How does the X-T 30 compare..

[Jackpine Savage]

to the 50 depthwise? Given that you are in ground that is favorable to the 30's preset GB. Has anyone compared them directly in a test garden or on undug targets?

Thanks

Tom

 

[philNCbeach]

The 50 will ground bal. at 9 here. This must put the 30's preset at a disadvantage because the 50 can find my twelve inch deep three ringer in disc. where the thirty can't. That's not saying the 30's not good many top of the line detectors can't get a signal on this bullet in disc.

 

[tony (Orlando FL)]

Phil,

This may work. Set your GB on the x50 to be at some neutral point, perhaps use a piece of ferrite. Then retest the 12 inch target and see what happens.

It may level the playing field if the GB is set the same or close to it.

Tony

 

[Digger]

Tom, I have both of them and find that they are very comparible, in the situation you describe. Ground mineralization that favors the preset level of the X-30. I suppose that is to be expected, considering that they are the same design, stock coil and electronics (for the most part). However, the difference is when the soil conditions don't necessarily favor the preset GB of the X-30. For example, most of the places I hunt have relatively moderate soil mineralization. For what it is worth, most read between the upper 40's and low 50's on my MXT. I have found that (in head to head comparisons) the X-30 will confirm the vast majority of the targets I have initially hit with the X-50. The only place I have found, so far, that the X-30 came up a bit short is one old corn field that use to be an old Luthern School in the early 1900's. When they tore down the old school, they basically dozed all the debris into the ground. It is loaded with nails, coal cinders etc. What I have found is that the X-30 seems to "lose" about 2 inches of depth in this soil. It is the same results I found last year when I took my Vaquero and Cibola to the same site. Again, considering the electonics of the two being compared is virtually the same, I have to believe that the manual ground balance was the advantage in both instances. HH Randy

 

[wpaxt]

Tom,

I've got plenty of hours on both machines and can honestly say that in the parks I hunt as well as the beach I haven't noticed any discernable difference in depth. I haven't had any occasion to GB the 50 yet; it has run smoothly everywhere I have used it.

Frankly, I've been hunting more with the 30 than the 50 as I've developed a real liking for the 3 tone ID on the 30.

I will be out with the 50 a lot more as soon as the 18.75 kHz coil arrives for testing.

Bill (S. CA)

 

[Ralph Bryant]

....it more than likely saw alot of fertilizers added to the soils. Some of that stuff can be as bad as the worst natural iron mineralization after a few years of accumulation.

 

[Jackpine Savage]

n/t

 

[philNCbeach]

Tony, I don't know what number the 30's preset is but in mild ground like here the 50's ground balance will give it more depth than the 30. Should also be the same result when the ground is hotter than the 30's preset. But in ground that the 50 would ground balance the same as the 30's preset they are probably both the same like you suggested.

 

[tony (Orlando FL)]

Phil,

makes good sense.

Tony

 

[Monte]

If you balance at #9, that is exceptionally mellow ground! I envy you as most of the sites I hunt here will balance at #4 or #3, two sites at #2 and only one site I have hunted allowed me to get by with a setting of #5.

Monte

 

[Jackpine Savage]

The 50 is the way to go, whether in extremely (GB 9) mild ground or tough conditions of cinders/clinkers or hotter ground (GB below 4) the advantage goes to the 50 by a considerable margin.

Thanks again guys.

Tom

 

[John(Tx)]

with the date worn in an old football field that had seen years of fertilization, thought I had found a flattened piece of lead because it was just about black when it came out of the ground, almost chuncked it away but after closer inspection, realized what I had. HH

 

[Cody]

Sweep speed, filters, and soil minerals require a compromise in design. As an example a two filter design is very forgiving of sweep speed so the operator does not have to be as consistent with sweep speed as a four filter design. The numbers of filters also are a factor in discrimination of targets in various soil minerals. Another example is 6 filters for high minerals but then a precise sweep speed is needed. (I realize you know this but it is an opportunity to say something.)

The operating frequency of 7.5khz is going to

 

[Ralph Bryant]

Hi Cody,

Alot of what you cover here is becoming apparent to me with the Xterra-30 as I get some more time on it. It's not so much a "problem" as really a user preferrence or what someone is use to in his other machines. Most of mine have been of a faster response and recovery design in comparison to some others, so I'm finding myself having to slow down slightly, or at least change my "perception" of the target signal in relation to the location of the coil. But I can understand your thoughts on the benefits involved too. I'm also in agreement that a fully user-adjustable sweep speed, response speed, and recovery speed along with or related to the filtering options would seem to be ideal in allowing you to really dial things in to personally preferrable levels, while retaining other options depending on different hunting conditions. That is kind of pointing me back in the direction of the DFX again, but I am still enjoying the heck out of the Xterra in the meantime. Like any other new machine, it has its idiosyncracies that take some getting use to, but the VDI lock and consistency is about as good as any I have ever used on any machine. No complaints so far in that department, and like Monte and others so often say, it's just a "FUN" machine to use with very good overall performance.

Ralph

 

[Anonymous]

Surely you mean milliseconds or microseconds, and the waves propagate at the speed of light.