MINELAB MANTICORE: DATA & PERFORMANCE

My hearing is horrid for a 40 yr old. But I do think the Enhanced audio profile sounds scratchy/buzzy like and seems to have a lot less volume to it. It may just be my hearing though. I much prefer Normal and Depth.

Maybe Minelab took Keith Southern's idea of a sonic picture being painted by the detector and made some progress toward making it a reality.

Chris

Ozzie,

Yes, they are wireless...

The "polyphonic" audio is very unique. I don't know how to explain it. I am near certain that two, separate sounds are coming from the headphones, one from the right ear, and one from the left. And USUALLY, they "line up" -- the tone is the same. But, sometimes, the two are slightly different, and so you hear something like, I don't know, and "echo" or "reverb" or something? Those words don't quite describe it. Anyway, some targets, the audio "lines up," and others, it's a bit "different," between the two ears...I don't know. I need time with the unit...

Steve

Daniel Tn Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> My hearing is horrid for a 40 yr old. But I do thi
> nk the Enhanced audio profile sounds scratchy/buzz
> y like and seems to have a lot less volume to it.
> It may just be my hearing though. I much prefer N
> ormal and Depth.


Daniel, I was -- I am 99% sure -- running "normal." I will check. I say "99% sure" because I WAS going to run enhanced, for that first hunt, but as I was setting up my machine the night before the hunt, I switched it to "normal," after one more read-through of the "audio" part of the manual. So, while I need to confirm, I'm 99% sure it was set on "normal."

Yes, these are subtleties that maybe someone with hearing loss may not hear, I'm not sure. It is very "different" and I need some more time on the machine to figure out what I'm hearing, and what it may mean...

Steve

Does anyone know or have heard of a shipment of MC being sent to the US? Was talking with a dealer and he was saying it would now be spring before he might see one????? That can't be true or I hope it's not. I figure a broad spectrum of people will see this and maybe have heard something.

JCR Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Maybe Minelab took Keith Southern's idea of a soni
> c picture being painted by the detector and made s
> ome progress toward making it a reality.


That is a very interesting thought. This is kind of along the lines of what I'm wondering...though I don't recall that conversation where Keith was discussing that. I may be completely off-base, and maybe what I'm hearing has little or no meaning. But I am kind of suspecting that there's something "in there," in the polyphonic audio, to be gleaned...

Steve

Hummm if there is a delay between the first batch ..... are they waiting to see areas they need for an update?

Daniel.... or anyone for that matter who has a pair of Tonys water phones that were used with the Nox. I understand they work on the Manticore. I see their are some differences with the wireless from the Nox..... is there any differences with Tonys phones?

Dew - I have actually just about tore my house apart looking for my set of Tony's headphones for the Nox. I know I have a set but for the life of me, I haven't been able to find them.

dewcon4414 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Hummm if there is a delay between the first batch
> ..... are they waiting to see areas they need for
> an update?
>
> Daniel.... or anyone for that matter who has a pai
> r of Tonys water phones that were used with the No
> x. I understand they work on the Manticore. I se
> e their are some differences with the wireless fro
> m the Nox..... is there any differences with Tonys
> phones?

Hello Dew! I have the Manticore and Tony's earphones that I used constantly on the Nox, and they work just fine on the Manti in and out of the water. I have to say that the ML issued ones are more comfortable and much louder than Tonys. I prefer the MLs but have to use Tonys in the water seeing the others are not waterproof.

Although the audio intel of the Manticore is K.I.S.S..... and made for the novice to understand. , . , . , . , . , . Steve...... you have discovered the finite nuances within the body of the audio. Although the Manticore audio (as with many detectors) is 'Stereo'........ I'm unaware if the two wirelessly-transmitted channels (Left channel..... Right channel) are transmitted as 'independent' sources....... with different data being transmitted to each channel. I run hardwired phones.......and my hearing is below-average.

NASA-Tom Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>. I run hardwired phones.......and my h
> earing is below-average.


Do you have any issues with loud surf with your phones? Or wind noise?
The NOX phones were bad with wind and surf to my hearing.

deleted...double-post...



