But there is no joy in Mudville — mighty Casey has struck out.

Ok the title to this thread may be a bit of an overstatement but for some reason these are the words that came to my mind when I watched a video today done by dirtfishing on you tube.

After all the hipe and negatives and positives we have all been waiting for some real world testing - well here it is!

The title is "Etrac vs CTX3030 -sorry could not figure out how to get the link on my iPad

Take a look and tell me what comes to your mind when you see it.

But there is no joy in Mudville — mighty Casey has struck out.

Bryanna

Here ya go B.....

[www.youtube.com]

Tom in SC

Thanks for the link. this is how it works in the real world.

What comes to my mind first, is the saying " If it sounds too good to be true, it usually is ".
I'd like to see different settings/tweaking before a conclusion though.

I posted this in the other thread as the video was posted there too:

A couple of things:

1. The CTX after rewatching with video a few times CLEARLY hit the coin better from that one angle. More of a consistent 2 way hit, E-Trac was sometimes a two way but didn't sound as good.

2. I don't give much credence on a freshly buried target test IF the detector is FBS. Fast recovery speed machines do well on these tests, like my Jupiter. FBS machines don't. Too much comparison in the field on real targets to say otherwise.

It is a start. But the one REAL WORLD test is an actual target that has been in the ground for years (naturally) and cross checked with two or more different machines. NOT a freshly buried one imo.

Albert

This is only one test w/ freshly buried targets. I have been hearing reports that people are finding the difference between these two detectors to not be that great. I read on report where a guy said that he goes by the tones instead of using the target trace feature. It seems he is old school and realizes detecting is still by sound. Who would have thunk it?

The ability to move the ferrous line and assign tones to blocks are wonderful features. Two things that E trac owners asked for since the beginning. Also the waterproof feature.

I don't have the detector, but I'm sure other features will stick out as being great.

But for the price of this detector I am starting to question the smoke and mirrors just a little bit.

I feel it is our duty to make sure that these detector manufacturers give us what we want for the prices they charge.

I said since the beginning that it will boil down to FBS2 and Smartfind2. I will wait for more comparisons.

Albert - did not notice it in another thread - oops.

I agree that this is one test, and not a make it or break it type of thing. But with all the new toy hype this was the first shot of realism that maybe the CTX3030 is not a quantum leap in technology but more of next step on the eveolution scale.

Maybe a little salt water in the hole would be helpful. Based on how he placed the coin and the nail I think most of us on this site could of predicted with great accuracy what the result would be - across the nail masked - parallel to the nail a peep in at least one direction. I can not say I noticed the CTX30330 getting it in both directions so I will watch it again - I guess that means the CTX3030 does have faster recovery.

Not sure but I would have to assume that the CTX uses similar noise canceling as the Etrac. It would then be nice to make sure they are both on the same channel since it does change how they respond to conductive targets. Along the same lines Dirtfishing assumed 22 manual on the Etrac was similar in power to 22 manual on the CTX3030 I think that is a save assumption but not sure it is.

Last I would like to applaud Dirtfishing for at least trying to get a subjective comparison between the new king of the hill and his older brother - thanks Dirtfishing

Anxiously awaiting the next shot of realism - maybe the next one Casey will at least get a base hit.

Bryannagirl - Yeah, it's nice to have some testing and Dirtfishing often is helpful there. But we can't place too much weight on freshly burried targets with FBS machines, that was really my point. I mean I'm going to do the unmasking and recovery speed tests like I did with my Jupiter, but I don't think the CTX can come close to it. And yet the CTX will one day hopefully be my main machine.

When I said the CTX got it from two directions, I meant on same plane (not to be confused with 4 directions). The E-Trac didn't hit it as well. And yes, I didn't expect either to get it with the nail running in the direction of the swing. That would have been a major breakthrough! I did bury a coin as Mark suggested a few weeks ago at 6", added salt water (1 teaspoon in a cup) and added 3" of dirt, a 2" rusty square nail, another cup of salt water and buried it. The Jupiter wouldn't hit the coin at all - no shock there. We'll let it sit a while and I'll go back when I get a CTX. (Got the whole process on video btw.)

I don't think the CTX is a huge breakthrough in technology but time and the forums will tell ;-) . I do think the target trace feature can be very nice though, not sure if I'd call it a huge breakthrough, time will tell. It is a nice idea for sure. I even suggested a couple of years back to do something similar - have the VID's stay on the screen for each sweep. That way you can see all the VID's without having to isolate one target. I really like the idea of combined tones and love color screens (to be honest ;-)

There are plenty of spots with deeper coins still out there. We just need someone with both machines to compare signals. Would also be nice to see against a Deus or the like.

