multis vs.( v.l.f.) single frequency

i have a burning question i would like to ask tom
and any other astute "field experienced" detectorists!
does an 'advantage" exist when using an e-trac in (light to medium) mineralized
soil over a (v.l.f) single frequency detector when hunting COINS exclusively?
please be specific as to WHAT advantages,(if any) the e-trac does,or does not offer
in the aforementioned hunting environment!..thanks in advance!

(h.h.!)
j.t.

JT, I can't really answer your question....but this might help. I spent a weekend hunting with a buddy who has a minelab se and I had a tesoro eldorado and there was not single target that he could hear that the tesoro could not detect and vice versa. Now, that being said I have no idea if he had his detector set up correctly or not. Just food for thought, hopefully the more astute guys will chime in here.

The E is a fine machine. My buddy has one and I've used it many times. He also has an SE, I've also used it many times. I have an f-75 and a cz3d and am very happy with them. As far as one being better, I don't know, I find old coins with all of them.

I'm not a soil expert but it seems here in PA it's mostly moderate.

Example; Each one has hunted this one particular area ( only 150' x 150') and it dosen't matter which one I'm using, an old coin always shows up. Just today I was using the cz and pulled out a liberty cap half cent from the same area I went over with all of them. I do know what I like and don't like about each detector but that's just my personal opinion.

If I had to pick one detector from the above four I would pick the f-75 and thats because I have thousands of hours with it.

My answer to your question would be " I don't know." but Tom will, and it may be a long answer, I hope.

Well you said coins... didnt mention depth or old coins and moderate dirt. You seem to be asking all things equal are the VLFs as good as the Multi freq. The way you put it id say yes. But.... add bad soil, silver or old coins, and depth to the question a lot would come down to the user as much as the machine.

Dew

Moderately mineralized soil.

This is where the playing field becomes more level...........with MANY other detectors..........as far as real-world performance/results. When the mineralization starts to become fairly bad...........then...............the E-Trac/Explorer will start to excel.

If you are specifically hunting old coins..........where trash is not to bad..........then the CZ-3D (properly calibrated) will be the trump card. It ID 'resolves' (especially at depth) a lot quicker with more intelligibility. The Minelabs may require you to 'coax' the deep targets to a higher ID resolution via multiple passes of the coil.

If iron trash (nails) start to become somewhat thick (in moderate mineralization soil)........... the elliptical DD coil equipped detectors then become the trump card.

If mineralization becomes medium to heavy............then the Minelabs are the ticket.

thanks for all the replies! most helpful!
in "trash laden areas"( aluminum junk) nails
etc!..etc! again!,in light to moderate mineralized soil,
which one of these four detectors would be the trump card?

1) cz-3d
2) f-75
3) e-trac
4) tek omega 8000

thanks in advance!

(h.h.!)
j.t.

There's only one (in your selection/options) that has a elliptical DD coil; that being: the F75.

Like Tom said the MLs do process slower but with the Pro coils work trash rather well IF you know how to use them. A better comparison might be an XLT vs a DFX. Pretty similar except the dual freq on the DFX. Cant tell you how many fight about those two.

Dew

All I can say is a dual freq. CZ and any of the Explorer models sure get the deep silver others won't touch..

As far as trashy areas neither fit the bill as they are both slow and lets go back in time to the oldy but goodie Gold Mountain King Cobra,Fisher 1235 or even the Troy X-2 which excelled in this enviroment but certainly not depth demons..

As far the newer Tecknetics-Fisher units which there are many not my cup of tea and we all have our favorites..

NASA-Tom Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> There's only one (in your selection/options) that
> has a elliptical DD coil; that being: the F75.


yes only one!,however i failed to mention,(my fault)
the tek omega is equipped with the 11" dd coil,and for comparison purposes,both the tek omega,AND the f-75 have 5" dd coils as well!
again,this information was omitted,and needed to be included with my initial inquiry!
thanks everyone for the kind responses!