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/22/2023 03:22AM by steveg.

NASA-Tom Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Although the audio intel of the Manticore is K.I.S
> .S..... and made for the novice to understand. , .
> , . , . , . , . Steve...... you have discovered th
> e finite nuances within the body of the audio. Alt
> hough the Manticore audio (as with many detectors)
> is 'Stereo'........ I'm unaware if the two wireles
> sly-transmitted channels (Left channel..... Right
> channel) are transmitted as 'independent' sources.
> ...... with different data being transmitted to ea
> ch channel. I run hardwired phones.......and my h
> earing is below-average.

NASA-Tom,

Thanks for your reply. It sounds like perhaps you are not sure whether the audio MAY be transmitting separate sounds on the left and right channels. I would have to guess that either they are, or there is something else within the "polyphonic" audio that I am hearing.

There are some songs (a few classic rock songs for sure, which I recall from my younger days, LOL) where when listening to the songs with headphones, you can hear the sound change -- or move -- "spatially" -- gradually -- from left ear to right ear...and then sometimes back again. It's something that is done intentionally by the artists; seems like it was maybe something done more often back during the "psychedelic" era. Meanwhile, listening to the same song a regular "stereo," without much separation in distance between the two speakers, you don't hear this "effect" near as much, if at all.

THIS -- this "spatial movement" of the sound from where it normally resides (i.e. "centered" between the left and right channels), to a place where it is a bit more "biased" toward either the left or right channel, is what I am hearing...similar in a small way to what you can hear in some of the songs to which I am referring.

One such song is Emerson, Lake, and Palmer's "Lucky Man." If you listen to this song, in the included link, WITH HEADPHONES, you'll hear it. At the 3:22 mark, you'll hear a "squeal" type sound, made by synthesizer, slowly move from left ear, gradually left-to-right, and eventually reaching the right ear. Then, BETWEEN 3:41 and 3:43, you hear it move RAPIDLY back and forth between the two ears. This "slow" back and forth, and also "fast" back and forth, repeats at various times through the end of the song -- but only with that synthesizer track. The rest of the music tracks that are playing in conjunction with that synthesizer track, stay "balanced" between left and right channel.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tcdZTmzTYFU

Another great track to listen to, to hear this effect, is Led Zeppelin's "Whole Lotta Love."

At the start of the song, the first thing we hear is Page's guitar; it's almost entirely "left ear," but with some "echo" heard in the right ear. Then, Jones' bass kicks in, at 6 seconds, and the bass track is pretty much "centered..." roughly half left channel, half right channel. Then at 11 seconds, Plant's vocals begin, and they, too, are pretty much centered...half left ear, half right ear. THEN, when the chorus kicks in, at about the 35 second mark, listen closely. Every time the chorus refrain "want a whole lotta love," is sung, that phrase is immediately followed by a screechy scrape of the guitar strings, that lasts about one second each time (it does this four times, during that first chorus). And that screechy sound moves steadily from all left ear, to all right ear. It's like the sound moves from your left ear, through the center of your head, and over to your right ear. THEN, starting at 1:18 for about four seconds (to about 1:22), one of those screechy "string scrapes" does a very slow, drawn-out shift from left ear to right ear, over those four seconds. THEN, that whole left channel to right channel, back and forth, goes "crazy" from 1:42 to 3:02, during the "interlude" portion of the song.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HibBnC6SVk8

I know, I've veered off a bit down a rabbit hole.

BUT -- this, while much more pronounced in these songs, is what I am hearing in the Manticore audio. Most of the time, the sound is "centered" between left channel and right channel. It feels like it is in the "middle of your head." But sometimes, I hear things that are not quite centered...the couple of times I can recall it, it was definitely leaning toward the left ear...

Hmm. I am very, very curious to try and find out if what I am hearing has any MEANING, with respect to target identification.

Steve



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 01/22/2023 03:47AM by steveg.

