Questions about analog machines

I used the CZ-3D for a little while and i understand that it is an analog machine. Now we have the Vista detectors taking center stage here and I understand the Vista Gold is an analog machine as well.

From my limited understanding, the Vista Gold discriminates iron only, leaving all other targets grouped in the accepted range. In this way, a silver coin will sound the same as a piece of foil or a bottle cap. Is it possible to tell the various types of targets in the accepted range with the Vista Gold?

I guess my hope is that since it is an analog machine, there will be subtle differences in the tone if one is looking at a piece of foil versus a coin. Otherwise, this machine would be counter-productive in a park environment, which is the milieu of choice of coin shooters.

In general, and to add my proverbial two cents, I like it when new machines come in the market and when the community gets excited about them. I spent much time looking at the Blisstool even if I knew it wasn't a machine for me. I have no problem with a new machine becoming the darling of the day. It is part of the fun for me to play with different machines and to continue to look for that little thing that will take me to the next level.

By the way, I love my Deus and if I don't do it, someone else should try to replicate the test we saw on the recent video whereas the Deus failed to read the ring because of a piece of iron nearby. This seems opposite to my experiences with the Deus thus far. I routinely find rusty iron much closer to my targets than that piece of iron was to the buried ring. I say this in the interest of investigation and discovery and not to bash anyone.

Peace!

Pinpoint twice, dig once

I too...... concur that I have had better enhanced adjacent target separation performance characteristics with the Deus (and GMP)........ than what is depicted in the recent posted videos.

Hi. I agree and I think we all agree...someone should video some tests of their own.

And PTMiner - I'm just curious - are we talking "much closer" as in the iron is on the same depth level to the non-ferrous or "much closer" as in the iron is closer nearby on the surface to something that's buried?

Not to get into a ping pong match like everything gets into here but for the prior testing that you did Tom - and for you to be able to state that your results were better than what was depicted in the video...what were the exact parameters of the testing you did to draw your conclusion? Was it exactly the same as what was shown? That was a random depth to put the ring at and a random area to put the nail. Please point me to the specific details or video of your testing...I'd like to replicate the conditions you used to get your results and then compare some of the other machines in those same exact conditions to see how they fare.

I just cannot see how anyone can state they experienced "better" performance characteristics in a test they did - when the test they did was not exactly like the test shown...so to draw comparative conclusions is irrelevant unless the testing was exactly under the same conditions...you of course may have gotten different results under your conditions...obviously...maybe your iron was further away...maybe your non-ferrous target was shallower...etc etc...a million permutations of conditions are at play here...

I'd say in my every day hunting with the Deus, i've encountered many many variations of the situation you describe in the Vista video. Sometimes the iron/ trash is on top, sometimes in the hole with the target. I hunt every day and almost daily i experience the mysteries of masking and yet I routinely get good targets next to surface trash and never experience the kind of masking shown in the video.

And since i love consensus, i agree that since the video portrayed only one of an infinite number of possibilities, any conclusions drawn from it are utterly useless.

Pinpoint twice, dig once