One of the ongoing questions on the X50...

[BarnacleBill]

seems to be the question of the stability and accuracy of the numeric ID. Some have proposed that poor ID response is due to improper GB, Sens set too high, or particular ground conditions.

In order to clarify this issue for the masses, it would be helpful if those who have an ML "X" machine, to test it directly against other numeric ID machine(s)and present the information in a tabular format. The tests should include "Air" and "Ground" tests, along with the applicable settings(adjustments)of each machine.

The tests tables are very easy to layout by using MS Word to create a table and then do a Print Screen(PRT SCR). Sometimes holding down the Shift key while pressing Print Screen button is necessary. Now whatever is on your screen is in the clipboard of your machine. Open a Paint or Graphics program and paste the clipboard image. Now you can crop or cut out the screen leaving the table only. Save the image and upload with your post. Below I have included an example of having done this. The Fisher Excel column is a good example of doing this with numeric ID machines.

I believe this would be invaluable in clarifying the ID behavior of the MLXs.

HH
BarnacleBill

 

[steve herschbach]

Hi BarnacleBill,

Sounds like a greeat idea. Hopefully somebody can tackle it where it is warmer than 7 degrees outside. It is getting cool a bit early here in Anchorage!

Frankly, I did not not anything unusual about the accuracy or stability of the X-Terra 50 numeric id.

My MXT has more target resolution, with 0-95 in increments of 1 covering the same span as the XT50 with 0-45 in increments of three. My MXT is by far the jumpier. My CZ-70 Pro has 5 target segments covering the same non-ferrous span. It is more solid than the MXT or XT50 with solid locks on targets, except those boderline ones that bounce.

The X-Terra 50 was closer to the CZ-70 Pro than the MXT in this regard, with most targets locking on, and a few that bounced. Just what I would expect, actually.

The MXT is jumpier simply because it has more target resolution, and no averaging. My CZ-70 Pro appears to have more solid locks simply because each segment on the CZ corresponds to about a 20 number width on the MXT.

The X-Terra 50 has a non-ferrous resolution of 0-45 in increments of three, compared to the MXT 0-95 in increments of 1. So each segment on the X-Terra 50 represents about a 6 number range on the MXT.

I found the X-Terra 50 to lock on better than my MXT but not as well as my CZ-70 Pro. Some numbers did bounce, especially trash items. My nickels were a solid 12, but I'm sure if they were edge of detection depth the number would be less accurate.

So what is more accurate? An MXT style jumpy number or a CZ-70 Pro solid lock on a segment that represents a wide range of targets? Many would make the case the MXT is giving you closer to the unvarnished truth. Many would also prefer the comfort of the solid id lock on the CZ.

I found the X-Terra 50 to be a reasonable attempt at a balance between the two, with enough segments to get decent separation of various item categories, but with reasonably solid locks.

Frankly, I was really having a blast with an Ace 250 before I got the X-Terra 50. Talk about bang-for-the-bucks! I liked the fact the Ace has more segments than my CZ-70 Pro and that the nickel tone was a mid-tone like I think it should be, instead of the hi tone of the CZ. By the same measure I am preferring the slightly better target resolution of the X-Terra 50 over the Ace, and the extra tone, which falls exactly where I would have put it had I designed the machine. The ground balance also is a big deal in my area as the preset on the Ace did make its numbers jump quite a bit in my ground. Is the X-Terra 50 a better machine than the Ace 250? Clearly, in my opinion. Is the X-Terra 50 worth three times the price of an Ace 250? Only the marketplace can answer that one!

A solid id is not always the best thing. The Quattro may have the most solid numeric id on the market. It simply locks on and won't let go, to the point that many do not like it. It has a very poor recovery time because of this "feature". Some like the MXT style of giving the operator the unvarnished numbers, some do not like it at all. I tend to like solid numbers but know in my mind the jumpy numbers are probably closer to the truth of the situation. If I have three items under the coil a machine like the MXT can actually tell a good operator about all three items. A machine with fewer segments will just pick an average and report it or perhaps bounce.

Which is best?

Steve Herschbach

 

[wpaxt]

Bill,

I am one of the original field testers for the X-Terra 50--you probably have seen a number of my posts going back to October 25th. The issue of accuracy and stability is one that I have not encountered with my test unit. Good signals lock on both in air tests and in the ground, with repeatable audio. Trash tends to "bounce" between numbers. I have found this to be true whether I use the presets or increase the sensitivity. When you push the sensitivity to the max the X-Terra does become noisier, but I have yet to use a detector that doesn't exhibit this quality regardless of manufacturer.

As for the table that you suggest, I don't have access to other machines in order to provide you a comparision. I would refer you to my first post of October 25th where I listed air test target ID's for a number of targets. These numbers have proven to be consistent with those from targets in the ground whether at a salt water beach or in a park setting.

I should also add that I have not found the need as of yet to adjust the ground balance on the X-Terra. Even in areas of our local ocean beaches that I know have high concentrations of black sand the unit ran smoothly.

