New video: Mono Coiled GPX 5000 vs Garrett ATX's DD on 4 Gold Nuggets

[bearkat4160]

The goal here again is to see which detector most likely might walk right over gold on 4 buried gold nuggets...check out the results:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M9_Rtd-7yxU

 

[Jessgo33]

Alan you are a good prospector people should look up to you. Id still like to see how the vlf would do if it would pick up any targets.

 

[El]

n/t

 

[bearkat4160]

Yep, the AT Gold made a quick 34 second appearance in the video...about the 24 minute mark.

Too funny, getting more comments about the AT Gold....it got all the nuggets by the way too!

BK

 

[Jonathan Porter]

..........Too funny, getting more comments about the AT Gold....it got all the nuggets by the way too!

BK

That tells me everything I needed to know about the ground conditions in your video Bearkat, you may as well have done an air test!

Maybe you should have invested that money on the fuel and gone the other side of those mountains after all?

JP

 

[bearkat4160]

Yes; JP the GPX 5000 is quite a monster on hot dirt...A bit noisy with a mono coil but the ATX DD purrs in it. I did see a recent Youtube video with a guy with the ATX in Australia and he showed that the ground balance number on his AT Gold was 78...that just happens to be the exact same number I showed in this video. Go figure eh...his dirt was quite red looking but the number was the same as my dirt here. So what does that tell you?

Bearkat

 

[Reno Chris]

Red, green, brown, black or purple - dirt that scores 78 is only mildly mineralized. As JP says, working in that kind of soil can be done with a VLF. And you proved it bearcat, the AT (which is a fine VLF) was capable of hearing all 4 of the targets you tested. If the VLF can handle that soil, why even spend the money to buy an ATX? The AT is much cheaper.

 

[Reg]

Hi Bearkat,

Again, thanks for the video. What you displayed is what I expected. Also, unfortunately, the responses from diehard Minelab ( ML ) owners is also what I expected.

Your video's display the ML has limitations and to get the best depth on different nuggets you will probably need to change modes or otherwise you will most likely miss some gold, or at least get very weak responses.

I expect if you were to check shear depth on most of the nuggets you used in your test, a knowledgeable ML owner could beat the ATX in depth on most of the nuggets you used in your test. However, that can't be done with a single setup, which is what you displayed.

In simple terms what I gathered from your testing, for a ML owner to obtain the best depth over a wide range of sizes of nuggets, an area should be detected multiple times with different settings. If this is done, then I would expect the ML to beat the ATX in depth on most of the nuggets you used. I also expect the depth difference to be quite small on the most common gold found which are the smaller pieces. In the case of the very small gold, the ATX appears to do better than the ML which, again, is what I fully expected when the ML was equipped with a mono coil in the test .
I want to thank you for making all the changes to the ML when equipped with a mono coil and displaying the results. The fact the tone changes from a high/low to a low/high tells me a lot about how the ML works from a technical standpoint.

Now, the next time you test the ML with the mono, you might try finding the small nugget by using the front edge of the coil, rather than trying to center the coil over the nugget. If close enough, the coil edge is one way to use a mono to find the smaller stuff. This same technique can be used with the ATX when equipped with a mono but the depth of detection is a little better on the ML than it will be on the ATX.

Years ago, I developed a low powered PI that could detect what John Blennert called his invisible nuggets and when I displayed how my PI could detect gold that a ML couldn't, the common excuse then was they didn't care because they weren't interested in that small stuff anyway.

Sad to say, I have yet to meet one serious ML user who will man up and admit the ML isn't perfect and can be beat under the right circumstances, or state that there is no single setting that works the best for all gold. So, when a detector such as the ATX comes along that can do quite well on a wide range of gold without changing settings or modes, you are hearing some of the excuses and bad mouthing I experienced.

One final note and that is, you can't use a VLF to tell you anything about the ground and how it might affect a PI. The principles involved are totally different. What kills the VLF is or can be basically ignored by a PI.

