WHAT IS THE BEST DETECTOR MADE TODAY ??

[calabash digger]

DEUS and Equinox hands down. imo Don't know if NOX obsoletes Deus yet but its a performer from the test I have conducted with it. BTW that post would have said DEUS AND CTX until I seen what the NOX did to the CTX on small gold yesterday .. I have a video of it in the NOX forum.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

... One thing that will never be done is a real side by side test of different detectors. ...

Side-by-side tests of detectors are done all the time. The issue is: The interpretation of the results.

Example: I can tell you types of detectors that will get any signal you show them .... WITH ROOM TO SPARE ! *But the devil is in the details* : Can the operator tell you the difference between that, versus the 100 other signals he just hear in the same area ? Ie.: if "everything sounds the same" , then what benefit have you gained ?

 

[slingshot]

... One thing that will never be done is a real side by side test of different detectors. ...

Side-by-side tests of detectors are done all the time. The issue is: The interpretation of the results.

Example: I can tell you types of detectors that will get any signal you show them .... WITH ROOM TO SPARE ! *But the devil is in the details* : Can the operator tell you the difference between that, versus the 100 other signals he just hear in the same area ? Ie.: if "everything sounds the same" , then what benefit have you gained ?

Agree! Many moons ago I was testing two of mine side by side because everyone was posting one beat the other and no contest to the results. In my ground I was getting signals from both- at the limits of their detection. NEITHER prompted me to dig! One was tone/visual ID and the other beep/dig.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

... One thing that will never be done is a real side by side test of different detectors. ...

Side-by-side tests of detectors are done all the time. The issue is: The interpretation of the results.

Example: I can tell you types of detectors that will get any signal you show them .... WITH ROOM TO SPARE ! *But the devil is in the details* : Can the operator tell you the difference between that, versus the 100 other signals he just hear in the same area ? Ie.: if "everything sounds the same" , then what benefit have you gained ?
Agree! Many moons ago I was testing two of mine side by side because everyone was posting one beat the other and no contest to the results. In my ground I was getting signals from both- at the limits of their detection. NEITHER prompted me to dig! One was tone/visual ID and the other beep/dig.

Good post.

I remember back when the Cz6 was still fairly new. And the guys who were using them were admittedly kicking the b*tts of the Whites & Garrett guys on depth. for beaches, open fields, etc..., the difference was plain to see. I was green with envy. So I took my Fisher Cz6 buddy with me to a turfed park where I knew very deep silver still existed. Albeit at the fringe of depth to hear. And I flagged a few suspected deepies , so that we could compare. Lo & behold he could get any signal I showed him LIKE THE BELLS OF NOTRE DAME! I was very impressed.

However, the devil was in the details. He'd move over 2 ft. in any direction, and get THE EXACT SAME SIGNAL (utterly no tone/sound differentiation) on signals everywhere else too. Ie.: much less sense of deep vs shallow, high vs mid, bent nail vs conductor, etc....

Which is fine, I suppose, if you're relic or beach hunting. But in a junky turfed park, where a bit of cherry picking is in order , I would think this would be a handicap. Not that it can't be done, and/or tricks-to-be-learned, but ... just sayin' .... that there's more to raw depth when it comes to machine comparisons.

 

[slingshot]

... One thing that will never be done is a real side by side test of different detectors. ...

Side-by-side tests of detectors are done all the time. The issue is: The interpretation of the results.

Example: I can tell you types of detectors that will get any signal you show them .... WITH ROOM TO SPARE ! *But the devil is in the details* : Can the operator tell you the difference between that, versus the 100 other signals he just hear in the same area ? Ie.: if "everything sounds the same" , then what benefit have you gained ?
Agree! Many moons ago I was testing two of mine side by side because everyone was posting one beat the other and no contest to the results. In my ground I was getting signals from both- at the limits of their detection. NEITHER prompted me to dig! One was tone/visual ID and the other beep/dig.

Good post.

I remember back when the Cz6 was still fairly new. And the guys who were using them were admittedly kicking the b*tts of the Whites & Garrett guys on depth. for beaches, open fields, etc..., the difference was plain to see. I was green with envy. So I took my Fisher Cz6 buddy with me to a turfed park where I knew very deep silver still existed. Albeit at the fringe of depth to hear. And I flagged a few suspected deepies , so that we could compare. Lo & behold he could get any signal I showed him LIKE THE BELLS OF NOTRE DAME! I was very impressed.

However, the devil was in the details. He'd move over 2 ft. in any direction, and get THE EXACT SAME SIGNAL (utterly no tone/sound differentiation) on signals everywhere else too. Ie.: much less sense of deep vs shallow, high vs mid, bent nail vs conductor, etc....

Which is fine, I suppose, if you're relic or beach hunting. But in a junky turfed park, where a bit of cherry picking is in order , I would think this would be a handicap. Not that it can't be done, and/or tricks-to-be-learned, but ... just sayin' .... that there's more to raw depth when it comes to machine comparisons.

