I've done a lot of testing the past few months using every combination possible with every knob and switch and adjustment the GT has and I'm back to setting up my Gt the same as I've always done but I did do some additional testing for you. I did the testing the other day at the beach on deep targets using different sensitivity settings and sweep speeds and had some interesting results. I was using my standard settings with 0-disc., 0-notch, iron mask on, full volume, slight threshold and on this day sensitivity set to where I maintained a steady threshold (no nulling) with a medium sweep speed, about 2 sec. for a 5 foot sweep. This ended up being about 2:00 on the sensitivity. First target tested was a very faint repeatable high tone. I centered over the target and with a very slow sweep speed and about a 12 inch side to side sweep I started increasing the sensitivity very slowly while sweeping. I increased the sensitivity up to about 9:00 sens. slowly and then back down slowly to about 3:00 with very little if any change in the targets depth response. Switching to auto sensitivity the target disappeared completely. I marked the target and then set the sensitivity back to 9:00 and came at it again with my normal sweep speed and of course was in a null with no threshold. There was no response as I came over the target. I then came at it again several times slowing my sweep each time and was not able to get a response until I narrowed the sweep to about 12 inches or less while directly over the target. Once it locked in I was again able to get a soft repeatable signal. I then repeated the test at 11:00 and then 1:00 and again at 3:00. At 1;00 the threshold was intermittent and I could hit the target again but had to slow the sweep to get the same response as the 2:00 setting. I didn't notice much change at 3:00 but there might have been a slightly weaker response but it was close. The target turned out to be a deep dime. I repeated this test on several other deep targets with basically the same results. I also tested different volume and threshold settings using my usual beach settings above on deep targets and these were more of a surprise. I liked the response of the deep targets with the volume at 3:00 with a slightly louder threshold instead of my normal full volume and barely audible threshold and this will be the only change I make in the way I set my GT up in the future. In my ground and on the beach lower sensitivity gives me much better performance. The more sensitivity you use the more critical your sweep speed becomes to hit deeper targets and higher sensitivity seems to have less of an effect on the actual depth you can achieve at least in bad ground.
Find's Treasure Forums
Welcome to Find's Treasure Forums, Guests!
You are viewing this forums as a guest which limits you to read only status.
Only registered members may post stories, questions, classifieds, reply to other posts, contact other members using built in messaging and use many other features found on these forums.
Why not register and join us today? It's free! (We don't share your email addresses with anyone.) We keep email addresses of our users to protect them and others from bad people posting things they shouldn't.
Click here to register!
Need Support Help?
Cannot log in?, click here to have new password emailed to you
Changed email? Forgot to update your account with new email address? Need assistance with something else?, click here to go to Find's Support Form and fill out the form.
Critter I tested your settings.
- Thread starter crazyman
- Start date
"The more sensitivity you use the more critical your sweep speed becomes to hit deeper targets and higher sensitivity seems to have less of an effect on the actual depth you can achieve at least in bad ground."
Crazyman,
Thanks for your post .....Is the ground too noisy to listen too in bad ground at higher sensitivity levels when trying to get a better read on deep targets ? .....I seem to remember Critters sensitivity being at 2:00 as his fav setting ....I wonder if this is the same when hunting less mineralized soil ? .... That's interesting that the signal doesn't change much when turning up the sensitivity .......Thanks again ....Jim
Crazyman,
Thanks for your post .....Is the ground too noisy to listen too in bad ground at higher sensitivity levels when trying to get a better read on deep targets ? .....I seem to remember Critters sensitivity being at 2:00 as his fav setting ....I wonder if this is the same when hunting less mineralized soil ? .... That's interesting that the signal doesn't change much when turning up the sensitivity .......Thanks again ....Jim
Tony from Tidewater
Member
2-3 o'clock when I use my S-12, WOT, or SEF and I'm digging dimes @ 15" It's all about the speed of the coil swing, Volume at 3/4 to full here in Va. Beach
Jim, this is a pretty bad beach as far as mineralization. Using the Sunray S-8 coil I can only run sens. at 1:00 or lower without nulling the threshold with a medium slow sweep speed. I can run at 12:00 if I switch iron mask off but there isn't any depth difference and I'm not sure if using iron mask off effects the sensitivity to smaller gold targets in this sand. I wasn't surprised that I missed the targets at the higher sensitivity with a normal sweep speed but it did surprise me that when centered over the target even at minimal sweep speed the target stayed the same from high to low. I have always set my sensitivity just high enough to stay out off the null with a comfortable sweep speed but I now see that I can go even lower If I need to and still get good depth.