Great point regarding Noice Cancel channels. I don't know if they are the same or not between machines, but at least doing a noise cancel with each first would even things out a bit.

Albert

Too soon to tell and lets give it some time for feedback to start rolling in..

The way I look at it takes 3 strikes to strike out and heck we are only on strike one if that and might just be stepping into the batters box...

AHA! So it *appears* it couldn't get it with the nail at a 90 degree relation to the DD detection line. When they are parallel (the nail and the DD line) any machine with a good DD coil can see a coin with a nail directly on top of it. That supports my theory about multiple targets at once under the coil. Sure looking like that 2nd ID is just a prior target history to me. Since 99.9% of us only hunt by sound, and then only look at the screen when something interests us, I see no need for that feature. Detecting requires coil movement, and thus you wiggle over two close targets and note each's ID individualy on the screen. I had a 6000 Pro XL which of course didn't have tone alerts. As a result I had to watch the meter constantly while working through trash. After about ten minutes that got real old real quick, not to mention a stiff neck and poor coil control when your eyes are stuck on a screen. Thus far (that of course could change, and has to for me to spend that kind of money) I'm still seeing nothing new here, which confirms that laws of physics thing about detection fields only really seeing one object at a time, especially when they are at different depths. All I've ever read tells me they have to be seen one from the other distinctly and not in the field at the same time, and for that reason a sharper stick still should win. As said, why the need for a 6" coil on this machine then if it really was some breakthrough in "double sensing" target technology as such.

Other factors have to be quantified if it has "seems like" better ability at a certain angle to see that coin. As you said, the very channels noise cancel was on can alter those results. What about discrimination levels of both machines, sensitivity levels, trash densitity settings, and so on and so on. It all has to be matched, because any little thing (including choice in headphones or volume level) can make one appear to give *slightly* better results like that than the other. Exacting angles of sweep are also of primary importance, not to mention sweep speed and even the very fact of coil height...As it's easier to separate targets with a higher coil height by using the sharper detection field towards it's end.

This is of course only an initial test and nothing can be comfirmed one way or the other, even about any ability to see two targets at a time under the coil, but thus far it's at least minimal evidence to support what I suspected about the 2nd ID being little more than a prior target history. I await more tests eagerly, with wallet in hand.



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 06/02/2012 06:02PM by critterhunter.

I am cautiously optimistic. I find it hard to believe it is not better then an Etrac on just raw detecting other features ignored. But the question is by how much and in what situations.

On multiple target info in one sweep well white's has had that feature for a first with the Eagle Spectrum then the XLT and DFX not sure if the V3 had this or not. It was a vertical bar graph the showed all the identified targets in a sweep. You could adjust persistance based on how many swings worth you wanted to see. If you got a lot of bars then they called it a smear an most likey it was trash a few bars in the right area was a good target.

I am finding myself longing for a fast sweep machine. I seem to have a location that would love an F75ltd. I wonder if the CTX would let you cover ground as fast as an F75ltd user can.

I am pretty sure the CTX will not strike out but I am beginning to think it will not get a home run either.

Both machines seem about a dead heat on the target...but both are poor performer's on this target...not because the machines are poor performers...it's because of the setting used to try and locate the coin...

I and other's could take a Tejon and hit that target from almost any angle with a nice diggable response...Why becasue I/other's would be using just nail reject ...this guy has both machines set up to reject an awful lot of iron...

The proper way to unmask in a setting like this is to open the screen up and learn your tone's...yes the nail will be heard but the slightly different tone for the coin will slide in also...

The etrac and other's with the proper range of low end discrimination can hit such target's...they may not read as a what you consider a text book diggable signal but they can hit them...It's when you close that nail coin gap closer is when alot of machine's become dead and you have to find that niche machine..

I run an explorer wide open nothing disced and just listen for blips that seem different than the constant nail tone's...the explorer would hit thatand alot of other's...but add too much disc and it's not going to happen...



Again theres no magic detectors they all operate off the same principals...The etracs explorers are slow to process ..not that they wont unmask but only to a certain degree...then fast response quck shutdown narrow detection fields and razor edge disc settings come into play...


I have seen it too many times...I hold the explorer in high esteem but it will not unmask as well as some other offering's in dense iron..

Most modern machines are about equal in alot of aspect's....Most mdern designs are very good detector's....it's when you want to take thing's to the extremes that a niche detector is going to be required...then a certain perecentage more target's will be found ..not earth shattering but a few more item's...

An Explorer will get a few target's at depth over other discrimintaing mode detectors if the ground is mineralized....but still wont I.D. properly...
An XP machine and few other's will get a few more target's out of iron over other detector's but wont i.d. those target's properly...