FloridaSon........ WIND.......... AND.............CRASHING WAVES....,,,,,.....,,,,,,, combined........................ can really stifle most of the detectors audio. I use KOSS QZ-99 hard-wired phones. The earcups knock out almost all external noise. This is critical for MANY hunting applications.

steveg......... I know EXACTLY the stereophonics (in those exact songs) that you are referring to. I can clearly hear it.....in those songs.,.,.,.,., especially whilst wearing headphones. My (somewhat limited) ears are not hearing this.......with the KOSS QZ-99 hardwired phones....... in/with the detector. What is more pronounced is...... the stair-step "warble" of a pair of very close targets that are of differing conductivities.

NASA-Tom,

I will listen for that "stair-step warble" you are talking about.

As for what I'm hearing in the audio, I need more time hunting the machine, and time is hard to come by right now (busy building the next batch of Deus shafts, LOL). BUT -- I'm HOPING I can hear the effect repeat, the next time I hunt. Like I said, I do have seasonal allergies, which -- for me -- sometimes includes ear pressure, and a need to "pop" my ears. At first, I thought maybe that one of my ears needed to "pop," and so I temporarily wasn't hearing as well from that ear (making the audio sound "biased" toward the "non plugged up" ear). BUT, I don't think that was it...

I'll report back, on this, after more experience on the unit.

Has ANYONE else heard this?

Steve



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/22/2023 03:53AM by steveg.

I was playing with the D2 for a few minutes on the patio . . putting coins very close to each other and sweeping. I did hear that stair step warble mentioned by Tom between a nickel and a dime. I've never heard that before with any other machine. It's a sound you have to listen close to. The faster you swing the harder it is to distinguish. The sound seems blended, touching, almost overlapping.

I just received XP's WSAII XL headphones that day and was trying them out when I heard the warble. I don't own the MC to experience what steveg is hearing, very curious though.
I'm just starting to discover the D2's abilities of un-masking in high target high iron ground. It's a mind blower and a lot of fun. I have already dug a 1853 trime and what I believe is a (toasted) English copper penny in machine gun metal targets.This is with the 9" coil and modified fast program in a front yard of a well hunted 1700's building.

This D2 isn't for folks without patients to study the manual and learn by doing. I really had to put aside my laziness with computer type tech and buckle down to learn this unit beyond what I think I'm capable of. I did have to walk away a few times and come back days later to tuff it out. Glad I did. Once I got past that hurdle, I can now dig deeper into the unit to learn all the other options it has in it. Some may be useful, a few may not.

Anyway, this thread is about the Manticore so I apologize for veering off the subject. I am interested in the Manticore's abilities . . . .especially un-masking with depth.

Steve........ NEVER a problem to talk about the Deus-2 (or any other detector).,.,.,.,.,.,., even on a dedicated Manticore thread. Many folks do not like head-to-head testing. I (critically) welcome it..........so we can see what we HAVE done........ what we have NOT done.........what CAN be done........and generate new ideas/thoughts in the engineering booth.

Yes....... a D2 can be used by anyone; yet, for the advanced user...... there's a LOT (of very beneficial things) to learn.,.,.,.,.,. to 'unlock' the next generation of dirt!
This also goes for Manticore.........as to be expected.

One of the (thousands of) crazy things that I do in real-World......is......... I'll hunt a trashed-out valuable site with Recovery Speed on '2'. Then I'll hunt the exact same trashed-out site with Recovery Speed on '5'. (((This is with Manticore & EQX 800 & 900))). ALL other settings are the same. ONLY Recovery Speed is altered (tested).
Many times....... the results are NOT "as expected". This is "WHY" there is legitimate justification in testimony as to my teaching/conveying/imparting settings of what many detectorists would think are "too slow" Recovery Speeds. As ""trashed-out"" as some of these sites are........ you would automatically think a TRR of '5' would be MUCH MUCH better than a TRR of '2'. BUT: Many targets become too weak for the microprocessor to report a good audio report (if even: at all !!!) on a certain target with a speed of 5....even though adjacent target separation is better; yet, with a Recovery Speed of '2'...... yes, the audio report is blurry and (I call it): constipated....... but loud-and-audibly-detectable for the human ear to discern.