Tony, I was using the S-8 on this test. When using the 10 inch here 3:00 is about as high as I can go. I started using auto sensitivity with the 10 inch thinking it must be deeper than 3:00 but I see now that I was wrong. At least with the S-8 3:00 was noticably deeper than auto so I'll have to test it with the 10 inch on my next hunt.
Crazyman,interesting information and results.I'm back to using the trusty XS Sovereign.The original just hits on too many hot rocks.
OldBeechnut
Well-known member
Thanks for sharing, good reading................joe
Ron, I noticed you had it up for sale. I had the original also and the GT is similar to the original and both seem more sensitive to minerals hot rocks and iron in the iron mask mode compared to the other models that had the iron mask hardwired. I still think they watered down the sensitivity of the iron mask on those models. I know my Elite didn't false as much as my GT. Anyway, the results of Critters testing on sweep speed and sensitivity in mineralized ground and my testing on my nasty beach are very similar. Even though I could run my sensitivity higher at 12:00 with a steady threshold if I used a slow sweep speed I was able to run sensitivity down to 3:00 with a faster medium sweep without any depth loss. What was noticeable at the lower sensitivity setting was the improved sensitivity to smaller targets. I was digging more tiny screws, pants rivets and split-shot than I normally do here. The 2:00 setting with a medium sweep speed worked really well at least on the beach. Those deep very faint signals are easier to find and more common on the beach so it might take a little longer to test the same settings on land.
Crazyman,the three GTs I've owned did pickup hot rocks but wasn't that bad compared to the Original.The Original found more hot rocks than any detector I've owned.The GT is very sensitive on deep dimes.The XS is very stable and deep in most of my hunting areas.I use the smaller Tornado coil most of the time and keep the sensitivity maxed.I just found some deep wheat's 1920s and a 1936 Mercury going over the same area covered by the Original and a M6 I just flipped.Very hot here just got the lawn tractor back together and need to get caught up and do some mowing.Thanks
Chuck,the sensitivity increase or decrease direction runs the same on the older Sovereigns.Clockwise decrease and counter clockwise increases the sensitivity which is the opposite of all other detectors.Your max sensitivity would be around the 8 o'clock position, 12 o'clock near half, and 5 o'clock lowest.
Chuck, the results of any test can very depending on ground conditions. What settings are used and what sweep speed you use are also dependent on trash concentrations as well. I have some very nasty ground and beaches up here and the testing Critter was doing was in bad ground also. It wasn't just to reinforced the high-beam in the fog theory as it relates to detectors and sensitivity but mainly the test was to see how the Sovereigns sweep speed is affected when using different sensitivity settings in bad ground. This was also on a very mineralized beach. The only surprise here was that the depth was the same at 2:00-3:00 with a medium sweep speed as it was 12:00 having to use a very slow sweep speed to hit the same target. Critter noticed in his test that there was a certain sweep speed and sensitivity setting that gave him better performance outside of the standard high sensitivity slow sweep recommendation.
Crazyman,
I think that "highly mineralized, and bad ground " are the operative words here ...... I think that a lot of this has to do with the "High Beam / Low Beam" analogy when detecting ..... Running the lower sensitiviy makes complete sense now .....
I had a very weird experience yesterday at the beach .....I think we can all atest to the fact that the beach with black sand would be considered " highly mineralized " ......I think we also all agree that a larger coil would be noisier on said beach .... My buddy and I were hunting our regular saltwater beach, both using E Tracs , and he was using his newly aquired 12 x 15 SEF coil ......That thing is HUGE !!!...... After hunting for a while , I stopped him and asked how he liked it ......He said that it hit harder than any coil he had ever had on his machine .... He went on to say how DEEP it was hitting, and how quiet and how stable the coil was ....... This made NO SENSE to me at all ..... How can a larger , more powerful coil be more quiet ? ...tt was VERY STABLE he said .....He then said that at the beach and hunting larger area's that he will use this coil, and he might even sell his stock DD Pro coil which we all know is no sloutch !!!!..... I guess some rules are just meant to be broken .....I would have to say that the design of a coil has as much or more to do with how stable and how much noise it makes , than the actual size of the coil ..... Thanks for posting, and for listenning ....I'm learning a lot from this forum ..... Not everything is etched in stone ......Jim
I think that "highly mineralized, and bad ground " are the operative words here ...... I think that a lot of this has to do with the "High Beam / Low Beam" analogy when detecting ..... Running the lower sensitiviy makes complete sense now .....
