquiries to BOTH Critterhunter and deputydawg16 from now on. :thumbup:

I'll close and get back to some forum updating and things tom work on, like backed-up e-mail, PM's, etc., etc.

All the best of success on your next foray afield.

Monte



"Your EYES ... the only 100% accurate form of Discrimination!"


Stinkwater Wells

Just a name that brings back fond memories of old alkali desert favorite sites in Utah, Nevada, and Eastern Oregon. There is no pastime I enjoy more than hunting old sites as best I can, doing research, and helping others learn more about this great hobby.:
My 'Tag-Along' buddies: White's MXT All-Pro w/9", MX5 w/6˝", and modified IDX Pro w/6˝".

My 'On-Call' detectors: Compass Coin Hustler & 99B TR's, Teknetics Euro-Tek Pro, Tesoro Bandido II µMAX and others I want to tinker with.

monte@stinkwaterwells.com
(503) 481-8147


Re: The Whites QXT Is Way Better Than The IDX Pro
Posted by: basstrackerman
Date: February 24, 2012 08:31AM
glad you like it tabman.. that makes one of us. lol



Bill in ohio

Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.

Click here to login