(h.h.!)
j.t.



(h.h.!)
j.t.

I thought the Minelab 11'' pro coil was a D.D. coil?

I dont know Dan... i kind of like picking thru the trash and i find the SE even with a Pro or SEF coil does well. To go along with that... i also find MANY people pass these spots up. Slow really works well in these sites... i can spend 3 or 4 hours just sifting out the silver. Takes a lot of patience but when an old park can produce some old silver... chances are you will find it there.

Dew

Yes.....the Minelab(s) are DD coils......but not ELLIPTICAL DD coil. The electromagnetic 'footprint' of the elliptical DD coils is a very narrow field.....presenting a much better/enhanced adjacent target separation ability.

The F75 (especially the LTD/SE) still trumps the Omega w/11" elliptical DD coil.

hi tom!
can it be assumed then,that the f-75 equipped with the 5" dd coil
is superior to the omega 8000 equipped with same?..i have an interesting question!
hypothetically,lets say at a particular site ie: an old park! if a detectorist can ONLY run a f-75 equipped with the 5" dd coil
at a REDUCED "gain",say 60 or 65 (to use a nice round number),AND a fellow detectorist is using a tek omega 8000
equipped with the 5" dd coil,set at maximum "gain" which detector will trump in THAT situation?..
this would also be applicable to the SAME detectors with the 11 '' dd coil?..just curious!..thankyou!

(h.h.!)
j.t.

If your Disc is '4' (or below) on the F75...............the F75 will still out-perform the Omega. If the Disc is '5' or above on the F75.... the playing field becomes more level............except for the fact that the F75 still has plenty in reserve for areas that allow higher Sensitivity settings. The 5" coil on either unit will surprise you.......especially on the F75 LTD/SE.

thanks! tom! it's nice to know the f-75 still has a distinct advantage in the field!
this is especially so if (e.m.i) can be mitigated,which of course, is site specific,
and knowing that coil selection is NOT critical to STILL experience a ''clear" advantage!

(h.h.!)
j.t.

JT, the ML multis, like the Etrac and Explorer do very well in your given requirements.
That is the ability to ignore alum junk, especially tabs along with most iron.
Here is the rub however, the MLs are harder for some to learn and take more time to master than many single frq detectors.
And it is according to how you are "wired" whether or not they will be of more advantage to you.
If you are of the type that appreciates straight-foward, easy to use then single frq are the way to go.
But if you like a real challenge of spending time trying to figure out stuff, the MLs may work for you.
I think we all tend to gravitate toward our own choice of a particular brand...even if we are not conscious of it.
So I don't think you will find your "answer" here or anywhere else as to whether the multis would be a good fit for you.
I left out the mention of the CZs above but one of them could be a good choice also but there again you may find out
you prefer what you are presently using....or the F75 LTD if you don't own that one.
Clear as mud?

it;s my "understanding" that the e-trac is almost 100% proficient with the ''coins" program selected from the factory set up!
at least this is what i have read in various posts!..in your experience,is this true?..IF this is mostly true,then it takes the learning curve pretty much
''off the table" comments?..thankyou!

(h.h.!)
j.t.

With the short amount of time I was fortunate to use the E-trac (over 40 hrs, and I also read Andy's book) I would only use the factory coins program when I got lazy. Mostly I used an all white screen with a couple ferrous lines blacked out and manual sens with difficult on or high trash, can't remember the terminolgy on the E.
The E-trac was easy to learn, not really any head scratching taking place. I think it's easier to learn and use than the Explorer SE because of the "12" line on the E-trac and the way the screen is set up. Minelab got it all together when they came up with the E-trac. But, it's not the be all end all of detectors. If you handed me an Etrac and a f-75 and said pick one to use here in this field, I would turn on the f-75, crank it up, zero disc, and if there was no emi, I would hand you back the Etrac. My opinion is from here in southeast PA soil.