I had a very weird experience yesterday at the beach .....I think we can all atest to the fact that the beach with black sand would be considered " highly mineralized " ......I think we also all agree that a larger coil would be noisier on said beach .... My buddy and I were hunting our regular saltwater beach, both using E Tracs , and he was using his newly aquired 12 x 15 SEF coil ......That thing is HUGE !!!...... After hunting for a while , I stopped him and asked how he liked it ......He said that it hit harder than any coil he had ever had on his machine .... He went on to say how DEEP it was hitting, and how quiet and how stable the coil was ....... This made NO SENSE to me at all ..... How can a larger , more powerful coil be more quiet ? ...tt was VERY STABLE he said .....He then said that at the beach and hunting larger area's that he will use this coil, and he might even sell his stock DD Pro coil which we all know is no sloutch !!!!..... I guess some rules are just meant to be broken .....I would have to say that the design of a coil has as much or more to do with how stable and how much noise it makes , than the actual size of the coil ..... Thanks for posting, and for listenning ....I'm learning a lot from this forum ..... Not everything is etched in stone ......Jim
Most of the positive posts I've read on these coils come from Explorer users. I know that Critter really likes this coil on his GT and also said he could actually run his sensitivity higher than the stock 10 inch even in higher mineralization but made an observation about possibly getting better depth using a lower sensitivity setting. I haven't seen any posts from anyone in my area using them yet. What some consider high mineralization in other parts of the country might be considered moderate in my area. I can only run my sensitivity up to 3:00 with the 10 inch Tornado in my ground and I usually run about 1:00 with the S-8. I wonder if even though I might be able to run higher sensitivity with lets say the 10X12 SEF in my ground would I actually be able to get better depth. I only hunt the beaches in the summer when the woods are to overgrown to hunt my logging camps and ghost town sites so bigger coils aren't a priority for me. I wish they made the 6X8 SEF for the Sovereigns.
I can't help you with the S8 / SEF comparison .....The SEF is new to me and only because my buddy bought it and waited forever to get it ...... If the Sensitivity is not really the issue as far as the depth was concerned for Critter , perhaps the fact that you can just run the bigger coil and have a rock solid performance without noise would be enough for me ....The larger coil in itself would give you better depth even if you kept the Sensitivity the same ..... I couldn't believe the difference in how quiet the SEF was compared to my stock coil ....I did a double take on the Sensitivity numbers .....I'm talking about hunting in Black Sand !!!..... I was getting some falsing .....It was workable , but stressful if you had to listen to it for any amount of time .....Then listening to the SEF coil , it was like somebody turned down the Sensitivity ....It was very strange .....Then when a target came along , it was such a nice solid hit ....My stock coil did not hit as hard and was pretty noisy at this point .... We are talking 2 - E Tracs ....I'm sure they had slight diferences since no two machines are completly identicle , but the only difference between the 2 was the coil !!..... Perhaps someone in your area has a SEF that you can try out ? ..... Maybe buy one used for not too much $$$ and sell it if it's not what you expect ......?????? ...I will probably end up getting the 12 X 15 SEF and selling my Pro Coil !!!.....it's THAT good !!.... I'm still curious to see how it stacks up to the WOT coil ......Decisions Decisions .......Jim
Jim, thanks for the info. I've had my eye out for a used 10X12 SEF for a while now. You don't see many used ones for the Sovereigns for sale. I'm usually not a big fan of large coils on land but I've been doing more beach hunting lately and liking it. If I remember right Critter said his SEF was more sensitive to smaller targets than the stock 10 inch so if I could get good sensitivity to small targets on the beach at least on par with my S-8 while getting more coverage I would be happy.
Critterhunter
New member
Printing this out to read later so have nothing to say for now, but from the looks of it it's going to be a fun read! Thanks. 
Critterhunter
New member
Crazyman, great job with the in depth testing. It was real interesting to read your findings and how they compared to mine. If I understand you correctly (?) then both of our findings sort of come to at least the same conclusion in one respect, if not from different directions. That being that the lower you set sensitivity the faster your sweep should be, and that the higher the sensitivity the slower it should be as well.
I tend to swing my GT at what some might call a slow sweep speed but to me it's more of a medium speed. However, (and here is where it get's confusing) my findings are not based on swing speed and what works best for that. Rather, I come from the angle of what setting provides the best ID and audio on a target by doing the very short & very fast "Sovereign Wiggle" that most say provides the best target ID at depth.
