Is technology making you a better treasure hunter ?

[Kemper]

Is technology making you a better treasure hunter or are you just digging deeper holes ? Are manufacturers making machines that make you a better hunter or just giving you a new toy to play with ? I found this interesting from Tnet today -

Depending on the price jump, you'll be digging deeper metal trash with the higher-priced detectors. ha. That's the main difference. While the guys with the fancy, overpriced detectors are sweating and digging deep holes for nothing, I'm digging and retrieving shallower holes but usually I find more goodies with my inexpensive Garrett detectors than they find with their $2,000+ foreign-made machines.

Last Sunday, I was using my least expensive detector the Ace 250 when its meter showed a dime at 6". When I dug it, it turned out to be a beautiful 1935 gold and sterling lady's class ring. My hunting buddy used a XP Deus and his new Minelab Equinox on the same field where I dug the ring. He's found more deep memorial pennies and one mood ring from the 70s but I've found a 1929 wheatie, a 1946 silver Roosevelt dime, and the class ring at the same old yard.

I make it a goal of making every detector I own pay for itself and it takes a heck of a lot less time to pay for a $200 - $500 detector than one that costs several hundred dollars more. My over 20 year-old Garrett Scorpion Gold Stinger has paid for itself many times over the years. In 49 years of metal detecting, one of the most important lessons I've learned is that the price of a detector is not nearly as important to success as spending many hours getting to know your detector well.

A determined and dedicated detectorist, using a $250 detector, will almost always walk away with more treasure at the end of the day than a guy who's always "upgrading" detectors and never learns to use the ones he's upgrading from.
~Texas Jay

[Skippy]

When the subject of 'going deeper' comes up, it's often in relation to larger items, decent-size copper/silver coins, lead bullets, typical US detecting finds, so 'deep' maybe means 8" -> 12" (20cm - 30cm). Here in the UK, we tend to search for items that cover a wide variety of sizes/conductivity, and many of our more interesting stuff is small and hard to find. Some small ancient coins may only be detectable at 3" (7.5cm) if the ground is even/smooth, and less if it's lumpy ploughed (plowed) farmland. So if the use of 'technology' allowed such finds to be made deeper, eg. at 4", or 3" in uneven terrain, then it's of benefit.
There's plenty of other ways 'technical innovation' can make a detector better, without it being deeper.
* If it makes it cheaper, for the same performance. ..for example fast, cheap microprocessors replacing analog parts like amplifiers/filters/comparators.
* If it reduces power consumption. Such as giving 40 hour battery life, or running on just two AA cells.
* If it makes the machine lighter/more ergonomic. Less battery weight, smaller electronics boards, with smaller housings/cases.
* If it makes detecting more 'comfortable'. Examples include cordless headphones, telescopic shaft hardware.

The concept of a machine 'paying for itself' is a US phenomenon. In Europe, where we're detecting for a hobby, and simply enjoying the business of unearthing items of interest, preferably historical, people will pay higher prices for a machine simply because they enjoy detecting.

[Kemper]

When the subject of 'going deeper' comes up, it's often in relation to larger items, decent-size copper/silver coins, lead bullets, typical US detecting finds, so 'deep' maybe means 8" -> 12" (20cm - 30cm). Here in the UK, we tend to search for items that cover a wide variety of sizes/conductivity, and many of our more interesting stuff is small and hard to find. Some small ancient coins may only be detectable at 3" (7.5cm) if the ground is even/smooth, and less if it's lumpy ploughed (plowed) farmland. So if the use of 'technology' allowed such finds to be made deeper, eg. at 4", or 3" in uneven terrain, then it's of benefit.
There's plenty of other ways 'technical innovation' can make a detector better, without it being deeper.
* If it makes it cheaper, for the same performance. ..for example fast, cheap microprocessors replacing analog parts like amplifiers/filters/comparators.
* If it reduces power consumption. Such as giving 40 hour battery life, or running on just two AA cells.
* If it makes the machine lighter/more ergonomic. Less battery weight, smaller electronics boards, with smaller housings/cases.
* If it makes detecting more 'comfortable'. Examples include cordless headphones, telescopic shaft hardware.