It would be interesting to hear from the singe freq guys that hunt side-by-side with experienced explorer/etrac hunters. The super speed and "tight foot print" just doesn't seem to have much real world impact at all. I've seen may single freq users list their unit on eBay after getting pummeled a few times in finds - AND if you compare actual deep signals, I've seen two people literally pack up and go home since no matter what they did, they couldn't coax that signal (even to grunt).

IMO - in heavy iron, they all suck - albeit in different ways.

Quote

Minelab got it all together when they came up with the E-trac.

Couldn't disagree more. They took a step backwards with the FE12 line. There's magic in the Explorer S curves once you understand it. They abandoned their loyal customers in favor of the detectorist who needs mo' easiness. I still hold hope for an Explorer 5 or 6.

That should bring some response from the single freq guys. Ill just say im looking for a company to come out with something new not easier. I dont mind learning a complicated machine if it surprises me in a good way. Im just not seeing new tech.... im seeing things added to adjust that are normally factory set that make people go wow and jump on board... for awhile anyway. I have to say coils have made a difference in finds over the past few years. Even headphones have improved.

Dew

From what I conclude with my limited time with both, the E-trac IS an improved version of the Explorer. Maybe a bit better than a re-packaged one.
What's wrong with taking a fine machine and making it easier to understand? Could it be that it took alot of time to understand the "s" curve and you finally understand it, then they come out with a BETTER easier version of an FBS detector and you throw your hands up? Come on.
I must be missing something something here, don't see the logic.

A lot has to do with the operator and how well he/she knows their detector .........Calling both detectorists even in knowledge of said machines, I would give the nod to the Multi freq machine such as the Minelabs if said ground was full of trash .....The discrimination settings are better on the Minelabs, therefore you don't have to go down to a smaller coil to hunt in the trash ....You therefore cover more ground with the percentages of targets going up ..... You can achieve great results with single freq machines, but it will take you more time , as you will more than likely be running a smaller coil in trashy area's ..... I hunt NYC parks , and would NEVER go into the parks with a single freq machine .....Just about everyone I hunt with uses a multi freq in these parks .....and on the beaches too for that matter .....Beaches are easier on the single freq machines in the dry sand , but can't hold a candle to multi freqs in the wet .....Jim

ozzie Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> With the short amount of time I was fortunate to
> use the E-trac (over 40 hrs, and I also read
> Andy's book) I would only use the factory coins
> program when I got lazy. Mostly I used an all
> white screen with a couple ferrous lines blacked
> out and manual sens with difficult on or high
> trash, can't remember the terminolgy on the E.
> The E-trac was easy to learn, not really any head
> scratching taking place. I think it's easier to
> learn and use than the Explorer SE because of the
> "12" line on the E-trac and the way the screen is
> set up. Minelab got it all together when they came
> up with the E-trac. But, it's not the be all end
> all of detectors. If you handed me an Etrac and a
> f-75 and said pick one to use here in this field,
> I would turn on the f-75, crank it up, zero disc,
> and if there was no emi, I would hand you back the
> Etrac. My opinion is from here in southeast PA
> soil.


interesting observation!.i use the f-75 and have been wondering this myself in regards to setting the f-75 to 0 disc
and 99 "gain"!.to clarify,what i mean, and what has been commented on by tom,and others in the past, is that a f-75
'WOUND UP" is a nasty' adversary to the e-trac,however (e.m.i) must be mitigated,and the soil mineral content must be light to moderate!
apparently the "trac" is easily set up to achieve maximum performance easily "outside" the factory settings! also the detector must be good enough because i hear they sell
all they can make! .i have never been fortunate to use one,so must solicit information from experienced users to ascertain critical information!..
just sayin'

(h.h.!)
j.t.

I think the issue is some of us have a pretty good handle on the Explorers and there just wasnt enought improvement in finds to say the E was worth our hard earned money. Notice i said finds.... and for me thats the bottom line. Have to say i am a bit jealous of new people grabbing an E and not having to go thru the learning curve. Id love to see some of the E features on my SE. Id be more willing to jump on that.... sorry but im not a big fan of the FE12 either.