For any new Sovereign owners who don't know what that is, it's when you try to wiggle the coil as fast as possible and as short or "in one place" over the target as possible. You are trying to really only move the coil back and fourth as little as humanly possible, which usually ends up being say a half inch to a few inches depending on your physical ability. As you do this you'll find that deep targets which are not easily locking into a solid ID/tone will walk up the VDI scale as you go, or at least tend to lock more solid onto one specific number.
If they are faint and deep (what is deep in one location might not be in another, go by the sound of what is "fringe" at that site) yet still can't quite get there or stay in one place then they are usually worth digging to be sure. Though, most of the time a very deep coin will walk up to and lock onto it's proper ID. At the outter fringes of this depth they will "walk" up the scale but never quite get to the proper number, but you can see the solid and less random progression of the numbers as they climb....140's, 150's, 160's, 170's...trying to hit 180.
If, on the other hand, the target doesn't sound as deep *for that site* to be giving you trouble in getting the proper ID/audio, then there's a good chance it's not a coin or the desired target. Trash, in particular stuff uninform in shape, will tend to bounce around a bit more randomly and not provide a solid lock in audio either. Only very fringe coins at depth or shallow ones masked by iron or other trash should be giving you such problems, yet you'll still see a more distinct "climb" to the numbers and not as much jumping as they make their way to the proper VDI number.
Back to the comparisons of our findings...Since I'm more interested in the proper ID of a target at depth my method is to do the wiggle as I adjust the sensitivity until I find the place on the dial (usually about 2PM) where the ID is easiest to obtain. When you've buried a test target at the fringes of depth for that site you'll find that the window for a good/easy ID narrows down to something real specific on the dial most of the time.
Here's the reasoning for our differences in approach if I understand your's correctly...In your case you tend (?) to swing slow, and so you are looking for the best response while just "in search mode" looking for the next target. My reasoning for basing sensitivity on what is best with the wiggle is because I plan to wiggle over anything that causes any kind of change in the threshold or even an initial null. My thinking is that even if the sensitivity isn't set the best it can be for "search mode", it is set the best for "wiggle mode" and will thus give me the best depth to check each target with that I come across.
Here's where we reach equal conclusions I think...My methodology for setting it (best ID at depth, which means wiggle mode) also turns out to be the best setting for my normal swing speed....what some might even call a medium sweep speed that leans even on the fast side. To some my sweep speed might seem fast, others slow. The only comparison I can give is that it's about a medium sweep speed compared to the Whites I've owned, which give best response at what most would consider to be a fast speed. As I said, it turns out for me that this also gives me the best response while in "search mode". It's at least slightly faster than a slow sweep speed but again I'd call it at least a medium speed to me. I know it's faster than what I've seen the norm to be for most people swinging a Sovereign or an Explorer.
Here's were I may differ with you if I haven't already...While my testing has been limited in this respect, I have found while playing with sensitivity settings on a buried dime to calibrate to a new site this- That when just doing a normal sweep over the target and adjusting sensitivity I got more depth with my medium speed and the proper sensitivity setting for that than I would for something higher or lower, regardless of how fast or slow I swept over the target. I will often check my "search" speed against my "wiggle" method to see how fast the sweep speed should be. It always turns out medium for best response. A higher setting and faster or slower speed doesn't give me as good of a hit.
BUT...that doesn't mean I'm right or you're wrong. It comes down to many other things involved, including soil, the type of coil being used, and even what either one of us want to hear from the machine to take notice. The smaller the coil the higher the setting, and that setting might end up being much higher with your coil than it is on my 10" or 15x12.
I tend to swing my GT at what some might call a slow sweep speed but to me it's more of a medium speed. However, (and here is where it get's confusing) my findings are not based on swing speed and what works best for that. Rather, I come from the angle of what setting provides the best ID and audio on a target by doing the very short & very fast "Sovereign Wiggle" that most say provides the best target ID at depth.
For any new Sovereign owners who don't know what that is, it's when you try to wiggle the coil as fast as possible and as short or "in one place" over the target as possible. You are trying to really only move the coil back and fourth as little as humanly possible, which usually ends up being say a half inch to a few inches depending on your physical ability. As you do this you'll find that deep targets which are not easily locking into a solid ID/tone will walk up the VDI scale as you go, or at least tend to lock more solid onto one specific number.