Then.......... you have a somewhat unexpected, incongruent-with-common-sense-thoughts.........discoveries........ in a wet-salt beach environment. It would appear that a Recovery Speed of '0' would be "best" for the beach..........because.........best depth AND sensitivity is achieved with a Recovery Speed of '0'...........and.........targets are very few (and far in-between) on the wet-salt beach. BUT......... a (somewhat unsuspecting) condition(s) comes-into-play. There is a symbiotic electronic harmonious quiescence between the WET-SALT...........and..............the detectors ELECTRONICS ....... that MUST "play nicely together".......... in a 'balanced' fashion.........(((electronically and.... unsuspectingly))). With the Manticore........ in most wet-salt beach environments around the World...... a Recovery Speed of '4'........ is the correct 'balance'. And: The depth that you lose with this faster Recovery Speed of '4'....... can be (almost exactly) made up with allowable Sensitivity increase........due to PROPER balance between wet-salt......and......electronics......that presents greater stability (((hence; the 'allowable' increase in Sensivity))).
I seem to recall on the Deus-2..... this 'balance' was with a Recovery (Reactivity) Speed of 1.5.

[[[[[ Now that I've lost just about everyone; I'll just shut-up!!!! ]]]]]



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/22/2023 03:38PM by NASA-Tom.

NASA-Tom Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> FloridaSon........ WIND.......... AND.............
> CRASHING WAVES....,,,,,.....,,,,,,, combined......
> .................. can really stifle most of the d
> etectors audio. I use KOSS QZ-99 hard-wired phones
> . The earcups knock out almost all external noise.
> This is critical for MANY hunting applications.
>


Exactly the info I needed! Thanks once more Tom.
It is appreciated!

NASA-Tom Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> FloridaSon........ WIND.......... AND.............
> CRASHING WAVES....,,,,,.....,,,,,,, combined......
> .................. can really stifle most of the d
> etectors audio. I use KOSS QZ-99 hard-wired phones
> . The earcups knock out almost all external noise.
> This is critical for MANY hunting applications.
>

Tom, I've used KOSS QZ-99 headphones for well over 20 years. The passive noise reduction is a key factor...

NASA-Tom Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> One of the (thousands of) crazy things that I do i
> n real-World......is......... I'll hunt a trashed-
> out valuable site with Recovery Speed on '2'. Then
> I'll hunt the exact same trashed-out site with Rec
> overy Speed on '5'. (((This is with Manticore & EQ
> X 800 & 900))). ALL other settings are the same. O
> NLY Recovery Speed is altered (tested).
> Many times....... the results are NOT "as expected
> ". This is "WHY" there is legitimate justification
> in testimony as to my teaching/conveying/imparting
> settings of what many detectorists would think are
> "too slow" Recovery Speeds. As ""trashed-out"" as
> some of these sites are........ you would automati
> cally think a TRR of '5' would be MUCH MUCH better
> than a TRR of '2'. BUT: Many targets become too we
> ak for the microprocessor to report a good audio r
> eport (if even: at all !!!) on a certain target wi
> th a speed of 5....even though adjacent target sep
> aration is better; yet, with a Recovery Speed of '
> 2'...... yes, the audio report is blurry and (I ca
> ll it): constipated....... but loud-and-audibly-de
> tectable for the human ear to discern.
>
> Then.......... you have a somewhat unexpected, inc
> ongruent-with-common-sense-thoughts.........discov
> eries........ in a wet-salt beach environment. It
> would appear that a Recovery Speed of '0' would be
> "best" for the beach..........because.........best
> depth AND sensitivity is achieved with a Recovery
> Speed of '0'...........and.........targets are ver
> y few (and far in-between) on the wet-salt beach.
> BUT......... a (somewhat unsuspecting) condition(s
> ) comes-into-play. There is a symbiotic electronic
> harmonious quiescence between the WET-SALT........
> ...and..............the detectors ELECTRONICS ....
> ... that MUST "play nicely together".......... in
> a 'balanced' fashion.........(((electronically and
> .... unsuspectingly))). With the Manticore.......
> . in most wet-salt beach environments around the W
> orld...... a Recovery Speed of '4'........ is the
> correct 'balance'. And: The depth that you lose wi
> th this faster Recovery Speed of '4'....... can be
> (almost exactly) made up with allowable Sensitivit
> y increase........due to PROPER balance between we
> t-salt......and......electronics......that present
> s greater stability (((hence; the 'allowable' incr
> ease in Sensivity))).
> I seem to recall on the Deus-2..... this 'balance'
> was with a Recovery (Reactivity) Speed of 1.5.
>
> [[[[[ Now that I've lost just about everyone; I'll
> just shut-up!!!! ]]]]]