Dew

Shambler Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It would be interesting to hear from the singe
> freq guys that hunt side-by-side with experienced
> explorer/etrac hunters. The super speed and
> "tight foot print" just doesn't seem to have much
> real world impact at all. I've seen may single
> freq users list their unit on eBay after getting
> pummeled a few times in finds - AND if you compare
> actual deep signals, I've seen two people
> literally pack up and go home since no matter what
> they did, they couldn't coax that signal (even to
> grunt).
>
> IMO - in heavy iron, they all suck - albeit in
> different ways.
>
>
> Minelab got it all together when they came up with
> the E-trac.
>
> Couldn't disagree more. They took a step
> backwards with the FE12 line. There's magic in
> the Explorer S curves once you understand it.
> They abandoned their loyal customers in favor of
> the detectorist who needs mo' easiness. I still
> hold hope for an Explorer 5 or 6.


i have heard this as well,and if "NOT a s**t storm",and proven to be true,that this is a real eye opener
and made me begin to wonder if in fact there IS a "distinct" advantage to using an e-trac in the junk for deep silver!

(h.h.!)
j.t.

synthnut Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> A lot has to do with the operator and how well
> he/she knows their detector .........Calling both
> detectorists even in knowledge of said machines, I
> would give the nod to the Multi freq machine such
> as the Minelabs if said ground was full of trash
> .....The discrimination settings are better on the
> Minelabs, therefore you don't have to go down to a
> smaller coil to hunt in the trash ....You
> therefore cover more ground with the percentages
> of targets going up ..... You can achieve great
> results with single freq machines, but it will
> take you more time , as you will more than likely
> be running a smaller coil in trashy area's .....
> I hunt NYC parks , and would NEVER go into the
> parks with a single freq machine .....Just about
> everyone I hunt with uses a multi freq in these
> parks .....and on the beaches too for that matter
> .....Beaches are easier on the single freq
> machines in the dry sand , but can't hold a candle
> to multi freqs in the wet .....Jim


yes! but doesn't the slower processor speed of the "trac"
affect your results in heavy trash?.or does the trac just "null" out
on the junk,until it "hits" something "non-'ferrous?..just curious!

(h.h.!)
j.t.

Quote

What's wrong with taking a fine machine and making it easier to understand? Could it be that it took alot of time to understand the "s" curve and you finally understand it, then they come out with a BETTER easier version of an FBS detector and you throw your hands up? Come on.
I must be missing something something here, don't see the logic.

It's really simple - take a gander at target resolution (discerning trash from good targets - which is necessary in a trashy environment) on the Explorer and compare it to the ETrac. Meh, that's the easy one - and I've included visual aids . If I want to dig more holes because of poor target ID, I'dve kept my LTD =) ....maybe, instead take a look at how the simple iron mask works on the Explorer (what it actually masks compared to the E-Trac). They just made it easier while dumbing it down. The kicker is they marketed it with the "smart find" screen, when really it's linear. Why would they do that when they could've eliminated the FE numbers all together since all of the desirable (and trash) targets fall on one line? It was underhanded I say.

Oh, wait there's another.... now to use ferrous sounds, you have to go to a two tone system (vs multi tone). I just don't get it - how this was progress is beyond me.

Use these values: [www.findmall.com] and take a loot at this:

The blue dots are where the trash targets hit, the black dots are the coins, and the red dots are where a tash and coin target hit in the same spot.







Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 07/20/2011 01:22AM by Shambler.

from your chart,it appears that the "explorer' "isolates"
targets better than the e-trac!

(h.h.!)
j.t.

I see what you're saying, now it makes sense. According to the graphs the Explorer is more precise. Less overlapping of coordinates and a better use of the ferrous values. Thanks for the graphs Shambler. I'm looking at the SE in a different light and will dust it off and give another go. One question; which machine is deeper the Exp. SE or the E?