Both machine's can be ran tamed and they both are going to be about equal... the differences come from they're forte design which is completely opposite each other....

I see the 3030 as a waterproof FBS with a GPS and better ergonmic's...hopefully a little better separation without sacraficing depth ...but the I.D.s in the extreme areas are like anything else use your ear not the screen...It's a nice selling feature though...And might work to a persons advantage who uses alot of discrimination ...

You have to look at the designer's of metal detector's and the way they look at the hobbyist....Then you will see why they produce the machine's they do...They gotta make money so appeal to the biggest percentage of user's..not the smallest percentage which is the ones like us who want more.....

Why do I care if I can see 2 target's on a screen at the same time... as long as I can here both thats all I need..


One thing more for an example....

I hunted with some guys one time in a early Andrew Jackson camp here in GA..it was an 1814 site/Wheeler confederate cavalry 1864 site....they hit it about an hour then left out walking looking for a new site...I stayed behind because I was having fun digging in there...They got some nice stuff there when the first hit it weeks before but told me it was dead and was moving on...

Well to make along story short 67 buttons later and 5 period coins later along with 2 spur's flintlock plates brass flag staff etc etc...I ended up with more than they got on their first hunt's in there...Why....Because both of them ran the disc on their White's 6000's to high and watched a meter for good hit's...
I used a bandido 2 yes it was in 1994 ...but kept the disc on zero which is right above nail....

That reminds me I need to go back with a better low end Disc range we now have...LOL!!!

Keith

The CTX right out of the box with the stock programs are equal to the Etrac. Depth, response, sweep speed. It gives you the ability to change a lot more settings than the Etrac to give you that added plus.
Depth will never be greater than the Etrac, but with some adjustments, the response will be better. I like being able to do a ground balance on the unit. I do not remember the Etrac having this option. The ability to change tones and set them to a specific Target range is a plus. Target trace will allow you to see more than one target. My first target was trash as it was hitting the same as a gold ring and I could not pass it by. the second target was a 1938 wheat in heavy iron . I had to work slow to pull it out but it was there. Sweep speed needs to be very slow, same as Etrac in trashy areas. The null seems to recover faster than the Etrac which is also a plus. Depth readings are dead on. I will continue to hunt with stock settings for a while and then I will
start to mod them to fit my learning curve. Each stock program has two discrimination patterns assigned to it. A simple push of the detect button switches between the patterns. It helps when checking those iffy signals.

So far so good, weight is ok when swinging the unit but when just carrying it to the site, you can tell you have 5 lbs in your hand.

Tom in SC

Tom, is there any improvement in the audio response of co-located targets, either adjacent or partially masked, CTX vs. the eTrac, when using one of the new modes of the CTX?

go-rebels Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Tom, is there any improvement in the audio
> response of co-located targets, either adjacent or
> partially masked, CTX vs. the eTrac, when using
> one of the new modes of the CTX?


It is better. I remember that with the Etrac, I could place a iron nail only about 14 inches away from a coin and be able to pickup both targets. If using the relic mode , the response is a lot quicker. But if you discriminate the nail out, then it still takes some time, but not as much for the threshold to recover. that is the big reason you have to swing slow in heavy trash. With target trace, you can pickup both targets and they will be shown
on the FE-CO graph.I only have a couple of hours on the unit but I had the Etrac for over a year. Some of the setup is a lot like the Etrac.

Tom in SC

Here is a video showing two targets and how they ID. He explains in the video..

[www.youtube.com]

Tom in SC

Tom,

That is a really interesting video. I don't get how the visual circuitry is ahead of the audio circuitry???
I asked him how his other machines hit on that target...

Wonder what his setting were and if ferrous coin would have helped.

Now, to be honest, even though I am searching for a CTX, I don't like the idea of looking at the screen before hearing anything. I am a tone hunter first, by far, but used the screen on the E-Trac extensively when invistigating targets further (loved those bounces in my iron mineralized soil - which should get interesting with that target trace feature.)

Albert

Albert, I am the same when it comes to tones. But once a tone gets my attention, only then do I start looking at the display. Now that I am getting Just a little bit older, I have to wear reading glasses to see the display
and I hate that.......lol

Tom in SC

Here is another good video showing the abilities of the CTX.

[www.youtube.com]

Tom in SC

Morning Tom. Thanks for the post. I'm curious, with the ability to associate 4 tones across the entire conductive range, and the ability to associate all ferrous values, user defined line drawn in the sand, as a "garbage pail" with it's own distinctive tone, why would someone want to mix in discrim(blacked out coordinates) beyond this "tonal" discrim? I understand ear fatigue, but I would think this would offer the most speed avail the machine had to offer and still alert the user of everything in the ground, as absolutely no null time would be encountered.

