Ralph Bryant
New member
I took two coins (copper cents) and placed them side by side, touching at their edges, with the intention of seeing just how far I had to separate them to get them to separate cleanly in the audio. Well, I didn't have to go far. With the bottom of the coil about 2 inches over the coins, I could get a good clean audio "double-beep" with the coins just 1/2 inch apart. Probably could have done even better scrubbing the coil against the coins, but got the tell-tale "overload siren" when attempting to do so. Raising the coil in about one inch increments made it necessary to separate the coins a bit more to keep the separation however, due to the field pattern produced by the DD type coils. But even that 1/2 inch separation with such a large coil is excellent. Remember, this is lateral separation, not fore and aft where the EMF pattern is much wider with Double-D designs. What is a real mind blower is that my little Compadre with the 4 inch (concentric) will only separate down to about 1 inch on those same coins. The 8x11 beats it by a 50% margin on close separation ! This kind of minimal separation distance can also in part be attributed to the T-2's quick target response and recovery speed no doubt. It sure seems strange hearing that kind of target separation coming from under such a large coil.
It would obviously be a little difficult to match the new T-2 up with everything on the market until there are more of them out in circulation with a variety of different folks with different machines to do more widespread comparisons. The target separation against the Compadre with the 4 inch coil modification was just one simple comparison against a machine that I know well and that has excellent target separation capabilities in extreme trash conditions. That is as far as that "comparison" went, nothing of a serious Compadre vs. T-2 nature by any means.
But let's go with what I have on hand at the moment.
Compared to either the X-5 or the Nautilus DMC-IIb, I would give the T-2 a very favorable rating, keeping in mind that for the most part we'd have to match concentric coils against the DD coil of the T-2 to keep effective size differences to a minimum. Also, the T-2 is a VID machine, not simply an audio-only single tone unit. In that sense, it's really an apples and oranges comparison where the T-2 has the advantage in target I.D. not available on the others. But for simple depth comparisons, taking the above into consideration, the T-2 would come in a close third compared to the IIb and X-5, depending of course on the hunting conditions. That would also probably be expected if either of the other two were fitted with a like-sized double-D coil rather than a concentric. No one set-up is going to work best in every environment.
As far as target response and recovery speed, the T-2 is right there with the best of them. Very quick on both ends. This is one specific area where it just may prove to be "best" in that regard against other top-of-the-line visual I.D. machines that tend to display the "lag factor" in their target response. That of course will carry over into target separation and recovery speed concerns, all of which will tend to fall under the heading of "target masking".
Weight wise, the T-2 is heavier than the X-5 but lighter than the IIb.
Adjustability wise, the T-2 would be a head to head with the X-5, but lacking a few adjustments compared to the IIb.
Price wise.....The X-5 (if you can still find a new one) is at the top of the list, T-2 second, and IIb at the bottom (and still one of the best values in a high-performance detector IMO). Again, there are other "like-priced" machines with more comparable features that might make a better comparison. I know the CZ-3D I had was a decent machine, but the T-2 would take the cake against that one IMO.
There are alot of areas that can be "compared" between units beyond just "how deep is this one" or "how deep is that one". Discrimination, target separation/recovery/response, optimum sweep speed, audio characteristics, physical weight, coil size and configuration, visual and tone I.D., available tuning features, audio retune, ground balance or pre-sets, notching ability, filter configurations, gain or sensitivity limits, operation frequency, and on and on. Regardless of what we choose to "compare", it always amounts to apples and oranges from one aspect or another. And that is the reason the I and many others recommend that you consider your own conditions first, and then search for the options in a machine that offer the most advantage in filling your own needs instead of just reading the "my daddy can beat up your daddy" type ego posts.
There is alot of good information on these forums that can give you a good idea of what is available in different machine, but opinions about how they work in certain areas are restricted to the one giving the opinion and the place where they happen to be using it. It all boils down to the fact that there is not a single "best" machine made by any manufacturer.
Unfortunately too, I also think alot of folks are really restricting themselves by their closed-minded attitudes that THIS BRAND or THIS MODEL is "absolutely, no doubt, without question the best under all circumstances and the deepest thing this side of Jupiter". You might expect to hear that kind of boasting from a novice to the hobby, but you'd expect better from some of the experienced guys who continue with that kind of attitude for nothing but the sake of their own egos or selling more Brand X over Brand Y. A little common sense tends to go a long way, as does reading everything with a grain of salt when the "detector wars" type stuff starts to fly.
But back to the T-2. As far as target separation, target response and recovery speed, lack of nulling iron or masking closely co-located targets with the provided stock coils "in comparison" to what most would consider the two top contenders in the VID detector category, the DFX and the Explorer-II, I think the T-2 is right up there with them as far as actual performance, and even bests them in some of the mentioned categories. That's a pretty good accomplishment from a new upstart line of detectors under the old brand name of Teknetics. And let's not forget to add "simplicity" to that list of deciding factors mentioned above.
Is it the "magic bullet" of the detecting universe ? NO. But it does offer some features and performance improvements that are another step in the right direction. Will it be the "best" for everyone ? NO. Or the "best" for every type of hunting ? NO. The "best" on saltwater beaches ? Doubtful. The best for gold prospecting ? NO. Deeper than the deepest ? NO.