If I can be of any additional help in clarifying anything about the X-Terra please let me know & I'll do my best to answer your questions.

Bill (S. CA)

 

[BarnacleBill]

I posted the suggestion not for my own questions, but in a sense as a community service, for those that already own a numeric ID machine and are considering MLXs. In the past few weeks much has been written, but it is scattered through many posts, and I believe a tabular presentation could clarify matters for many. It could also give a better view as to how soil types in different parts of the country effect the ID numbers of "Xs".

Through very detailed replies from Joe DeMarco, I have determined that the MLXs do not possess the characteristics needed for what and where I hunt.

HH
BarnacleBill

 

[steve herschbach]

Hi BarnacleBill,

Well, a machine for every detectorist, and a detectorist for every machine - that's my motto! The stuff one person likes about a unit turns another person off. Luckily we have lots of units to choose from.

Someday maybe I'll find that perfect "do-it-all" unit. But right now seems I need about three models for nugget detecting, two for water hunting, and at least a couple for general coin and jewelry detecting. I never seem to have less than half a dozen detectors. If I had to I could weed it down to four, but that would be the minimum.

Happy Hunting!

Steve Herschbach

 

[BarnacleBill]

n/t

 

[Jackpine Savage]

But I have to disagree on the MXT.

"<i>If I have three items under the coil a machine like the MXT can actually tell a good operator about all three items.</i>

I'd like to have your MXT. The 2 I bought and used a lot weren't like that even with the DD coils. The C$ and others beat it hands down for ID accuracy on co-located targets at every trashy site I compared them. The MXT is a target averaging monster in trash unless you use the smallest available coils and go <i>real</i> slow.

HH Tom

 

[steve herschbach]

Hi Tom,

Well, I did not say the MXT was easy! You are absolutely right about the smallest coil and really slow. But I admit I was trying more to make a point about target segment resolution than talk up any one unit. The MXT just happens to be one I've used a lot. In relic mode I've done well picking silver next to nails with the 4"x6" DD coil. The Coinstrike may well be superior in that regard. If you say so that's good enough for me.

Best unit I have ever tested is the Fisher Gold Bug 2 for separating ferrous from non-ferrous with its iron id circuit. Take a gold nugget (or something representative) and put a nail close on all four sides. The Gold Bug 2 will call out the nugget when nearly all other machines say iron. I think it is because the unit has such a high operating frequency. At 71 kHz it is getting back up near the old TR frequencies and so it seems to share somewhat in their ability to ignore iron. Unfortunately the Gold Bug 2 is actually just too sensitive for most uses.

Go out and do some detecting for me. I've posted more in the last three weeks than all summer, as all I can do now is post about detecting or play with units in my garage. Alaska imposes 6 month pauses in detecting, and so now all I can do is live vicariously through others, reading about their finds on the internet.

Steve Herschbach

Steve Herschbach

 

[Jackpine Savage]

with a short winter there's snow on the ground here for only 4 months, usually it runs 5 or a little more of non-detetable weather. Got out Saturday AM before work and hit a site that according to the oldsters around here had a Wh**ehouse on it. Lots o' iron and a few buckles but no coins. Old stuff is almost as rare here as up in your neck of the woods.

Always was going to mention to you, Gene Bloom an old trail bike riding buddy of mine moved to Fairbanks quite a few years ago and runs a small excavating company up there. He was the world champ snowmobile racer for a couple years back in the 70's riding for Mickey Rupp. He used to bring some pretty hot machines up here from Mansfield.

Tom

 

[BuckeyeBrad]

You should find a ton of Three Widows tins. BTW, I meant to reply to you on another forum.... yes, I am a child of the 60's and 70's. Born in 53... the year of the Corvette and Marylyn Monroe in Playboy! Yeeehawwww!!!!!!!!

 

[Jackpine Savage]

Steve,

If you want to see some of the same target seperation in a general purpose machine that you mentioned with the Bug II, spend some time with the 1236X2. A lot of people pass over trying one because the 1200 series has been out so long and in different incarnations, but she's one sweet little machine around iron.

HH Tom

 

[Jackpine Savage]

for Becky, Mabel and whats her name.

I figured you were around my age. Born in 52 and really enjoyed the 60's and 70's. Come to think of it the 80's weren't all bad either.

HH Tom

 

[plugger]

 

[Jackpine Savage]

n/t

 

[BuckeyeBrad]

Been there, done that, got the tie dyed tee shirt!

 

[John(Tx)]

Ha! Ha! I was born in '47 and remember the 60's very well. Went to Jr. High, High School, used to get wiped out with my friends, went to Viet Nam and got married all in the '60's....Time sure does fly....Good hunting old boys...John

 

[Dave Z]

I never thought much about that.The Cz's I owned would lock on to something fairly solid.BUT,a penny,dime,quarter,beer can,piece of brass,lead,etc. would all fall in the same notch.Where machines like the xlt,mxt or dfx would have all of the above separated in to one or two #'s.Good point Steve.Dave

 

[plugger]

n/t

 

[bleeohio]

n/t

 

[bleeohio]

n/t