If they are faint and deep (what is deep in one location might not be in another, go by the sound of what is "fringe" at that site) yet still can't quite get there or stay in one place then they are usually worth digging to be sure. Though, most of the time a very deep coin will walk up to and lock onto it's proper ID. At the outter fringes of this depth they will "walk" up the scale but never quite get to the proper number, but you can see the solid and less random progression of the numbers as they climb....140's, 150's, 160's, 170's...trying to hit 180.
If, on the other hand, the target doesn't sound as deep *for that site* to be giving you trouble in getting the proper ID/audio, then there's a good chance it's not a coin or the desired target. Trash, in particular stuff uninform in shape, will tend to bounce around a bit more randomly and not provide a solid lock in audio either. Only very fringe coins at depth or shallow ones masked by iron or other trash should be giving you such problems, yet you'll still see a more distinct "climb" to the numbers and not as much jumping as they make their way to the proper VDI number.
Back to the comparisons of our findings...Since I'm more interested in the proper ID of a target at depth my method is to do the wiggle as I adjust the sensitivity until I find the place on the dial (usually about 2PM) where the ID is easiest to obtain. When you've buried a test target at the fringes of depth for that site you'll find that the window for a good/easy ID narrows down to something real specific on the dial most of the time.
Here's the reasoning for our differences in approach if I understand your's correctly...In your case you tend (?) to swing slow, and so you are looking for the best response while just "in search mode" looking for the next target. My reasoning for basing sensitivity on what is best with the wiggle is because I plan to wiggle over anything that causes any kind of change in the threshold or even an initial null. My thinking is that even if the sensitivity isn't set the best it can be for "search mode", it is set the best for "wiggle mode" and will thus give me the best depth to check each target with that I come across.
Here's where we reach equal conclusions I think...My methodology for setting it (best ID at depth, which means wiggle mode) also turns out to be the best setting for my normal swing speed....what some might even call a medium sweep speed that leans even on the fast side. To some my sweep speed might seem fast, others slow. The only comparison I can give is that it's about a medium sweep speed compared to the Whites I've owned, which give best response at what most would consider to be a fast speed. As I said, it turns out for me that this also gives me the best response while in "search mode". It's at least slightly faster than a slow sweep speed but again I'd call it at least a medium speed to me. I know it's faster than what I've seen the norm to be for most people swinging a Sovereign or an Explorer.
Here's were I may differ with you if I haven't already...While my testing has been limited in this respect, I have found while playing with sensitivity settings on a buried dime to calibrate to a new site this- That when just doing a normal sweep over the target and adjusting sensitivity I got more depth with my medium speed and the proper sensitivity setting for that than I would for something higher or lower, regardless of how fast or slow I swept over the target. I will often check my "search" speed against my "wiggle" method to see how fast the sweep speed should be. It always turns out medium for best response. A higher setting and faster or slower speed doesn't give me as good of a hit.
BUT...that doesn't mean I'm right or you're wrong. It comes down to many other things involved, including soil, the type of coil being used, and even what either one of us want to hear from the machine to take notice. The smaller the coil the higher the setting, and that setting might end up being much higher with your coil than it is on my 10" or 15x12.
Critterhunter
New member
After reading my message over you're probably thinking the same thing I am....Didn't make it real clear or distinctive if how we may differ, so I'll at least emphasize what we I think (?) agree on. Have to read this thread over again. Lot of information in it so I might have some opinions wrong from people. Anyway, if you are saying that the lower the sensitivity setting the faster the sweep speed then I'd agree, even if I haven't seen improved depth on my end by going higher with sensitivity and swinging slower. But, you are not the first to say this. I think Jbow (?) or somebody recently did some testing and found that sweep speed was in fact dependent on sensitivity setting, and further came to the same conclusions as you.
Perhaps by sound a higher sensitivity setting will give the best response to a slow sweep speed while in "search mode". I haven't really compared that as much, but have some. I've been more interested in what setting gives best depth by doing the wiggle. With my limited sweep testing in normal hunt speed over the buried test target this setting also seems to hit best for me, or at least nulls or acts different than a slower or faster sweep speed at other sensitivity settings. You might in fact find that your slower speed speed produces a better hit while in search mode with your sensitivity setting. I won't argue or debate that, because I can see why and also haven't really done enough of those comparisons to be sure. I'm basing my best setting on the wiggle, which most would agree gives the best response at depth, and in the end turns out to also match my medium sweep speed for the best hit on a target.