NASA-Tom,

Please do not "shut up!" I find this very interesting. I may not UNDERSTAND how the interplay of wet salt sand and the electronics occurs, such the electronics are more "happy" with some TRR settings, than others. BUT -- the IDEA that there is a setting where the machine is electronically "most happy," and "quiescent" seems logical (even that I don't entirely understand the "why" of it). I know you have called it "max Q" before...

So, you say that for wet salt sand, TRR 4 on the MC achieves "max Q." BUT, for DIRT/TURF hunters, meanwhile, I think you mentioned at one point that TRR 3 is the best setting with the EQX 600/800 (in most cases) to achieve "max Q," and that on the Manticore it is at TRR 2. BUT, I think you ALSO said that if the soil is highly mineralized, a TRR of 3 on MC is "better."

Is my understanding of those TRR settings (EQX, and MC) correct, for dirt hunters? Am I recalling your statements correctly?

If so, then two questions.

1. is there anything that one can discern (maybe in the audio) which would REVEAL that your machine is set at a TRR setting that is NOT allowing the machine to achieve that harmonious "quiescence," or is it something that you just have to "know," from an engineering standpoint?

2. That first question then leads to this second one, which is why "max Q" is affected by the GROUND? The reason I ask is, I have learned to discern, audibly, that my machine needs to be ground balanced, when I start hearing what I believe is "ground mineral noise," which I would describe as a soft "wub, wub, wubwub, wub, wubwubwub web" ferrous-toned noise in the audio. I used to presume that this "ferrous noise" was usually "rust flakes" in the soil, but now believe that often it is the "ground mineral noise" that I have heard others talk about, that you will hear when your machine is slightly out-of-balance, instead of being actual small decomposed iron/rust particles. But, it seems like, if I understand correctly, that soil mineral -- even if properly "dealt with" via good ground balance, is STILL having this "other" effect on the "happiness" of the machine with respect to the "max Q" idea?

Further, I know that in the past, you have said that if soil mineral is high, raising TRR will possibly assist detection of desired targets because the higher TRR results in the unit "seeing less mineral," due to the shorter-duration "snapshots" of the ground (in a way that is somewhat analogous, though in a "volume" sense, as opposed to a "time" sense, as to how using a smaller coil also results in the unit "seeing" less dirt, and thus less mineral). So, is this "rule of thumb" that I have in my head, about how one might sometimes need to "raise TRR to deal with high mineralization" the same thing as "trying to achieve max Q?" Or no?

Steve

Two more rings today. 14k plain wedding band and a non stamped ring...I'm thinking stainless but not sure. Manticore is a ring finder for sure. But I've about tapped out my spots for the year. Time to swap gears and see how this thing does relic hunting.

Another gold ring, Daniel? TERRIFIC!