The concept of a machine 'paying for itself' is a US phenomenon. In Europe, where we're detecting for a hobby, and simply enjoying the business of unearthing items of interest, preferably historical, people will pay higher prices for a machine simply because they enjoy detecting.

I'll address your points on what makes a detector " better " I'm not familiar with U.K. hunting but I can see where you may have different desires from a detector.

* If it makes it cheaper, for the same performance. ..for example fast, cheap microprocessors replacing analog parts like amplifiers/filters/comparators.

I think we are talking about the difference in success between using a lower price vs a higher price detector rather than what makes one cheaper. I don't know if what you are mentioning here makes one cheaper for the consumer. It may have at one time but it seems prices today are based on what they think the consumer will pay.

* If it reduces power consumption. Such as giving 40 hour battery life, or running on just two AA cells.

Using an ACE 250 as this guy is talking about - A person can get 3-4 days use out of AA batteries and they can be found fairly cheap. It is not cheaper to invest in re-chargeables and a charger.* If it makes the machine lighter/more ergonomic. Less battery weight, smaller electronics boards, with smaller housings/cases.

Yes, I believe that is true for both the lower cost and the higher cost machines.
* If it makes detecting more 'comfortable'. Examples include cordless headphones, telescopic shaft hardware.

Yes, cordless headphones can be more comfortable than wired. I hate headphones and go without them when possible. Telescopic shaft could be more comfortable if the standard is not comfortable. I can see where comfort could make you more productive .
I think a person will not necessarily be more productive with a higher priced machine. If you have plenty of ground to cover and/or un-searched ground those would be factors also. I think it is hard to beat a beep-and-dig machine such as an ACE 250 with plenty of un-searched ground available. I can afford any machine out there but I have plenty of un-searched ground to cover. Would it be a waste of my time digging deeper while I could be covering more ground ? Would it be a waste of my time checking numbers on a screen while I could be covering more ground ?

[Skippy]

The ACE250 is a good example of a machine that uses modern cheap microprocessors to great effect. Not only is it a decent performer for the price, it is also lightweight (helped by only having 4 x AA cells) and is a modest power-consumer, long run-times are convenient, as well as making it economically viable to use non-rechargeable batteries.
At the higher end, the Teknetics T2 also achieves similar gains, due to microprocessor use. It too has frugal power consumption, 40+ hours on 4 x AA alkaline cells, and is a reasonable weight (200grams more than an ACE, there's more metal, less plastic used).

Simple entry-level machines like the ACE250 are popular here in the UK, they hold their re-sale value well. The popularity of hunting cultivated farmland in Europe means that depth is not such an issue, as the ploughing of the land will bring up finds to near the surface. I use a Fisher F2, which is a close rival to the ACE ( by design intent) and it's certainly capable of finding plenty of stuff on farmland.
What could've been a good move by Garrett was creating an "ACE250-15", basically the same machine, but at 15KHz or thereabouts, that would've sold well in Europe, I think.

You're correct about unsearched ground, it's always nice to realise a location is undetected, and shallow targets can be easily retrieved. It's often said that "Location" is the most important factor, the detector and its operator are less critical.

Another aspect where technology 'helps the hunt' is reliability/stability/consistence of performance. Older machines tended to have lots of parts, electronic and mechanical, many adjustable 'calibration' components. This makes for less reliability, the need for maintenance, recalibration. You couldn't be sure the machine was working optimally, it may behave differently on a warm day to a cool day. Technology has eliminated most of these factors - now you just turn it on, and it works properly. And will still work well in 5 or 10 years time.

Another "hidden" place where technology has helped improve detectors is in the design and manufacturing process. Powerful, affordable CAD design software, automated/robotic assembly of electronic and mechanical parts, etc all help lower costs, and put nicer detectors in our hands.