Reg

 

[steve herschbach]

Hi Reg

"Sad to say, I have yet to meet one serious ML user who will man up and admit the ML isn't perfect and can be beat under the right circumstances, or state that there is no single setting that works the best for all gold."

I have been saying that for years and I consider myself a serious Minelab user. I know you have seen my posts. It is common knowledge a Gold Bug 2 or White's GMT will find gold all day long a Minelab PI will not find. My most recent post to that effect is at http://www.findmall.com/read.php?31,1967612

I will state for the record that there is no one setting on the Minelab GPX 5000 or the Garrett ATX that works best for all gold. If that were the case there would be no need for controls or settings.

The video once again proves that in low mineral ground a VLF is a better investment for most people than a PI.

 

[Hobo lobo]

Now that the air has been let out of the settings and mono vs DD balloon, the defense of the ML has switched to the dirt

 

[bearkat4160]

Yes, I missed my window to do comparrison vids in California where hotter dirt is more plentiful as it is 10 degrees at night here so getting over the pass and dropping into Cali is a bit of a challenge now, plus the ground is frozen over there...but from by experience, both the ATX and GPX handle hot ground very well.

Bearkat

 

[Reg]

I guess I should have been more specific and stated my position this way; that no ML user has admitted another PI can beat the ML under the right circumstances. Instead, all I heard was one excuse after another. I found that to be truly sad.

The truth is, the tests done by Bearkat displays the ATX can beat the ML under the right conditions. Such conditions my be limited, but that isn't the issue. Overall, I think Bearkat would agree, in the right hands, the ML would beat the ATX most of the time with the right settings. Again, that isn't the issue. What I think Bearkat is trying to display is the ATX is no slouch of a detector and in the hands of someone who is not an expert might do as well with an ATX as a novice using a ML who is not familiar with all the possible settings. Would you agree?

Now, do you, Chris, and/or J. Porter agree in the tests provided, the ATX did better than the ML at least on part of the test under the right condtions?

As for mineralization, I can't agree that just because the VLF can find the gold, the ground is not heavily mineralized. VLF's suffer when the ground has excessive magnetite and/or lots of rocks containing magnetite. This magnetite is something a good PI will basically ignore in many if not most cases. Any magnetite rock or magnitie ladened sand can easily mask a large nugget on a VLF if not set properly, but not on a PI. So, for a VLF, ground that has concentrations of magnetite in any form would be considered heavily mineralized in my opinion.

On the other hand, PI's suffer when the ground has high viscosity ground mineralization, which is usually caused by maghemite. PI's will have a tendency to be constantly giving odd signals from the maghemite causing frustration. Such ground is often a heavily clay based material which also causes problems and depth loss on both types of detectors.

One more note and that is your assumption the ground isn't heavily mineralized and that might be why the ATX appears to work better. So, if the ML was not able to find certain nuggets under what you assume to be "low mineralized conditions" are you saying it will do better in really bad ground? In other words, I hope you, Chris, or J. Porter are not stating that if the ground was worse, the ML would then detect those same nuggets at the same depth and do better on the ones where it displayed no or poor response. In my opinion, that will never happen and my opinion is based upon studying all PI's from a technical standpoint for the last 14 plus years.

Reg

PS: Just for the record, i am not a great Garrett fan, nor am I a dealer of any detector. As a person who field tested metal detectors for many years I am the type of person who wrote about any and all advantages and limitations of any detector so people are provided the most unbiased information I can give. I also respect those who do the same.

 

[lytle78]

Well, looks like all we need in order to settle this is for someone to donate access to a nice virgin piece of "gold country" and organize a volunteer team to carry out the following test.

1. Spend several days going over the ground (which should be suitably high in mineralization) with a GPX 5000, mono coil, tuned to find deep gold - mark all dig worthy targets with tags marked ML1.

2. Repeat with it tuned to find fine gold, mark all targets ML2

3. Repeat with ATX set at optimum sensitivity. Mark all targets as ATX. Where a target from test 1 is detected mark it AT 1, likewise where a target from test 2 is detected, mark it AT2. Where a new target is detested, mark it AT3.