I had the CZ 5 and loved the depth. I finally grew accustomed to the deep iron "pinging" and could pretty much identify it. Besides the weight, the only thing else I didn't like was the lumping together of targets in just a few categories. But man! Was it deep!

 

[Tom_in_CA]

I had the CZ 5 and loved the depth. I finally grew accustomed to the deep iron "pinging" and could pretty much identify it. Besides the weight, the only thing else I didn't like was the lumping together of targets in just a few categories. But man! Was it deep!

Yes: Some guys I know did in fact get used to it in turf. And , yes, the TID quadrants grouping large ranges into broad categories. But yes, they did develop skills to overcome the obstacles. One guy I know, who does quite well in turf with the CZ6 (and we had long drawn out pro/con debates) would admit, .... if you pressed him .... that if he were going to chase the 8" deep turf coins, he'd have to contend with getting fooled by deep bent nails. On the other hand, he certainly kicked the b*tts of the Whites I was using at the time. I believe that the Explorer would get the same depth, AND have better TID (not being fooled by deep iron). But have never gone head to head with a skilled CZ6 user to pit over flagged signals.

Not many guys in CA are swinging Fishers these days. Most are Minelab now, with a sprinkling of Garrets here and there.

 

[UtahRich]

... One thing that will never be done is a real side by side test of different detectors. ...

Side-by-side tests of detectors are done all the time. The issue is: The interpretation of the results.

Example: I can tell you types of detectors that will get any signal you show them .... WITH ROOM TO SPARE ! *But the devil is in the details* : Can the operator tell you the difference between that, versus the 100 other signals he just hear in the same area ? Ie.: if "everything sounds the same" , then what benefit have you gained ?

Yes: Some guys I know did in fact get used to it in turf. And , yes, the TID quadrants grouping large ranges into broad categories. But yes, they did develop skills to overcome the obstacles. One guy I know, who does quite well in turf with the CZ6 (and we had long drawn out pro/con debates) would admit, .... if you pressed him .... that if he were going to chase the 8" deep turf coins, he'd have to contend with getting fooled by deep bent nails. On the other hand, he certainly kicked the b*tts of the Whites I was using at the time. I believe that the Explorer would get the same depth, AND have better TID (not being fooled by deep iron). But have never gone head to head with a skilled CZ6 user to pit over flagged signals.

Not many guys in CA are swinging Fishers these days. Most are Minelab now, with a sprinkling of Garrets here and there.

As a guy who used to swing a CZ-6a back in the mid/late 90's, very true comments here. Nearly 5 years of deep bent nails drove me to my Explorer XS back in 2000. I made some excellent finds with the CZ and some DEEP finds, BUT I felt like much of my detecting time was wasted chasing after DEEP bent nails. It seemed that the CZ loved them. Switching over to the EXP XS, what I consider the best detector of the time for my purposes, my outings changed dramatically.

So much of the success I have with a detector depends on how well the detector tells me what I have under the coil. And if it can do this in a pleasant manner, and not give me brain damage and a massive headache, I can hunt more efficiently, for longer periods of time, and walk away at the end of the day having enjoyed myself more.

HH

Rich -

 

[Joedaddy276]

Why is everyone answering with bullcrap answers? How about just stating your opinion on the best detector not you breakdown of his question damn what some salty guys on here.lol I own a at pro and it's a good detector I've found silver coins,cw bullets,buttons and I own a equinox 800 that I hope and think is a couple notches better but don't have any real time on it.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

Why is everyone answering with bullcrap answers? How about just stating your opinion on the best detector not you breakdown of his question damn .....

"bullcrap answers" ? Well gee, this assumes that there's a concise answer to the question of "what's the best detector?" If there's a concise answer, then yes, all the answer he got are "bullcrap".

But since there IS no one concise "best detector" , and since it depends on variables that the questioner needs to clarify , then ... no ... the answers were not bullcrap answers.

 

[Joedaddy276]

You tom may have giving a actual opinion and in that case I wasn't speaking of you I'm more referring to people breaking his question down like he was stupid for asking it!

 

[Tom_in_CA]

Perhaps someone spoke condescendingly. If so, I hope they meant no harm. Sometimes on forums , people can speak with a "devil's advocate" tone. Just to get a conversation going.

 

[Dancer]

Alas no such thing,all detectors are basically just a big lump of plastic,alloy,and some electronics inside,you could have the most expensive detector on the planet but on its own it does absolutely nothing,even by switching it on it still does nothing,but put it in the hand of a experienced detectorist and also have some decent finds on your permission,then that is when the magic starts happening......it has nothing to do with a detector having the most expensive whistles and bells.

If you dont have any finds in the ground it makes no odds how good the detector is or even the skill of the detectorist,you aint going to find the goodies.