[Tim]

Yes I too think manufacturers charge what they think they can get away with. Call it supply and demand if you like. But as stated repeatedly-there has really been little improvement in detectors in the last 30 years. If someones state of mind is altered to think they have the bees knees in detectors, they will ultimately put in more time and effort than previously..and probably surmise their expensive new detector is better.
Poking around here for coins amongst the rusty iron, I still reach for the Compass 94B. My BH TrackerIV doesn't even come close. Despite the tone option and auto GB it is a piece of snot and misses more than it finds. I have an Infinium, a Groundhog and an ADS, but never even considered the Ace250. My choices seem to sit either side of the Ace/Xterra price and function bracket.
For gold though, a modern(ish) LF with black sand meter is a must. Changing mineralised ground requires a fast/adjustable SAT - another reasonably recent tech. Auto/man GB is also a desirable choice.
I would presume many owners of the expensive PI's would become lost in the settings and consequently greatly lessen their prospective finds.
Despite being old school, Pic/uc detectors and the work being done here (and elsewhere) shows good potential, as weight is a factor.

Finally, research, research, research, and some luck jagging an unflogged area, are probably far more influencing factors on success than detector age. That, and having the right detector for the job at hand.

[Hammerhead]

http://www.geotech1.com/forums/showt...METAL-DETECTOR Without technology

[Kemper]

Most of the property I search is old residential lots with or without homes. Most of these I go over one time but have access to go over some again at a later date. It seems that for an initial search on these lots, an ACE 250 or a machine set at a similar setting is a good choice. It seems that the more expensive machines would have an advantage in re-searching these lots more so than in an initial search. Going over these lots again with an ACE 250 ( at a different setting ) could also be productive. It always comes back to the question- Would I be more productive by researching these lots or by searching un-serched lots? I think the answer is that I would be more productive searching un-searched lots.

Of course, different situations and/or different ground conditions would call for a machine other than an ACE 250. What I see from watching youtube videos makes me feel that an ACE 250 would find 99% of what I see found on land. Even the newest machine that some claim is great at locating good targets among trash is not shown finding great targets right next to trash. It is hard to tell how good the new machine is because the nice find in the hole is not next to other metals that would effect it's detection.

I think Hammerhead may have a good point but only when a person is searching their own property and there is good potential of finding items there. If a person is going to go over the same piece of property a hundred times using different settings, they may be better off sifting the dirt to be more productive.

Thanks Skippy and Tim for your helpful replies also.

[jladre]

I made a comparison on depth test a couple of week ago. Ace 250, euro ace, minelab quattro, minelab equinox. The test result really proved how the technology evolve. In high mineralize soil I hit my test coin at around 12" with the equinox and 11 inches in quattro (with 13" coil) and euro ace at 6" and the 250 at 5".
The result really shock me.

[Tim]

I made a comparison on depth test a couple of week ago. Ace 250, euro ace, minelab quattro, minelab equinox. The test result really proved how the technology evolve. In high mineralize soil I hit my test coin at around 12" with the equinox and 11 inches in quattro (with 13" coil) and euro ace at 6" and the 250 at 5".
The result really shock me.

Jeepers that's a big difference. The tough ground really sorts the boys from the men it seems.

[Skippy]

I think most of the digital "entry-level" machines have a tendency to underperform in stronger ground. The low bit-count of their analogue-to-digital converters means some compression circuitry is used to help cope with stronger coil signals, so a strong ground signal tends to lead to less sensitivity.
A machine such as the Teknetics T2 has a 19-bit ADC, which allows it to cope with a wide range of coil signal, yet still retaining the resolution to see small targets. ADC's in machines like the ACE250 are likely to be 12-bit. [ 12-bit converters resolve the signal into 4096 'steps', a 19-bit converter resolves to 525000 'steps' ]
And the T2 does all its ground filtering digitally, in a DSP microprocessor, compared with the simple analogue approach of the ACE et al. The "software filtering" allows better/more complex filter strategies, and makes it easier to adjust them to suit conditions / user requirements. The T2 will auto-switch between 2nd-order and 4th-order filters based on the perceived 'lumpiness' of the ground signal. So the high-end machine is better able to pick out small target signals from strong or rapidly varying ground signals, compared to lower-end machine.