4. Repeat with a Fisher Gold Bug 2 (the undisputed king of detecting fly speck gold). Mark in similar fashion as was done for the ATX - GB1, GB2 and GB3(for original targets from test 1, 2 and 3). Mark new original targets GB4.

5. Tabulate the results of who found what.

6. Dig all the targets - recording outcome as to target type and depth.

7. Tabulate these results.

8. Publish the tests

9. Wait for everybody to start arguing about what was wrong with the tests and how it SHOULD have been done.


Or, we can just wait a year or so until the dust settles and a consensus emerges.

 

[steve herschbach]

Wow, Reg, I did not realize you had lumped me in with what you see as being some kind of opposition. I just clearly stated the GPX 5000 does not find all gold under all conditions and that is just not good enough for you. I have a GPX 5000 and ATX and you don't and you are going to lecture me about them? What experience do you have with either detector?

I am just a prospector who owns and is using both detectors. I was happy to try and answer questions about the ATX and give my best advice on how to get good performance out of it. The this versus that stuff has gotten to the point of stupid beyond belief as far as I am concerned. I do not care for one second what people buy or use. I have nothing to prove to you or anyone and I do not have to admit to anything for you or anyone else. I must have said the wrong thing somewhere by you, Reg. I am sorry about that. Best wishes to you and yours.

 

[Reg]

Hi Rick,

I am sorry if you misunderstood my post. I am not saying the ATX is better or will do better than the GPX because in most cases it will not. I am saying it appears the ATX is a capable detector that should be able to find gold and do so at a less expensive price. Also, it appears there are circumstances where the ATX may do better than the ML. There is nothing wrong with pointing that out as far as I am concerned. Now, to be clear, this doesn't mean the ATX is better than the ML, but it does mean there may be circumstances where the ATX shines.

People purchase certain detectors to find gold and then hope they succeed. Most will never find enough gold to pay for their detector or even to pay for the gas they use on their trips for that matter regardless of how much they pay for their detector.

Many people can't afford the most expensive PI made but would like an alternative PI detector that is capable of finding gold, so they don't buy the most expensive. In many cases, these are people who have experienced the limititations of a VLF and now they would like to use a PI rather than a VLF, so they look at all the less expensive alternatives.

So, the question that is asked is the ATX a detector that might fit their needs? My opinon the answer is yes. I probably won't buy one because I also like the TDI series, which is what I use. Will I find gold at the depths of the most expensive brands? Nope, I know that but I didn't spend what I spent on my used truck either to buy my PI

I am like a lot of other people who will only hunt for gold on a casual basis and as such I don't want to spend a tremendous amount of money on my hobby. Instead, I try to learn as much as I can about the detector I am using and take advantage of its strengths and avoid the weaknesses. This is something I strongly recommend of all owners, regardless of brand.

Reg

 

[Jonathan Porter]

The point to my comments has nothing to do with brand, but does have something to do with the remarks made during the videos and also on the web in reference to those videos. I've got a cupboard full of detectors including a GS5B and a Fisher GBII and have owned or tried just about everything else. Like I said above the videos are kind of pointless when the very virtues of the ATX are counteracted/trounced by its sibling the ATGold, regardless of whether the 5000 was able to signal on those targets or not!! Not once have I said the ATX does not have sensitivity, it is obvious for all to see that it does, however it is a PI metal detector and as such will be expected to provide the same or similar sensitivity in most ground types not just ground that a VLF purrs along in!! I seriously doubt the ATX would continue to provide the shown abilities in more heavily mineralised soils, therefore all those targets would then not continue to be heard/seen, whereas I'm very confident the result on the 5000 would to be the same or very similar.

Not once have I said the GPX5000 is the be all and end all of metal detectors, but I do take exception to the direct negative comparisons made of the 5000 only to discover the ground conditions were not what they were made out to be, anyone with real experience with the GPX 5000 understands this perfectly. Steve has been more than fair with his reporting on the ATX so I urge people reading these threads to take his comments onboard when making purchasing decisions to avoid disappointment.

