The only way to know if the E-Trac,Explorer, V3 or X or Y or Z is the better machine is to try them and decide for yourself and the one that suits you the best is the best for you.I read so many things biasing most every comparative test of any two machines as to make the tests of little value to any one but the person doing the tests.I guess they have two other values and that is they make you feel better about your new machine if it happens to be the same as the one that "won" in the particular shootout you are reading about at the time and they help sell more machines.
But what happens if a person feeling all warm and fuzzy about their new machine reads another similar test next week with exact opposite results
A person can only become confident in their machine by using it and learning it until it performs well for them at their sites.If this does not happen then they need to look around for a different machine or get better instruction on the operation of said machine.
Of course amount of experience on either or both machines has a great deal to do with the outcome or results of testing .And I always have to laugh when the testers get to the depth capability part of said tests
.like an extra inch of depth is the end all reason for deciding what machine is the best choice.
Most top end machines have rather close depth abilities I believe but there are so many more factors to make up a so called "best" machine.Ease of use and set-up.Available on-board options and if they are going to be used/needed by the individual choosing a new machine.Separation and ID abilities.Ergonomics and weight.Available accessories both factory and after-market.Cost and warranty and the list goes on as any educated shopper will be aware of.
The only way I can see to do a fair and unbiased test of any two or more machines is with at least one if not more very successful and experienced users of each machine being tested/compared doing side by side target response tests at actual real world sites.And these real world tests would have to be done under varied conditions as in soil matrix and moisture content.Would also need a wide range of sites going from very old and clean all the way to very new and trashy and all points between.
Then after all these requirements have been met we still have one more problem.....All proficient detectorists know it is much easier to hit on a target after it has all ready been marked so ideally for a test to be accurate we would need to have sites marked off in quadrants. Then each section would need to be detected by each participant out of site of each other with an observer plotting all the targets and listing there perceived Id's and then going back and comparing notes as the targets are recovered and results once again noted.
Sorry for my rambling and I guess all I am trying to say is most published tests/comparisons are not very thorough and should not be taken to seriously weather your favorite machine one or lost the contest
PS Feel free to add your thoughts on the subject,Ray.
But what happens if a person feeling all warm and fuzzy about their new machine reads another similar test next week with exact opposite results
A person can only become confident in their machine by using it and learning it until it performs well for them at their sites.If this does not happen then they need to look around for a different machine or get better instruction on the operation of said machine.
Of course amount of experience on either or both machines has a great deal to do with the outcome or results of testing .And I always have to laugh when the testers get to the depth capability part of said tests
.like an extra inch of depth is the end all reason for deciding what machine is the best choice.Most top end machines have rather close depth abilities I believe but there are so many more factors to make up a so called "best" machine.Ease of use and set-up.Available on-board options and if they are going to be used/needed by the individual choosing a new machine.Separation and ID abilities.Ergonomics and weight.Available accessories both factory and after-market.Cost and warranty and the list goes on as any educated shopper will be aware of.
The only way I can see to do a fair and unbiased test of any two or more machines is with at least one if not more very successful and experienced users of each machine being tested/compared doing side by side target response tests at actual real world sites.And these real world tests would have to be done under varied conditions as in soil matrix and moisture content.Would also need a wide range of sites going from very old and clean all the way to very new and trashy and all points between.
Then after all these requirements have been met we still have one more problem.....All proficient detectorists know it is much easier to hit on a target after it has all ready been marked so ideally for a test to be accurate we would need to have sites marked off in quadrants. Then each section would need to be detected by each participant out of site of each other with an observer plotting all the targets and listing there perceived Id's and then going back and comparing notes as the targets are recovered and results once again noted.
Sorry for my rambling and I guess all I am trying to say is most published tests/comparisons are not very thorough and should not be taken to seriously weather your favorite machine one or lost the contest
PS Feel free to add your thoughts on the subject,Ray.
), I hunt because of the thrill of pulling something completely unexpected out of the ground and the peace of mind that detecting brings. That's what puts a smile on my face. 
.
