A
Anonymous
Guest
If a guy own a DFX does he want to own a Explorer 2 as well?? It looks like to me that the hunt s going to be very different in that the methods used will change and the indicators will be different.
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
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
A
Anonymous
Guest
I have owned both. Used a DFX for two years and traded up for the Ex2. I can tell you without question you are going to have to invest serious time to master the IDX. Serious time. Even the Ex2 will take you a season before you are satisfied with your own abilities. These are 2 totaly different tools and noone has good reason nor the time to master both simultaneously in my opinion. I would go with the Ex2 and never look back. If you doubt it look at the finds on both forums. Look a the level of professionalism on both forums. Speaks for itself.
A
Anonymous
Guest
I have both and think they are the two best I have used and over time have done as well with one as the other. The primary advantages of the DFX is comes if the user masters the number and range of adjustments. This is a very solid designed detector and as you know. <span style="background-color:#ffff00;">The DFX is a frequency domain detector while the Explorer is a time domain detector.</span>
The Explorer has an edge over my DFX in discrimination due to the 28 frequencies vs 2 primary for the DFX. The conductive and ferrous axis can really be used to work trashy ground and with the 8" coil is the best I have seen of any detector to date. While the DFX has 180 VDI notches the Explorer has 1024. The DFX has a tone for each notch while the Explorer has 31 that can be selected for the conductivity or ferrous content of a target. If you are comfortable with the DFX then you will find the Explorer well worth the money.
I would be comfortable with these two detector to go after just about any land type hunting. I would suggest the Explorer as a very valuable addition to your lineup of machines. I have used Whites for over 40 years and Minelabs since they first invaded the US and both are really great detectors.
With experience on the DFX you should be able to quickly translate this to the operation of the Explorer. My son and I both have a DFX and Explorer and more and more we end up swinging the Explorers.
HH, Cody
The Explorer has an edge over my DFX in discrimination due to the 28 frequencies vs 2 primary for the DFX. The conductive and ferrous axis can really be used to work trashy ground and with the 8" coil is the best I have seen of any detector to date. While the DFX has 180 VDI notches the Explorer has 1024. The DFX has a tone for each notch while the Explorer has 31 that can be selected for the conductivity or ferrous content of a target. If you are comfortable with the DFX then you will find the Explorer well worth the money.
I would be comfortable with these two detector to go after just about any land type hunting. I would suggest the Explorer as a very valuable addition to your lineup of machines. I have used Whites for over 40 years and Minelabs since they first invaded the US and both are really great detectors.
With experience on the DFX you should be able to quickly translate this to the operation of the Explorer. My son and I both have a DFX and Explorer and more and more we end up swinging the Explorers.
HH, Cody
A
Anonymous
Guest
When you search in deep mode what should your coil speed be. I never find much besides the usual shallow clad, maby I am going too fast?
A
Anonymous
Guest
Thanks for the response. I have used the DFX enough to know that the programing is important to get the best out of it. As Joe Brown says there is some serious time in either to master them. So id I was to put my limited time into one machine I would need to use them both for a season at least to make a decision one way or the other. I only want one machine. As for the time domain vs. the freq domain.....Is it not true that timedomain is simply how frequency is measued? Or are you talking specifically about the period between peaks???
A
Anonymous
Guest
What I think is critical about time domain vs frequency domain is <span style="background-color:#ffff00;">FD depends on phase shift </span>while TD depends on slope of decay. <STRONG>The heart is how TD and FD deals with ground minerals.</STRONG> That is why the Explorer can be turned on and put on the ground and with each pulse the soil is ignored based an a unique way of sampling which turns the front end on only after ferrite in the soil has returned to the original state prior to a pulse of energy. The DFX use phase angles to distinguish soil and targets so you have the process of ground balance on the DFX.
I think what you are asking would have more to do with the number of frequencies. The DFX is square wave drive while the Explorer is retangular pulse driven and has a sequence of one long and one short pulse.
HH, Cody
I think what you are asking would have more to do with the number of frequencies. The DFX is square wave drive while the Explorer is retangular pulse driven and has a sequence of one long and one short pulse.
HH, Cody
A
Anonymous
Guest
You cannot go to fast but can go to slow. With fast and deep on and auido to Normal the speed required is notabout foot per second. Throw a quarter on teh floor or ground and you will quickly see what the speed is. The problem with sweeping to fast is masking of other targets because the detector is in null or sounding so has to recover for the next target. The operation of the detector is way to fast for the user to sweep the coil to fast. The sweep speed of the coil in Manual Sensitivity can be as slow as it can get. In Semi-auto Sensitivity the speed has to be slightly faster. <span style="background-color:#ffff00;">These speeds are are very comfortable but only the slowest speed is importnat.</span>
Try this for deep targets. The Audio gain is modulated at a setting of 5 and below. An ultra deep coin should be more faint than a shallow one. DEEP is audio boost for faint targets but will also boost faint shallow targets. You might consider DEEP and cranking Audio gain up to between 8 or 10. At 10 the faint deep targets will blow your ears off with good headphones. Look at the headpnones that have about 150ohms of impedance. There are some really good ones offered by the folks that support the forum. It is amazing how much difference a good set of headphones will make when it comes to ultra deep targets.
HH, Cody
Try this for deep targets. The Audio gain is modulated at a setting of 5 and below. An ultra deep coin should be more faint than a shallow one. DEEP is audio boost for faint targets but will also boost faint shallow targets. You might consider DEEP and cranking Audio gain up to between 8 or 10. At 10 the faint deep targets will blow your ears off with good headphones. Look at the headpnones that have about 150ohms of impedance. There are some really good ones offered by the folks that support the forum. It is amazing how much difference a good set of headphones will make when it comes to ultra deep targets.
HH, Cody
A
Anonymous
Guest
A time domain process looks at the shape of the detected signal (amplitude, rise time, fall time etc.). A frequency domain process examines amplitude and phase shift characteristics of a simusoidal signal. At least that is my opinion.
HH,
Glenn
HH,
Glenn
A
Anonymous
Guest
I like both machines. I use my DFX as a back up. While The Explorer II is a little heaver, in my findings <span style="background-color:#ffff00;">it Id's Targets Deeper.</span> I have been in parks here in Michigan where you can't even get the DFX to stabilize due to minerals in the ground. I can take the Explorer II there and use it without a problem. I have found targets in the ground with the Explorer II where the DFX wont hear a anything. Not even a Peep. I wont beat around the bush about it, they are both great detectors, but for the money the Explorer II wins, hands down. <span style="background-color:#ffff00;"><span style="background-color:#ffff00;">You </span>can't argue with results.</span>
Tom
Tom
A
Anonymous
Guest
You nailed it in my opinion.<span style="background-color:#ffff00;"> In soil with little minerals I see no difference in depth or ID. </span>It is ID at depth and the way the Explorer rejects the soil that is the heart of this great detector.
HH, Cody
HH, Cody