I really wanted this ability on my ET's. It had this, but only across the Ferrous coordinates, and I found that ET's are pretty solid once locking into a target's conductive properties, but ferrous would be more subject to jumpiness, and therefore running in this mode would be to erratic for tone hunting.

Therefore, in my mind, I see this ability to chunk up the conductive ranges is this new machines major selling point.

Randy, no Minelab pro by any means...

tmanly Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The CTX right out of the box with the stock
> programs are equal to the Etrac. Depth, response,
> sweep speed. It gives you the ability to change a
> lot more settings than the Etrac to give you that

> added plus.
> Depth will never be greater than the Etrac, but
> with some adjustments, the response will be
> better. I like being able to do a ground balance
> on the unit. I do not remember the Etrac having
> this option. The ability to change tones and set
> them to a specific Target range is a plus. Target
> trace will allow you to see more than one target.
> My first target was trash as it was hitting the
> same as a gold ring and I could not pass it by.
> the second target was a 1938 wheat in heavy iron .
> I had to work slow to pull it out but it was
> there. Sweep speed needs to be very slow, same as
> Etrac in trashy areas. The null seems to recover
> faster than the Etrac which is also a plus. Depth
> readings are dead on. I will continue to hunt with
> stock settings for a while and then I will
> start to mod them to fit my learning curve. Each
> stock program has two discrimination patterns
> assigned to it. A simple push of the detect button
> switches between the patterns. It helps when
> checking those iffy signals.
>
> So far so good, weight is ok when swinging the
> unit but when just carrying it to the site, you
> can tell you have 5 lbs in your hand.
>
> Tom in SC

Keith,
And yet another hugely educational post!

Randy

Tom,
That vid is interesting. I swear that good target gives a good audible when heavy discrim is used where no discrim only gives audio on the iron target. Maybe they've better dialed in their audio used in discrimination, as my ET would have bled in the nail's audio, even though I clearly had blocked out the bad, with the coin's audio forcing me to jump into quick mask to sort it out.
Have you noticed iron bleeding into audio when you have clearly discrimed out the coordinates of said iron?

Thanks - Randy

This is a good vid, confirming what I was afraid of. I'm not going to generally be watching the screen to ascertain the additional nformation needed to further examine an iron signal. I'd hear the iron and move on.

I don't understand why ML didn't create a mode to emit good audio to correlate with the good video.

The FBS2 appears to be a VDI improvement only.

I'll pass...

I'm still waiting to see what else was in the hole! I wonder how many coin spills this guy left in the ground.

I hear Minelab is going to be able to do software updates to the machine online via the USB port. If that's true, then perhaps they offer a software upgrade so that you'll hear the prior secondary target ID's audio when you pass over it?

Go-Rebels - It certainly is strange to have a target appear on the screen and not hear it on audio. Judging by the reports though, it is still better than an E-Trac on the screen AND audio - much clearer, harder hitting and more descriptive (I have been told - need to try one out though to substantiate that.) I think what critterhunter said is to be expected if at all possible. It does seem like the screen might bring some new twists to detecting, but I definitely don't like looking at the screen until I hit a target. I could deal with it in some small areas of heavy iron, but not in general.

Albert

Earth, the proof is in the pudding and that first vid showed me nothing that would have got me to stop and examine further. The audio may be "much clearer, harder hitting and more descriptive", but it was an iron audio, nothing more.

It was often written on the Finds:Etrac forum that ML didn't want to engineer an option to update the firmware because they risked losing the sorce code, and all their secrets. I don't buy it; it's compiled machine code so there's no way to 'decompile' it to generate the source code. Second, nearly every other modern electronic hardware that hooks to a computer via a USB cable offers that option. But can you imagine the sales from a CTX-3035 with 'enhanced' software? Maybe with improved audio that would allow you to actually hear the coin you can see today. Roll it out over a month or so; recruit some expert testers that can't find a single fault with it. Weight? 6.1 lb.

Now the naysayers would be served some crow...

I saw on the ML owners site that someone said owning a CTX is like having an ET on a good day. Gordon Heritage said the Audio is totally different.... cleaner clearer and just better! If you drop the threshold pitch, you just drop the threshold pitch (not everything's pitch). Tone ID profiles are 10 times better, you can modify everything. Does the CTX have the ability to MANUALLY SET the GB? I believe we may get our best reports from those that barrow one from a friend. I thought it was funny that one guys said the long time ML Owners werent going to buy one.... but Americans and the new guys were. Apparently we aint the only ones that feel the price is to high. They have some interesting posts on the CTX.

Dew