I'd say coils and ground conditions have a big impact on this difference as well. My calibration method almost always end up having the sensitivity set much lower (by at least a third or more) than what anybody would consider to be a stable setting. In other words, if normal sweeping isn't causing nulling at say 11PM on the dial, my calibration method ends up being say somewhere around 1 to 3PM, with it most of the time being at 2PM. That's with my 15x12 and 10" coils, though, so with say an 8" coil you might find that what gives you the best response is also very much closer or even right at the highest setting before the machine starts to become unstable. In addition, if hunting soils with low minerals I'm sure the difference for me between the two would be much less, and that if 11PM is the highest stable setting it might turn out it's also what the buried dime calibration test ends up being.
I feel the difference between those two things is based on the soil and the coil size. The larger the coil the less hot it can be run in order to not wash the target out with the ground matrix being taken in. That doesn't necessarily mean less depth than say a smaller coil at a higher setting, but it also doesn't mean the exact reverse may be true. The 15x12 set at 2PM might be deeper than the 10" set at noon, or the 8" might be deeper than both of them being set at 11PM, all based on soil quality. I think there is a fine balance between coil size, sensitivity setting, and the soil being scanned. Depending on which weighs more heavily than the other with certain factors a small coil might be set higher and get deeper, or a larger coil with a lower setting might be, or the exact reverse of the two examples might take place.
What's all that mean anyway? Nothing really, just a ramble of theories and thoughts.
Distilled down none of it matters so long as I'm setting the sensitivity for best depth with the way I swing and investigate targets, and that probably will differ from me to you based on that along with the coil and soil conditions. In short, neither one of us have arrived at anything that can be proved more conclusive than the other, so it comes down to somebody's personal judgement of both methods in the field for them. One may work better than the other even based purely on your personality and how you want the machine to respond for you. How's that for muddying the waters even further. If you can get something out of the above then more power to ya. 
Perhaps by sound a higher sensitivity setting will give the best response to a slow sweep speed while in "search mode". I haven't really compared that as much, but have some. I've been more interested in what setting gives best depth by doing the wiggle. With my limited sweep testing in normal hunt speed over the buried test target this setting also seems to hit best for me, or at least nulls or acts different than a slower or faster sweep speed at other sensitivity settings. You might in fact find that your slower speed speed produces a better hit while in search mode with your sensitivity setting. I won't argue or debate that, because I can see why and also haven't really done enough of those comparisons to be sure. I'm basing my best setting on the wiggle, which most would agree gives the best response at depth, and in the end turns out to also match my medium sweep speed for the best hit on a target.
I'd say coils and ground conditions have a big impact on this difference as well. My calibration method almost always end up having the sensitivity set much lower (by at least a third or more) than what anybody would consider to be a stable setting. In other words, if normal sweeping isn't causing nulling at say 11PM on the dial, my calibration method ends up being say somewhere around 1 to 3PM, with it most of the time being at 2PM. That's with my 15x12 and 10" coils, though, so with say an 8" coil you might find that what gives you the best response is also very much closer or even right at the highest setting before the machine starts to become unstable. In addition, if hunting soils with low minerals I'm sure the difference for me between the two would be much less, and that if 11PM is the highest stable setting it might turn out it's also what the buried dime calibration test ends up being.
I feel the difference between those two things is based on the soil and the coil size. The larger the coil the less hot it can be run in order to not wash the target out with the ground matrix being taken in. That doesn't necessarily mean less depth than say a smaller coil at a higher setting, but it also doesn't mean the exact reverse may be true. The 15x12 set at 2PM might be deeper than the 10" set at noon, or the 8" might be deeper than both of them being set at 11PM, all based on soil quality. I think there is a fine balance between coil size, sensitivity setting, and the soil being scanned. Depending on which weighs more heavily than the other with certain factors a small coil might be set higher and get deeper, or a larger coil with a lower setting might be, or the exact reverse of the two examples might take place.
What's all that mean anyway? Nothing really, just a ramble of theories and thoughts.
Distilled down none of it matters so long as I'm setting the sensitivity for best depth with the way I swing and investigate targets, and that probably will differ from me to you based on that along with the coil and soil conditions. In short, neither one of us have arrived at anything that can be proved more conclusive than the other, so it comes down to somebody's personal judgement of both methods in the field for them. One may work better than the other even based purely on your personality and how you want the machine to respond for you. How's that for muddying the waters even further. If you can get something out of the above then more power to ya.