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

JW or Andy do you know if the Safari has a faster processor then the Explorers excluding the E-Trac which is not an Explorer?

Frank,

The processor used in the Safari, Explorer SE and E-Etrac are all different . . . . . as well as the algorithm used internally to process signals from targets.

The improved performance in trashy sites on the Safari is more due to the new software and the way it processes signals that the processor itself. Combined with the new Pro coil, the Safari is able to better handle the reset time and detect a target in close proximity to a trash target.

So to compare the Safari to the Explorer or E-Trac is somewhat like comparing the processor o the one in the Whites DFX . . . is it faster????? The key question is how effective is the software running on it to distinguish targets in close proximity to one another and then identify them at depth . . . .

Hope this answers your question . . . . . Minelab will not release the specific details on each processor which is understandable based on their R&D that goes into each model.

Andy
 
Due you think you can or will ever do a side by side comparison with the Quattro and Safari ? This is really what some of the Quattro die hards really want to see here . Comparing signals , tones , depth , recovery speed etc . We are getting to many people here comparing the Safari with other machines but not the Quattro . Please let us know more as things develope . Thanks !
 
You are correct in asking for this type of data as all the air tests and subjective "I think it goes deeper / recovers faster / etc." do not really tell one if the new detector is better for their needs.

I am working on doing just that but to do it the right way takes a considerable amount of time. You need to be at a sites you know has older, deeper targets. Then each detector is used and targets marked. Then the other is compared against it . . . . . . I have started to put some results together but to be meaningful, you need to get tests data from different sites . . . . I am trying it in the Carolina's, heading to Georgia next week and will see how my time holds up with the holidays coming.

My time on the forums is a bitty limited recently with work piling up and some issues around the house but PM works and I will try to respond to posts as time permits.

Hope thsi answers your question . . . . .
 
Andy,
While you are doing the comparison, grin. Any input on what kind of difference the procoil will make on a Quattro?
I have ordered one, and am patiently waiting for it. I have been using a 5" coil on the Q, and it has made an incredible difference in how the machine picks up signals in trashy areas.

The 5" coil has helped me double or triple my finds. I am still experimenting on sensitivity settings with the small coil, as falsing at auto or fairly high settings seems to be a bigger issue than with even the slimline.

Thanks,
Mark
 
Top