Depth tests on many detectors

[Hightone]

The site is French, but very understandable by it's actions. You can watch each test or just go to the end to see the score card. The XP Deus is impressive. But what got me is that my Land Ranger Pro did about as well as the AT Pro on depth. All tests are done equally, so it leaves little doubt of favoritism.

MD Test Video's

 

[Grilled Scallops]

I think they have a good setup for testing but they need to be moving the coil instead of moving the target. Especially with a VLF where the ground matters, moving the target relative to the coil is not the same as moving the coil relative to the target (in a vacuum it would be the same thing). In reality, actual depths achieved will probably be less than what you see in these vids.

 

[Hightone]

[video]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sO19eSNLFQI[/video]

Both of these foreign sites seem to take air tests to a higher standard than waving coins in front of a coil. 30 cm = 11.81 inches.

 

[Larry (IL)]

In the 31 years I have been metal detecting, I have seen hundreds, if not thousands, of "tests" and one thing I have learned is the only test that matters to me is how a detector works in my hands with my settings, in my ground and for the targets I'm trying to find. Everything else just doesn't matter.

 

[Southwind]

Well said Larry!

 

[Tom_in_CA]

I agree with south-wind: Well said.

There are SCORES of machines that air test deeeep and seemingly flawlessly to accept or reject iron, etc... Yet when you get them out into actual field conditions, will "hit a brick wall" at 6". Beyond that, everything sounds the same.

Example: When the 1266 came out, it was indisputably the deepest machine that still boasted some semblence of discrimination (ie.: discluding pulse, or nugget machines, etc...). You could air test a quarter to nearly 1.5 ft. deep! And you could set to reject whatever preference of disc, (nails, foil, tabs, etc...). HOWEVER: in actual field conditions, you could only repeat those results in clean dry white sand. In all other soils, it was a crackling noisy mad-house. And you could not tell any target apart from another, beyond the first 4 to 6". So it might have been ok for relics. But for types hunting where a little selectivity is involved, it was a major headache.

Air tests are good to know the depth in optimum conditions. But other factors are TID at depths, ability in minerals, prone-ness to masking, etc....

 

[slingshot]

In the 31 years I have been metal detecting, I have seen hundreds, if not thousands, of "tests" and one thing I have learned is the only test that matters to me is how a detector works in my hands with my settings, in my ground and for the targets I'm trying to find. Everything else just doesn't matter.

Absolutely! And in my area, depth has a negative effect because of large iron targets and trash.

 

[Sven]

Yet we are all gullible to the tests and reports we see and read about, doesn't matter what machine.
Which our brains computes, the tests and reports etc. "imply" they could be better than what we are using now.
You know what that means, have to have it.
Keeps us buying, hoping... and many times finding the purchase is a let down in our hunting styles and conditions.
But its part of the fun of this hobby, buy and tray, eventually you'll find one that you can mesh with, or maybe two you can mesh with,
or like many of us 3 or more...

 

[Hightone]

I would agree. Controlled tests are just that.......Controlled. It does teach how each machine handles the controlled aspic. But when they hit the ground, there are many variables the electronics have to consider.

It did let me think my LRP was in with the big boys for awhile.

 

[farmer85j]

Highone, i think the LRP can hold its own aginst more expensive machines for most coin huntng situations.there isnt a deeper machine made for the price and it has enough features and ajustments to keep it interesting. Pinpoints great, i like it.

 

[Hightone]

n/t

 

[WV62]

I agree that the results of air testing shouldn't be used to say that a detector will do the same in the ground.

But I still do a lot of air testing to check settings to see if my machine improves or not. If I hit on something that will give me better depth air testing I will try it in the field. I also use it to test coils, like I have 2 coils that are just about the same size but one is a DD and the other is a concentric. The concentric wins every time air testing and for me that seems to carry over in my ground.

Another good use for air testing results is, lets say another forum member in another part of the world has the same type of detector as another and one of them thinks his is not working right. So if somebody posted that, they could compare detectors to see if one really does have a problem or not. So I post to them I get about 10" and they do the same and the results are the same all is good. Could save a trip back to the factory. I could post my in the ground results and it wouldn't do anybody any good.

Ron in WV

 

[chasia]

I've been detecting since mid sixty's and to have a deep machine is necessary but not the primary factor. Just about everyone would agree that knowing your machine is where it's at.

 

[togg77]

Ron hit the nail on de haid.

 

[supertraq]

The CZ's have unreal in ground performance,screw air test.
No minerals in the air.There are machines that will air test better but the CZ's still kick azz in the ground.
My T2 with the little 5" coil is unreal and ground conditions seem irrelevant.
Hope they keep the CZ's in production for years to come,T.I.D numbers would really make it a new machine.