Steve

steveg Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> NASA-Tom Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Although the audio intel of the Manticore is K.I
> .S
> > .S..... and made for the novice to understand. ,
> .
> > , . , . , . , . Steve...... you have discovered
> th
> > e finite nuances within the body of the audio. A
> lt
> > hough the Manticore audio (as with many detector
> s)
> > is 'Stereo'........ I'm unaware if the two wirel
> es
> > sly-transmitted channels (Left channel..... Righ
> t
> > channel) are transmitted as 'independent' source
> s.
> > ...... with different data being transmitted to
> ea
> > ch channel. I run hardwired phones.......and my
> h
> > earing is below-average.
>
> NASA-Tom,
>
> Thanks for your reply. It sounds like perhaps you
> are not sure whether the audio MAY be transmitting
> separate sounds on the left and right channels. I
> would have to guess that either they are, or there
> is something else within the "polyphonic" audio th
> at I am hearing.
>
> There are some songs (a few classic rock songs for
> sure, which I recall from my younger days, LOL) wh
> ere when listening to the songs with headphones, y
> ou can hear the sound change -- or move -- "spatia
> lly" -- gradually -- from left ear to right ear...
> and then sometimes back again. It's something tha
> t is done intentionally by the artists; seems like
> it was maybe something done more often back during
> the "psychedelic" era. Meanwhile, listening to th
> e same song a regular "stereo," without much separ
> ation in distance between the two speakers, you do
> n't hear this "effect" near as much, if at all.
>
> THIS -- this "spatial movement" of the sound from
> where it normally resides (i.e. "centered" between
> the left and right channels), to a place where it
> is a bit more "biased" toward either the left or r
> ight channel, is what I am hearing...similar in a
> small way to what you can hear in some of the song
> s to which I am referring.
>
> One such song is Emerson, Lake, and Palmer's "Luck
> y Man." If you listen to this song, in the includ
> ed link, WITH HEADPHONES, you'll hear it. At the
> 3:22 mark, you'll hear a "squeal" type sound, made
> by synthesizer, slowly move from left ear, gradual
> ly left-to-right, and eventually reaching the righ
> t ear. Then, BETWEEN 3:41 and 3:43, you hear it m
> ove RAPIDLY back and forth between the two ears.
> This "slow" back and forth, and also "fast" back a
> nd forth, repeats at various times through the end
> of the song -- but only with that synthesizer trac
> k. The rest of the music tracks that are playing
> in conjunction with that synthesizer track, stay "
> balanced" between left and right channel.
>
> h
> ttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tcdZTmzTYFU
>
> Another great track to listen to, to hear this eff
> ect, is Led Zeppelin's "Whole Lotta Love."
>
> At the start of the song, the first thing we hear
> is Page's guitar; it's almost entirely "left ear,"
> but with some "echo" heard in the right ear. Then
> , Jones' bass kicks in, at 6 seconds, and the bass
> track is pretty much "centered..." roughly half le
> ft channel, half right channel. Then at 11 second
> s, Plant's vocals begin, and they, too, are pretty
> much centered...half left ear, half right ear. TH
> EN, when the chorus kicks in, at about the 35 seco
> nd mark, listen closely. Every time the chorus re
> frain "want a whole lotta love," is sung, that phr
> ase is immediately followed by a screechy scrape o
> f the guitar strings, that lasts about one second
> each time (it does this four times, during that fi
> rst chorus). And that screechy sound moves steadi
> ly from all left ear, to all right ear. It's like
> the sound moves from your left ear, through the ce
> nter of your head, and over to your right ear. TH
> EN, starting at 1:18 for about four seconds (to ab
> out 1:22), one of those screechy "string scrapes"
> does a very slow, drawn-out shift from left ear to
> right ear, over those four seconds. THEN, that wh
> ole left channel to right channel, back and forth,
> goes "crazy" from 1:42 to 3:02, during the "interl
> ude" portion of the song.
>
> h
> ttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HibBnC6SVk8
>
> I know, I've veered off a bit down a rabbit hole.
>
> BUT -- this, while much more pronounced in these s
> ongs, is what I am hearing in the Manticore audio.
> Most of the time, the sound is "centered" between
> left channel and right channel. It feels like it
> is in the "middle of your head." But sometimes, I
> hear things that are not quite centered...the coup
> le of times I can recall it, it was definitely lea
> ning toward the left ear...
>
> Hmm. I am very, very curious to try and find out
> if what I am hearing has any MEANING, with respect
> to target identification.
>
> Steve

I have been VERY fortunate to hunt with the Original Black Widow headphones with Audio Sear speakers, for many years.

-28 Db on outside ambient noise and some of the sweetest tones ever. Separates the men from the boys!

midalake -- have you heard any of what I'm describing, i.e. on some targets, audio that ever so slightly "favors" either the left or right channel, instead of being "centered?"

