vpoirier79 said:
The first is coin and relic and the second is gold detectors, its just air tests, some detectors do much better in ground then air and the coins are eu coins so silver and copper are not used , a gold ring was used and the higher frequency seems to do the best
Thanks for the interesting video post. Also, 'Thank You' for pointing out that these are 'air tests' and results can vary based upon the ground mineral conditions. Any videos can provide some educations moments, be them positive or negative.
vpoirier79 said:
It is known that the velox and fors can show pretty good depth and the cf77 seems to be a repackaged version of the velox.
I know first-hand that the FORS CoRe can show very good performance in an 'air test' comparison, but it is especially impressive with it in-ground performance.
vpoirier79 said:
I own a f70 and just ordered a cf77, I also have a musketeer and 3 tesoros and a whites quantum. Anyway this is just information. Vaughn in Nova scotia
The CF77 will be a different dimension to what you're using, and not knowing which Tesoro models you have I can't say how many of what you have I wouldn't be interested in, so I'll just start out with two of your current detectors I could happily live without.
Comments ... Video testing and comparison can be interesting to watch as we can hear the operators comments and opinions, learn what settings are used, and sometimes learn from them. We can also note discrepancies compared with detectors we use and the site environments we encounter. While I know that varying ground mineral conditions can have an effect on a detector's in-the-field performance, I feel we can still gain some insight from "air tests" as long as all the conditions and settings are equal.
Error with the Deus and others ... One thing I learn is to check for control settings, coil choices, and search coil orientation to the targets presented to it. This first video starts out with the Deus being tested, and it appears to be laying down because looking at the search coil position, it appears it is on it's side and the targets are being swept lengthwise from tip-to-tail and not crosswise and going across the canter of the DD coils. Double-D coils do not work as well, if swept in that manner, because they don't have the same consistent EMF from all directions like a Concentric search coil.
Not all detectors were using the same type search coil [size=small](some were Concentric and most were Double-D)[/size], and coil sizes varied, too. I couldn't understand everything stated so maybe it was suggested that they were compared using their 'standard' search coil? It seems that a test for depth might want to try to match coil sizes and/or types.
Some models were tested in their All Metal Mode and other were tested in a motion-based Discriminate mode, so that seemed a little unfair as well.
We don't know the settings used withy each detector and I think that should have been clarified, too, and all adjusted similarly.
My general opinions ... Again it was interesting, but there were enough differences, as mentioned that I don't feel it made it a completely clear comparison. Still, even though these were 'Air Tests" I don't have a problem overall because I could at least learn a little about the various models shown.
I wish I could have understood all of the conversation used, and I do give them credit for the effort and time to gather all of those up and conduct the comparisons.
Now it's time to head out with my FORS and Racer to do some "in the ground testing" of my own before our rain storm arrived for two days.
Monte
