Scott Maine: Your thoughts please.

[JT70]

[quote Scott Maine]The last issue will be coils. this could stall the machine...it needs at least a smaller coil..preferably concentric but a DD would fine and one bigger...for field hunting. Scott[/quote]

Hi Scott,

Fellow Mainer, JT here.

Just wondering if you could clarify as to why you would prefer a smaller concentric coil over a DD?

Also, I am considering purchasing a T2 and was wondering how you initially perceive it would compare to a DFX (my current default machine) as far as ease of use, depth etc.

I may be out of my mind asking you to compare the T2 to the DFX but since I have seen the Explorer II referenced in some of your comparisons it has sparked my curiosity.

Thanks
JT

 

[Scott Maine]

Well a smaller DD coil or a smaller coil in general is needed for hunting trashy celar holes. Smaller coils will seperate close targets better and reduce the affects of target masking.
Now as for a DFX comparison....well the DFX is a unique machine and hard to compare any other machine to it...save maybe an Explorer.
My thing is that there are times I need a Tone ID machine....I normally hunt with a Nautilus for fields and such...but for trash and iron I like a tone ID machine as I can tell good targets moxed or close to iron a whole lot easier than with a single tone machine.
My problem with the DFX is it has too many tones.....I wish they would put a tone variability option in it like an Explorer. Sometimes it is too much music in my ears if using tone ID in trash with a DFX.
Plus, at depth, my DFX's were too iffy with tone ID...mainly I think due to too many tone variabilities as it seems tone changes with each VDI number change. Although in single tone mode it is better but the problem there is that I run 0 dsicrimination for max depth. So I accept everything from -45 to + 94 or +95. I like to hear it all. So in single tone with all that accepted you would have to stare at the screen and that is no good either.
Even if they just gave the DFX an alternate 2 tone ID..iron as a grunt and everything else a medium tone would be great...basically the relic mode on an MXT.
So just keep an eye on this forum as to how the testing procedes. I won't try and BS or stretch the truth....it serves no purpose to make 8" an 11" depth.
Like I said it shows potential.....again just indicating that even in my area it works good so far.
If the weather holds I will take my Nautilus and maybe even a Millenium Baron with 2.2 chip out along with the T2 to do some real target depth comparison.
The Nautilus is one of the deepest machines up here...and the Millenium Baron is one of the deepest ID machine going with the new chip.
This will allow me to locate deep targets in real life relic fields and then compare responses from the machines and then recover the targets and record actual depth....and I know ho to recover and find true depth....which is not digging a 12" hole all at once and claiming the target was 12" deep. you have to dig like an Archeologist....it is slow...but worthwhile.
Scott

 

[BuckeyeBrad]

I agree with what you've said about the other detectors and type of tone ID preferences. Adjustable tone variation (when needed)and even user programmable multi-tone break points (with 3 or more tones)is a big deal to me. I hope we see the latter offered from a manufacturer soon. I should have a T2 shortly and I'll be searching "the same path" you are for further comparisons.