Deep On... What is your experience with it?

[INSAYN]

I've tried to occasionally use Deep On in areas that may have deep targets, but I have no idea if it is actually helping or just keeping it the same. I run Fast On pretty much all the time, so I'm wondering if these two selections may counter each other. In the areas where I suspect deep older targets, my swing speed is "turtle slow".

What is your experience using Deep On?

 

[Des D]

Hi Insayn,

This is probably THE MOST debated topic on the Findmall Forum
It al began wayyyyyy back in 2000 when the 'groundbreaking' Explorer XS was introduced.

Essentially, the way Minelab intended it to work was either one on, one off but never the two on together.
However, when the Explorer began selling in all areas globally, it was evident that the various filter sets worked well while on together in some soils.

But, the real truth is - they are Opposing Filter Sets and were not intended to be used together.
But as stated, they can be...

So, I guess it all comes down to personal choice AND your type of soil.
If you can't see [any improvement] or [notice any benefit] then just use one at a time.

Des D

 

[Digger]

With the enhanced processor speed on the CTX3030, I've not found the need to use Fast, as I might have on earlier FBS models. Deep will enhance the signal of weaker signals, but can slow down the reaction to the target signal and ID. But again, I don't find that to be a problem with the speed of the CTX processor, when using a legitimate sweep speed. Your "turtle slow" should be a good choice for those deeper targets.

October 2012. http://www.findmall.com/read.php?86,1802922,1802935#msg-1802935

 

[huntindog1]

Deep on uses more filtering. Filtering smooths out the signal and if there are many targets close to each other they will tend to get merged together so that the detector cant tell the two apart. Filtering helps deep weak signals that tend to be affected by noise. The filtering helps eliminate the noise level of the weak signals for a more stable read on deep targets.

 

[JamesBondaka]

Hi Insayn,

This is probably THE MOST debated topic on the Findmall Forum
It al began wayyyyyy back in 2000 when the 'groundbreaking' Explorer XS was introduced.

Essentially, the way Minelab intended it to work was either one on, one off but never the two on together.
However, when the Explorer began selling in all areas globally, it was evident that the various filter sets worked well while on together in some soils.

But, the real truth is - they are Opposing Filter Sets and were not intended to be used together.
But as stated, they can be...

So, I guess it all comes down to personal choice AND your type of soil.
If you can't see [any improvement] or [notice any benefit] then just use one at a time.

Des D

Agreed! I also talked with another consulting expert about this very subject a few years ago when I was fresh into the MD realm. I was puzzled why there was such a difference on this and I thought I read the information wrong. He personally did think there was an "error" and was going to discuss it with ML. By the above post now confirms what he said was true.

And remember, this is only going to apply to a weak signal...not a good one. At least, that was with the Etrac...which so far....which appears to be no different than the ctx on that feature.

 

[Des D]

James,

Yes, I can count on two hands the times that Deep on and Deep off made audible differences - on deep targets.
And it was them almost always on deep iron...this was prototyping the CTX now and not any other FBS job.
I've got some video to back this up and in it what I can describe as a very weak signal "on a dubious target" with Deep off and [ a clearer / better / more defined signal } with Deep on
What I can't remember is, the ID numbers generated and cursor placement as I haven't seen the footage since it was filmed and that was a few years ago...before the machine was released?

Good Hunting

Des

 

[JamesBondaka]

James,

Yes, I can count on two hands the times that Deep on and Deep off made audible differences - on deep targets.
And it was them almost always on deep iron...this was prototyping the CTX now and not any other FBS job.
I've got some video to back this up and in it what I can describe as a very weak signal "on a dubious target" with Deep off and [ a clearer / better / more defined signal } with Deep on
What I can't remember is, the ID numbers generated and cursor placement as I haven't seen the footage since it was filmed and that was a few years ago...before the machine was released?

Good Hunting

Des

" prototyping the ctx now and not any other FBS job" Could you explain that further? OR....

I for one, would always be interesting in seeing any other informational videos. Thanks

 

[AngelicStorm]

I have a question.....

Does Volume Gain correlate to Recovery Deep?

I have a good understanding of volume gain.
According to the manual.....

Volume Gain
Range: 1

 

[GateKeeper]

Here is what I have found. The recovery speed is so fast, that Fast On is seldom used by myself. I do however always have Deep On enabled with my Volume Gain maxed out at 30. I have done too much testing with all the programs not to use this setup. Now here is the kicker. To get even more depth, play with your noise cancel. Noise Cancel? Yes, Noise Cancel. When you AUTO Noise Cancel, as you all know, it find's the quietest channel, but not always the deepest channel. Try this, Auto Noise Cancel as you normally do. Then hunt for a bit, when you find a deeper target, say 6 -8 inches, manually go thru the noise cancel channels. You will find that a few channels will hit harder than others while some channels will make the target weak, or not hit at all. Now you might have to lower your sensitivity from Auto +3 down to +2, or manual by a notch or 2, but you might just amaze yourself how that little change will be the change that makes all the difference in the world.