Couldn't have a better answer there, Mega

 

[calabash digger]

there is some truth to the statement above BUT to act like experience trumps all... I mean give a experienced detectorist a ace 150 at a loaded iron site and a newbie a deus setup in a preset program and tell him to dig everything that beeps. It would be interesting to see who comes out on top. I have said this before and will say it again a EXPERIENCED detectorist can not out hunt his machine. If his machine cant see it he cant dig it.... Experience is a big factor but the machine is a big part of that equation too. IMO Guy ask a simple question and the standard 101 metal detecting philosophical answers start flying... SITES are a big part. Experience is a big part. The machine is a big part too.. IMO BTW people keep throwing off on the bells and whistles on the newer model detectors ... What are you guys exactly talking about???

 

[doc holiday232]

IF all would read posts from people such as "Tom in Ca" then they would come away better informed.

 

[calabash digger]

I'm just kinda scratching my head about the comments about bells and whistles and wondering what exactly everyones talking about? We all have views right or wrong and the above statements are just my views about detecting. Are all detectors created equal? Will someone please explain what bells and whistles everyones throwing off on??

 

[DaveNV]

Best gold machine? Best water machine? Best coinshooter? Best value for the money? Best relic machine? Best "all around" machine? You could probably get a consensus on what really good detectors are for those specific functions. But, as far as which is the "best" brand and model, that comes down to personal opinion, IMHO.

 

[kansas_jayhawks]

Side-by-side tests of detectors are done all the time. The issue is: The interpretation of the results.

Let me define what a "side by side" test is in my mind - and I've never seen any published or heard of one being published.

Completed by a person who has no attachment to any company or machines. An independent person who knows how to use a detector.

The test would include a known test of a wide variety of items at a wide variety of depths. Have a test bed where you have pennies buried from 1" down to 24", nickels, dimes, quarters, half dollars and dollar coins also burried at a wide variety of depths. have various coins buried on their edges. Add pop can tabs, wire, nails, and the list can go on.

First series of tests would be over a known test bed. Start with detector A going over the test bed detailing the results. Then do the same with detectors B through E (or whatever # you want to test).

Second series of tests - go to an area where you have no idea what you will fin. Block it off and mark the targets starting with the first detector then go back over with the next detector and continue with all other detectors. After all potential targets are identified then dig them up and compare to what the detector indicated.

I've yet to see anything like this with respect. Nor have I heard anything.

It would be interesting to see what the results would be. I wouldn't be surprised if the companies didn't do something something similar.

 

[calabash digger]

heres a peak at one of the best made ....[video]https://youtu.be/4yHwP36whX0[/video]

 

[Tom_in_CA]

As easy as it sounds, there will be glitches. One person gets a one-way-chirp and investigates it, and finds a goodie. But the problem is: other "one-way-chirps" (that sound identical) are multitudes of bent nails. Hmmm. So does that qualify as "having heard it" or not ?

There was a long thread once, where someone lamented why there's not a "consumer reviews" type tests of detectors. Similar to how you'd see comparisons of big screen TV's, cars, cell-phones, etc.... Like the magazine "consumer reports", where the various competing products are lined up on a tabulated column. Comparing MPG, leg room, 0 to 50 speed, price, etc... Then why oh why hasn't someone come up with detectors in the same fashion ? Should be simple enough of column tabulations showing "depth on a dime" and "depth on a nickel" and "battery life" and "target ID", etc... Right ?

It was an interesting thread, I wish I had the link. But there's too many devils in the details. For example, the Fisher 1266 will far-out-shine any machine for sheer depth. However, it hits a brick wall in even moderate minerals, and everything beyond 6" sounds the same. Or perhaps the Explorer II has awesome ability for TID at depth. Lo & behold it shuts down with masking in iron-riddled sites. Whereas the humble lowly Tesoro Silver Sabre or Bandito will effortlessly pick coins up amidst nails (albeit with zero TID and limited depth). It's just never-ending.

 

[slingshot]

As easy as it sounds, there will be glitches. One person gets a one-way-chirp and investigates it, and finds a goodie. But the problem is: other "one-way-chirps" (that sound identical) are multitudes of bent nails. Hmmm. So does that qualify as "having heard it" or not ?

There was a long thread once, where someone lamented why there's not a "consumer reviews" type tests of detectors. Similar to how you'd see comparisons of big screen TV's, cars, cell-phones, etc.... Like the magazine "consumer reports", where the various competing products are lined up on a tabulated column. Comparing MPG, leg room, 0 to 50 speed, price, etc... Then why oh why hasn't someone come up with detectors in the same fashion ? Should be simple enough of column tabulations showing "depth on a dime" and "depth on a nickel" and "battery life" and "target ID", etc... Right ?

It was an interesting thread, I wish I had the link. But there's too many devils in the details. For example, the Fisher 1266 will far-out-shine any machine for sheer depth. However, it hits a brick wall in even moderate minerals, and everything beyond 6" sounds the same. Or perhaps the Explorer II has awesome ability for TID at depth. Lo & behold it shuts down with masking in iron-riddled sites. Whereas the humble lowly Tesoro Silver Sabre or Bandito will effortlessly pick coins up amidst nails (albeit with zero TID and limited depth). It's just never-ending.

I often wonder if this is why Tesoro stayed out of the "new and improved" trap. I remember several of their replies about how combining tones, etc with g/b affected the parameters of their detectors.