Standardized Depth Test

Hi,, Why hasn't a standardized depth test ever been implemented by metal detector manufacturers???? (example) Brand A can detect a dime at 7" in 30% mineralized soil....Brand B can detect a dime at 8" in 30% mineralized soil....etc....etc...The standardized tests could also include target separation,,EMI test,,iron handling capabilities,,unmasking capabilities etc....etc....All manufacturers would use all of the same dirt etc..etc...I think this would help all of us as consumers in making the right detector choice...At least it would be a better guide in buying a detector suitable for our specific needs.....My guess is if all manufacturers ( by law) did this,,,,a lot of companies would be out of business..LOL.. So in closing I would definitely say I doubt that we will never ever see a standardized depth test etc. ever being implemented..LOL..Any thoughts on this????....JJ

It's a good suggestion but I think there are a few problems. Most notably EMI affects depth, sometimes alot, so we would need a way to further measure and standardize EMI.
But, even if manufacturers don't do it, it would be a good idea for users to do it. For example, on the fisher, whites, etc. forums, just have a sticky with air test numbers, soil depth test numbers (with GB and mineralization - if available) and all that you stated above. (The mod could just average the numbers and post those averages first.) But then users would need to verify the results, sort of an endless loop potentially.

But a big problem to the manufacturers now is it becomes a who is deeper problem and things like separation, etc. can be overlooked. That said, I'm all for some standardization of all the main stats we could use (as you state).

All this is just a perspective, a starting point. I'm sure as others comment we could find a "best case" type of utilization or such.

Also each like to put their spin on things for selling purposes. This is a business and honesty in advertising .... well.

Dew

Unfortunately go buy a new car with MPG of 30 and see what it really gets kind of thing. I am sure manufacturers have standarized tests in the lab before their units go to the dealers and lets face it with advertising read the small print kind of thing as I am sure they can fudge numbers also...Dial in operators expertise and the ability of one particuliar unit over another(no two brand new units side by side are not equal in many cases) and we are back to square one..I personaly know manufacturers proof read field tests and smooth ought the shall we say rough edges and well its just not going to happen. Guess thats why used detector trade -sell forums are so poplular as units don't live up to the hype.

1. For one Mfr to be onboard with another Mfr (a competitor/enemy) with a mutually 'standardized' test(s).............would result in the demise of one of the two companies. The unwanted/dreaded 'head-to-head' comparison test results would be the inevitable byproduct.............with (ultimately) the death-of-sales for the under-achievers.

2. Imagine the 'time' required to generate 'standardized' tests. This would cost a lot of money, man-hours and resources for a company that (almost exclusively) cares about 'profit margin'. All companies have 'under-achievers'....................and to 'self-destruct' the sales of these under-achieving units would be enough 'profit margin' diminishment.....that would lead to the death of the company. ALL companies.

3. 'Standardized' can be a vague term............and 'fudge-factor' would be interjected.

4. Companies that KNOW that they have THE 'flagship' unit (for certain/specific applications) would benefit; yet, in a not-so-friendly (obscured) fashion and would still be subject to killing the sales of their other units.

This is why I have come up with a few 'standardized' tests...........so as to remove the 'corporate emotion' out of the equation. Yes, life is short....and time is limited.....................so.......................for my satisfaction.............I need to know what unit(s) are the true flagships. Brand-loyal 'emotional attachment' is strictly forbidden. 'Reality' is always the best performer. Yes, you will see some 'planted seeds' on the forums (and this forum is not immune to them either)...........and you must have/possess the astute/keen ability to differentiate/discriminate these brand-loyal 'plants' from the 'reality folks'.

Detector-to-detector.....there are enough variables out there in the real-world to muddy the water. 'Standardized' tests are hard enough to create (due to the stringent requirement of removing all variables). Even air-tests have nearly all variables removed; yet, (audibly silent/undetectable) EMI can skew the resultant. Although time-consuming and expensive..........I have certain/exacting base 'standardized' testing that I have created......and with the utilization of standardized 'test-standards'. YOU SHOULD TOO!

Never mind the fact that the Mfrs would hop up there test unit
to gain an edge.

There used to be a website here in Europe that had some pretty nice tests for most of the well known units and it just disappeared. It is hard to believe that a MD fan out there with surplus money wouldn't have a nice garden and the top models in their possession. It could be like a MD test park, you could bring your detector their and see how it works. Is there not a good site out there that does some testing, for I have looked and can't find anything close. I wonder if the manufacturers might try to shut it down. MDLeaks.com ;-)

edit - just found these:

[www.staffsmetaldetectors.co.uk]
[metalldetektortest.eu]

tell me what yall think...



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/04/2011 06:41PM by earthmansurfer.

The tests are ok............except that the tester (Staff's) states that the machines are turned on and run at default settings. Which really can result in severe under-estimation of a detectors capablities in many units. Some units only excel when settings are tweaked from the default programs for a particular hunting locality/situations.
I do like the German site's testing better, as it is staying with one manufacturer and is also comparing available coils. It appears to be more standardized.

Tom D. is the only one who does testing under rigorous scientific method that I am aware of. And there a few others here who are pretty darn close whose testing methods I trust. You know who you are



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 07/05/2011 05:43AM by TerraDigger.