Minelab Equinox Classroom Forum

Welcome! Log In Register
My Case for 3 Tones
Posted by: ColonelDan
Date: October 15, 2018 06:21AM
Over the years, I've tried numerous ways through a combination of VDI and tones to better identify targets that were under my coil. It didn't take long for me to discover that trying to cut the tone and VDI distinction too fine in an attempt to accurately identify targets was unproductive. Through some trial and error, the obvious finally became clear.

VDI is not an exact science by any stretch. Target ID can be affected by numerous variables such as depth, soil composition, the metallurgical make up and orientation of the targets in the soil. Expecting a consistently exact value for each possible target was unrealistic. I finally concluded that what I wanted was only an indication of what might be under my coil rather than expecting or trying for a precise ID. Can VDI and Tones do that for me? Yes

After realizing what I wanted or needed from of a tone/VDI combination, I settled on a 3 tone option. Below are a few bullet points that summarize my case or reasoning for adopting that 3 tone solution.

~ My attempt at using 50 tones proved impossible for me...information overload! I then tried 5 tones and although much more understandable than 50, I felt that 5 tones was really unnecessary and might even be overkill. Why?

~ ALL targets fall within 3 categories/zones of conductivity of Low, Medium or High so it made more sense for me to focus on those 3 zones and then align the tones accordingly. The tones provided information on what zone I was dealing with while the VDI gave me some rough indication as to where that target fell within the range of that zone.

~ I also wanted a system that wasn't apt to cause me to ignore good targets because they were similar in make up to worthless targets. Example; gold and aluminum are both mid level conductors and generate similar VDI within that range, I therefore didn't want to exclude anything within the Mid or High level conductivity scale. Yes, I'll dig aluminum so as not to pass up potential gold and dig other high conductive targets so as not to pass up silver.

~ I tested quite a number common targets of varying size and metallurgical composition and came up with some common VDI ranges that I see on our beaches for each of the conductivity zones. I then modified the 5 tone option to 3 tones which suited me just fine for the beach hunting I do.

My results:

Low conductive targets ranged from -9 to 0 and I assigned it Tone level 1 (the old iron grunt)

Medium targets ranged from 1 to 19 so I chose Tone 12...a nice mid level tone

High conductors were 20+ so I gave them the highest Tone level of 25

~ In my work with a local museum however, the 2 tone option could also be used. When digging museum quality artifacts, iron is a valued metal so I dig everything. I also dig it all when I detect along Florida's Treasure Coast as remnants of the ships fall within the iron or low conductive range and are often times found along our beaches.

Just the view from my foxhole...your view may vary.

Re: My Case for 3 Tones
Posted by: Druid
Date: October 15, 2018 04:00PM
Hi ColonelDan,
Sounds well reasoned and workable. When thinking back to my old CZ days I remember going from 3 tones on CZ 70 to 4 tone on the 70 Pro kind of muddied the waters, & I didn't feel as confident on ID. I think I will try your settings out and see how they work in my ground.
Thanks for sharing.

I've tried the three tone setup on the breach...
Posted by: brissietex
Date: November 16, 2018 07:23PM
and I must say that I rather like it. I have had to re-tune my ears from 5 tones down to the 3 tones but it seems to work well on the beach. I always thought anything more than 5 tones confused the senses or at least mine. I had an Explorer II and it had a tendency to be like ping pong to my ears. 50 tones is just too big of spectrum for my ears, Besides, I like the K.I.S.S. principle of the 3 tones.

Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.

Click here to login