What it does offer is being bantered about on the different forums as we speak, being a new unit barely off the assembly line. Take those comments and observations for what they are worth to you, or better yet, try one.
Too many people want a test against this or a test against that, compare apples to oranges, zebras to elephants, or what-ifs consisting of lets take the 1600 out of the Volkswagen and try it with a 440 Magnum instead.
Try it yourself. That is the only way to know for sure.
Ralph
It would obviously be a little difficult to match the new T-2 up with everything on the market until there are more of them out in circulation with a variety of different folks with different machines to do more widespread comparisons. The target separation against the Compadre with the 4 inch coil modification was just one simple comparison against a machine that I know well and that has excellent target separation capabilities in extreme trash conditions. That is as far as that "comparison" went, nothing of a serious Compadre vs. T-2 nature by any means.
But let's go with what I have on hand at the moment.
Compared to either the X-5 or the Nautilus DMC-IIb, I would give the T-2 a very favorable rating, keeping in mind that for the most part we'd have to match concentric coils against the DD coil of the T-2 to keep effective size differences to a minimum. Also, the T-2 is a VID machine, not simply an audio-only single tone unit. In that sense, it's really an apples and oranges comparison where the T-2 has the advantage in target I.D. not available on the others. But for simple depth comparisons, taking the above into consideration, the T-2 would come in a close third compared to the IIb and X-5, depending of course on the hunting conditions. That would also probably be expected if either of the other two were fitted with a like-sized double-D coil rather than a concentric. No one set-up is going to work best in every environment.
As far as target response and recovery speed, the T-2 is right there with the best of them. Very quick on both ends. This is one specific area where it just may prove to be "best" in that regard against other top-of-the-line visual I.D. machines that tend to display the "lag factor" in their target response. That of course will carry over into target separation and recovery speed concerns, all of which will tend to fall under the heading of "target masking".
Weight wise, the T-2 is heavier than the X-5 but lighter than the IIb.
Adjustability wise, the T-2 would be a head to head with the X-5, but lacking a few adjustments compared to the IIb.
Price wise.....The X-5 (if you can still find a new one) is at the top of the list, T-2 second, and IIb at the bottom (and still one of the best values in a high-performance detector IMO). Again, there are other "like-priced" machines with more comparable features that might make a better comparison. I know the CZ-3D I had was a decent machine, but the T-2 would take the cake against that one IMO.
There are alot of areas that can be "compared" between units beyond just "how deep is this one" or "how deep is that one". Discrimination, target separation/recovery/response, optimum sweep speed, audio characteristics, physical weight, coil size and configuration, visual and tone I.D., available tuning features, audio retune, ground balance or pre-sets, notching ability, filter configurations, gain or sensitivity limits, operation frequency, and on and on. Regardless of what we choose to "compare", it always amounts to apples and oranges from one aspect or another. And that is the reason the I and many others recommend that you consider your own conditions first, and then search for the options in a machine that offer the most advantage in filling your own needs instead of just reading the "my daddy can beat up your daddy" type ego posts.
There is alot of good information on these forums that can give you a good idea of what is available in different machine, but opinions about how they work in certain areas are restricted to the one giving the opinion and the place where they happen to be using it. It all boils down to the fact that there is not a single "best" machine made by any manufacturer.
Unfortunately too, I also think alot of folks are really restricting themselves by their closed-minded attitudes that THIS BRAND or THIS MODEL is "absolutely, no doubt, without question the best under all circumstances and the deepest thing this side of Jupiter". You might expect to hear that kind of boasting from a novice to the hobby, but you'd expect better from some of the experienced guys who continue with that kind of attitude for nothing but the sake of their own egos or selling more Brand X over Brand Y. A little common sense tends to go a long way, as does reading everything with a grain of salt when the "detector wars" type stuff starts to fly.
But back to the T-2. As far as target separation, target response and recovery speed, lack of nulling iron or masking closely co-located targets with the provided stock coils "in comparison" to what most would consider the two top contenders in the VID detector category, the DFX and the Explorer-II, I think the T-2 is right up there with them as far as actual performance, and even bests them in some of the mentioned categories. That's a pretty good accomplishment from a new upstart line of detectors under the old brand name of Teknetics. And let's not forget to add "simplicity" to that list of deciding factors mentioned above.
Is it the "magic bullet" of the detecting universe ? NO. But it does offer some features and performance improvements that are another step in the right direction. Will it be the "best" for everyone ? NO. Or the "best" for every type of hunting ? NO. The "best" on saltwater beaches ? Doubtful. The best for gold prospecting ? NO. Deeper than the deepest ? NO.
What it does offer is being bantered about on the different forums as we speak, being a new unit barely off the assembly line. Take those comments and observations for what they are worth to you, or better yet, try one.
Too many people want a test against this or a test against that, compare apples to oranges, zebras to elephants, or what-ifs consisting of lets take the 1600 out of the Volkswagen and try it with a 440 Magnum instead.
Try it yourself. That is the only way to know for sure.
Ralph