Steve

steveg Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> midalake -- have you heard any of what I'm describ
> ing, i.e. on some targets, audio that ever so slig
> htly "favors" either the left or right channel, in
> stead of being "centered?"
>
> Steve

I have a solid 20% hearing loss in one ear. On the Equinox and D2 no issues. No Manticore yet.

I am behind with this thread! Let me 'start' to catch up.

Daniel......... if you have a rare-Earth magnet....,,,,,,......,,,,,,take it to your non-gold ring. If it lightly 'sticks' to the magnet.......... the ring is Stainless Steel.

steveg......... Absolutely! I may not have the time to fully elaborate on each of your individual topics; yet, your numbers are reflected/remembered correctly.
With EQX....... here in low-mineralization Florida....... I use a Target Recovery Response speed of '2'. Same with Manticore. It provides the greatest depth........with the least amount of audio 'smear'. Vast wilderness areas where you may go a full minute without the detection of one target........ I will use a TRR of '1' on EQX.........and even dabble into a Recovery Speed of '0' on the Manticore. This provides ABSOLUTE MAXIMUM DETECTION DEPTH........... with somewhat (mild) reduced intelligible 'audio clarity'.
Sooooooooooo................... for YOUR ""INDIVIDUAL"" specific conditions. , . , . , . , . , . How do you find max-Quiescence (max-Q) for your = Electronics........VS........dirt/conditions. It does NOT require a "Design Engineer" level-of-understanding. It requires the "intuitive-skillset-of-awareness"....... of "how" the detector is CHATTING. --It IS telling you. --It IS talking to you. --Can you "sense" it. ---------What it all boils down to is: smooth AND "clear/intelligible" audible reporting. If your detector is: whaba, whaba, whooo, whooo audio feedback. There may be a out-of-whack Ground Balance issue. Same with high-tone blurry hums. And if Ground Balance can't correct it; change to a different Recovery Speed............(usually a slight bump higher).................which THEN gives a new set of adjustable parameters to Ground Balance.
Here in low-mineralization Florida: I only/merely have to contend with finding max-Q Recovery Speed for trashy sites.,.,.,.,., and NOT for mineralization. Which means:
Testing different Recovery/Reactivity Speeds on ONE SPECIFIC target (at a time) in the real-World. A N D................. what I have discovered (((without the variable of mineralized dirt))) is...... it is always max-Q somewhere between (never lower than) '2'........and (never higher than) '5'....... in trashy environments. It is somewhat amazing to be swinging the coil over one specific target.......and incrementally change the Recovery Speed........and CLEARLY hear what happens to the masked/handicapped target-of-interest. What is NOT intuitive.....is: MANY times....a lower speed will 'resolve' a handicapped/masked target....to better audio resolution. This is not always the case; yet, it certainly happens a lot! DEPTH has a lot to do with this physics equation! Here in Florida.......most targets are deep. If a faster speed would normally help separate and audibly 'resolve' ..........; yet, due to the deeper depths.,.,.,.,.,.,.,., the target becomes NO LONGER DETECTABLE....... due to faster Recovery Speeds killing depth; hence, lending the 'win' to deeper/lower Recovery Speeds.
Even with all of the (above) said; I have never found a Recovery Speed above '5'...... to enhance detectability of any target(s) ......in the real-World. (((Envelop EM-footprint has already "saturated"))).
In a test-garden...... with a bunch of closely-spaced targets (on the same 2D plane)........... a maximum Recovery Speed can make for: awesome videos. (((And awesome: Marketing))).

Disregard



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/23/2023 04:53PM by FloridaSon.

Disregard



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/23/2023 04:54PM by FloridaSon.

Duplicate answer



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/23/2023 04:52PM by FloridaSon.

Some nice info you provided Mr Dankowsi. I see this a lot. And even the screen trace bears this out at times depending. Meaning slower yields better trace vs faster TRR. I don't know true blue answer to this question. Wonder what depth a nonferrous (masked) target - coin sized- has to get to before faster speeds actually become handicapped (or nonperforming) ?