Gate

 

[INSAYN]

Gatekeeper, that is definitely an interesting observation.

Do you think the various channels are frequency based and possibly tune the CTX for various metals?
Some channels better for low conductive metals, vs high conductive metals and vise versa?

 

[GateKeeper]

Gatekeeper, that is definitely an interesting observation.

Do you think the various channels are frequency based and possibly tune the CTX for various metals?
Some channels better for low conductive metals, vs high conductive metals and vise versa?

Yes sir

 

[INSAYN]

Do you any confidence on what channel hits better on silver, or which may hit better on say gold?

 

[GateKeeper]

It will be different from one area to another. Just like I cant tell you one specific hunting program will work, You have to learn which works for you in your soil conditions. Do a little testing and see what you can find.

 

[AngelicStorm]

It will be different from one area to another. Just like I cant tell you one specific hunting program will work, You have to learn which works for you in your soil conditions. Do a little testing and see what you can find.

My thought as well. Defiantly worth a try and the first time I have come across this type of method. What you say about the channel tuning the CTX for various metals makes sense since most noise is frequency based.

 

[INSAYN]

It will be different from one area to another. Just like I cant tell you one specific hunting program will work, You have to learn which works for you in your soil conditions. Do a little testing and see what you can find.

Gate,
I'm certainly not trying to find the "Easy Button" here, rather I was just curious if you had noticed any repeatable nuances that you could start to form a level of predictablility using one channel over another. I will certainly start taking note of what my "Auto Noise Cancel" selects and play around with it when I get a deep signal, and/or a mildly repeatable signal.

 

[GateKeeper]

I could tell you exactly which channels I found to be better, but I wont. I want you to test for yourselves so that no other can influence what you hear. I really want you to master it. That's why I wont tell you. Please let us know what you found. Then I will divulge my findings.

 

[INSAYN]

I could tell you exactly which channels I found to be better, but I wont. I want you to test for yourselves so that no other can influence what you hear. I really want you to master it. That's why I wont tell you. Please let us know what you found. Then I will divulge my findings.

Completely reasonable, and I certainly wasn't asking for a plate of cookies. Just interested in if you found a reliable and mostly constant set of results to make this a worth while thing for others (and myself) to start compiling channel checks on our targets while hunting. Your time that you put in figuring out the differences is definitely not to be squashed.

Up until you mentioned it, I never considered that any particular channels would play a part in influencing the sensitivity of the contuctance different metals. Most intriguing and should be interesting to see how my results pan out.

Would there be any merit in testing several already found coins via "air tests" to get a base line to work with later in the field, or would it not be as informative as just straight up "in field" testing?

Thanks again Gate.

 

[GateKeeper]

Do in field testing. I just don't rely on air testing. Too much can alter a test. Such as EMI. Just picture holding your coil in the air. The higher you hold it, the more chance the coil will act as a satellite dish and pick up the undesired EMI that will dirty the test. The closer the coil is to the ground, the lesser of a chance your test will be influenced by unwanted interference.

Is the test worthwhile you ask? I came to the conclusion that YES it was. There are more subtle little tricks that have been found to gain even more depth (up to 20%). But we will talk about that later.

 

[AngelicStorm]

Do in field testing. I just don't rely on air testing. Too much can alter a test. Such as EMI. Just picture holding your coil in the air. The higher you hold it, the more chance the coil will act as a satellite dish and pick up the undesired EMI that will dirty the test. The closer the coil is to the ground, the lesser of a chance your test will be influenced by unwanted interference.

Is the test worthwhile you ask? I came to the conclusion that YES it was. There are more subtle little tricks that have been found to gain even more depth (up to 20%). But we will talk about that later.

I did some air test using your method and noticed little difference in between channels. The only difference I noticed between them was a decline in depth. Like you said though, the coil could have been acting as a satellite picking up a ton of EMI. Things did seem a bit unstable.

 

[JamesBondaka]

It will be different from one area to another. Just like I cant tell you one specific hunting program will work, You have to learn which works for you in your soil conditions. Do a little testing and see what you can find.

Gate,
I'm certainly not trying to find the "Easy Button" here, rather I was just curious if you had noticed any repeatable nuances that you could start to form a level of predictability using one channel over another. I will certainly start taking note of what my "Auto Noise Cancel" selects and play around with it when I get a deep signal, and/or a mildly repeatable signal.

That's precisely it! Minelab made the detector to be used, "Easy" not necessarily deepest as Gate said. Of course, adjustments can be made to make your detector deeper but there is a trade off, which may or may not make a difference to whether you hear the target or not. Soil is always a major key to how well you succeed with your detector.