There is no moral high ground here, take the ATX on its merits, it is a sensitive PI machine at a competitive price point, as such it should have good market appeal to people who want to take that next step up from a high frequency VLF in moderately mineralised soils.

JP

 

[Reg]

Steve,

I certainly I took enough verbal abuse when I used a low powered PI that could easily find gold that ML's couldn't detect that now it doesn't bother me. However, when I see similar responses, I respond just to try to keep things on a level keel. In other words, it is nothing personal but rather my past of trying to point out advantages and disadvantages of all detectors, regardless of price or who built them. In simple terms, not all need to buy a high priced Ferrari when a Chevy will do just fine.

I just evaluated your responses to this particular series of posts and the other ones pertaining to the ATX. Not once did you agree the ATX would or even might do better on the smaller gold as displayed in the test done by Bearkat. Instead, you claim the ground of the test is not heavily mineralized and a VLF should be used. In my opinion this implies the ATX did better on the small gold than the GPX for this reason or maybe a VLF might do better than the ATX.

Maybe you should go back and read your own posts you posted in the ATX/GPX tests by Bearkat and see if you don't seem biased towards the GPX. This is your right. However, others look up to you. In my opinion, credit should be given to the ATX where credit is due.

As I said, I am not a Garrett fan, but from what I see, the ATX appears to be a very capable detector for the price that can do reasonably well even in testing with the "king of the hill" under general testing. Show me where you ever stated in this series of posts where you stated even something similar. Instead, in my opinion you offered other advice.

Even in your last response to my posts you did not admit the ATX did better than the GPX on the small stuff. Instead, you used your generic response that the ML can't find all gold under all conditions. These are your words, not mine. So, my response is simply based upon your posts. Sorry if you took it personal but in my opinion, you appear biased and displayed it in your posts. Again, that is your right to be biased.

Reg

 

[lytle78]

The point of my long post about the ultimate test was meant to be at least half humorous. No test will conclusively settle all the questions raised. There are way too,many variables. If we think of a one grain nugget near the surface as a "mouse" and a multi gram deep,nugget as an "elephant" then:

The big question mark which has been raised about the GPX is - given it's advertised and demonstrated "mouse to elephant" range of nugget capability, can it be set up to bag both mice and elephants with the same settings.

The ATX seems to clearly do OK on the "mouse to elk" range with a single setting (albeit so far in relatively mild ground).

The next question is how much does the ATX give up at the "elephant" end of the spectrum and can it maintain this broad response range in really bad ground.

 

[bearkat4160]

Hi JP,

As you, being one of my detecting for gold heros also...I will try to answer your hot dirt question w the GPX and ATX with real test on real hot dirt, but like I said in the video, its over the hill in Cali and it's frigin 8 degrees at night here now...but I might have a small window to do the test on Monday. This area I will go to is pretty useless for a VLF.

""only to discover the ground conditions were not what they were made out to be"" --- Your kidding right? I always said what the ground was from my AT Gold display, never tried to make it hotter than it was. As Reg said correctly, ground for a VLF can still be hot but lacking in the iron rocks or iron pockets...just can be hot and consistent without every foot changing its mineral number (magnetite). Any VLF will purr pretty good in that environment but not get the depth as soil that is less hot but still consistent soil, not a magnetite nightmare area, that it can still be 78 on the AT Gold scale...its the magnetite rocks or pockets that is the problem....you know this stuff --- your just being a Minelabber! Lol Lol
Cheers,

Bearkat

 

[Reg]

Hi JP,

I appreciate your response, but something has me confused. The ATX did a better job on the smallest gold and the GPX seemed to change response to other sizes of gold as the settings were changed on the detector. Are you trying to say that if the ground was worse, none of these things would happen?

I agree that a person considering purchasing the ATX shouldn't expect GPX performance from a detector that is about 1/3 the price of the GPX. Instead, a potential buyer should realize the ATX won't compete with the GPX for shear depth on many difference size nuggets. However, with that said, the ATX, in my opinion should do quite well and do so without having to make a lot of different adjustments. For a casual user, that might be an advantage.

Again, thanks for responding.

Reg