But of course the ACE is primarily aimed at park-hunters, where dirt/ground is fairly flat and usually not so 'strong'.

That comparison test of jladre shows where multi-frequency is a good 'weapon'. Measuring the ground signal at two frequencies, and doing some mathematics, allows a machine to significantly reduce the ground signal level, whilst not suppressing the target signal unduly. Hence seperating the target from the ground becomes easier.

What would be interesting to know about jladre's test is the actual, raw signal strengths of the ground, and the target at various depths. This would show more clearly what the differences are.
Target signal strength drops off VERY rapidly with increasing depth: just a 15% increase and target signal is down to 50%. Doubling depth will slash target signal to 2% (a 50-fold drop). Mathematically it's roughly an "inverse-5th" to "inverse-6th" power relationship, depending on how close/far from the coil your target is.
So jladre's tests show the multi-freq rigs are detecting signals perhaps 20 to 60 times smaller than the entry/mid- range machines. Some of this is related to coil size differences, no doubt.

[Melbeta]

Well you waved the red flag in front of me, and I have to admit I am absolutely not interested in the newer detectors. I like the older vintage quality machines, which let me do it all for myself. I do not want a detector to do it for me. I can amuse myself. I started out with the old BFO machines, before discrimination and automatic tuning came out, and I tell you, without expecting or wanting an argument. For me I prefer the Compass line where they find the faint signals, and I dig them up and others are running around swinging and cover the ground, and I am quieting filling my pockets. I just shut up and do my own thing. I am not into microprocessors, nor am I into discrimination. I like to dig the solid signals, and I can tell the trash most of the time but I still dig them as they fool me every so often.
Melbeta

[Chiv]

In very high trash areas I still find the compass 77b preforms just as well as the equinox if not slightly better but equinox will go deeper. so I still use the 77b old school for around strip out 1940s house sites as a lot of buried iron. so in that I say old is still better than new, but as far as the beach, the equinox is very good and new tech yes dose make a better detectorist out of you if use it right, went over 20mx50m piece of beach with the barra and picked up afew coins and hair clips which is the norm here on this little beach between the rocks, then put down the barra and grabbed the equinox and did the same patch again, now I'm thinking why did I buy the new machine as 10mins into it nothing, but as got closer to the edges of the rocks started to pick up, earing set clipped together about 14" down lucky break couple of $1 dollar coins going green 27" down blew me away as been there a long time but the best was a tungsten ring that took the cake, started of very low faint sig and as got digging got better and higher numbers, end up been around 40" mark as full arm length and scoop, so yes I think the new gear work better but dose it make you a better detectorist, No it dose not, if you already have a bad habit of swing wildly and no over lap then no matter what type of machine you use, you will still be the same detectorist as before missing targets.

[Tim]

Well you waved the red flag in front of me, and I have to admit I am absolutely not interested in the newer detectors. I like the older vintage quality machines, which let me do it all for myself. I do not want a detector to do it for me. I can amuse myself. I started out with the old BFO machines, before discrimination and automatic tuning came out, and I tell you, without expecting or wanting an argument. For me I prefer the Compass line where they find the faint signals, and I dig them up and others are running around swinging and cover the ground, and I am quieting filling my pockets. I just shut up and do my own thing. I am not into microprocessors, nor am I into discrimination. I like to dig the solid signals, and I can tell the trash most of the time but I still dig them as they fool me every so often.
Melbeta

Good stuff Chiv & Melbeta. Seems our old Compasses aren't as obsolete as some would have us believe. A detector for every situation is better than a multi-porpoise one. The only thing I would change on my oldies (if anything) is a 10 turn tuning on the end of the handgrip. Mind you a bloke should wind up some extra coils too.