Here is a "for example" thought:

((( Assuming about the same conductivity....... ---not that this portion really matters!--- )))

Is there a O-Scope trace signature delta/difference between a:

.54-Caliber lead Musket Ball
.54-Caliber aluminum ball of chewing gum foil

NASA-Tom,

I don't know enough about Oscilloscopes to know, but I would have to think there would be. That musket ball vs. ball of foil example is a very good one. Same thing between a rectangular tab, and a men's gold wedding ring. I would absolutely expect them to behave different, electrically.

My wedding ring registers 19 on the Equinox, in an air test. There are 2 or 3 different varieties of OLD rectangular tabs (a style that is no longer used, one which does not have a hole in the "tab" end) that registers EXACTLY like my wedding ring, both sound-wise, and VDI-wise. These same tabs register EXACTLY like my wedding ring on FBS units, also. I have worked REALLY hard to try to find some subtle hint or clue in the audio that, despite both targets being the same VDI, might allow a tiny bit of skilled differentiation between the two, and I simply cannot hear any such nuance. BUT -- obviously, there is a clear, substantial density difference between the two. I would love to think that some technology could be incorporated into a detector, such that this density difference could be at least "hinted at," with some degree of accuracy. Even if it reduced the pull-tab-to-gold-ring ratio in a trashy park from, say, 1000 to 1 (or whatever it is) down to something like, say, 50 to 1, that would be a monumental leap forward. It would allow us "dirt hunters" to actually focus on digging gold rings, and to do so with at least some hope of finding such rings, before tiring out after a pouch full of hundreds of pull tabs!

Steve

Steve....... on most any flavor detector: The "audio" is the MASTER ........and the "VDI" is the SLAVE. Never once will the 'slave' NOT track the 'master'. ((((Actually......... there's something else in the electronics of detectors in final signal processing... that is MASTER....,,,,,,.......,,,,,,.......and the audio AND VDI (ID) are both SLAVES)))).

On a O-Scope........ a lead musket ball is presented by a very 'clear' trace.....that is very 'solid' ......well defined.
On a O-Scope........ a ball of foil of the same size is presented via a 'smeared' (blurry) trace.......(((especially the outer circumferential edges of the trace))).

I think you need to put down your high dollar multi-freq units and spend a little time with some of the older models that do allow you to hear the pre-post amble density sounds.....

Go find yourself a Golden Sabre II and hunt it for about 4 hours in high alum trash sites to train your ear. There is a reason I still own one of of these, and it for the exact reason you are describing. You can hear the pre-post amble of the target.

For that matter, go get a cheap Bounty Hunter Tracker IV and do the same thing. It does it even better sometimes.

The main drawback of these old units that have that master audio is they have very limited depth. But you can darn sure hear the trash as trash.

HH
Mike



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/06/2022 03:13PM by Mike_Hillis.

NASA-Tom,

Thanks for the explanation. I've kind of surmised that, over time, but I'm appreciative that you spelled out the "master" and "slave" relationship so clearly. So, it would then be correct to say that there's nothing in, say, the CTX "visual" output (like target trace attempting to show two separate targets, for example) that can't be ascertained, by a user with well-trained ear, from the audio output itself?

My thoughts on the separate visual output for "density" would -- in my mind -- require some separate, new approach to ascertain target density. And thus, I was not sure that whatever "separate approach" this would be, could be incorporated into the audio, or not. My preference would be for this specific aspect (if it could even be done) NOT to be included in the audio. I'd prefer it to be a separate screen, to be activated to allow additional "analysis/interrogation" of a given target. In my mind, this would allow the user -- once a target in question is located -- to learn things about the target beyond/in addition to the standard information gleaned from audio/VDI output. It would be a specific "density" screen, in my mind, with perhaps a graph, and possibly some "statistical" output, to show "likelihood" of the target being a "more dense" one, vs. a "less dense" one.

Just thinking out loud here...

Mike,

Interesting post. And one that I find interesting, given that I consider you the "guru" when it comes to finding gold in turf-hunting scenarios.

So, let me ask you this. Do you feel -- say, with a Golden Sabre II -- that one could learn to differentiate between that specific pull tab that I mentioned, and my gold ring? Obviously, I don't expect it to be obvious, but are you saying that you feel that with enough practice, the machine offers enough of an audio subtlety that a skilled ear could learn to hear a difference between those two targets?

Steve



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/07/2022 02:40PM by steveg.

Steveg,

With a concentric coil,....A higher karat gold band is such a smooth sound, as compared to the harsher, larger sound of a large tab, that yes....you can hear the difference in the older large tabs with the GSII. The new rounded square tabs with the two holes....those are more problematic...they are still a larger signal but the audio sounds good. Problem is when you add a crown setting to a ring, sometimes they stay smooth, sometimes they don't. But a crown makes a ring go veritical most of the time and what is really interesting is the vertical rings still keep their smooth audio where as a vertical tab is clearly junk. Vertical is easy to tell from tabs. Foil is clearly ratty until it gets thick, but if its got sharp corners it will stand out. One of the other attributes of the GSII/Pantera is that you can put the tone break on a large tab and get what i call a shiver tone on men's gold. When you hear it, you get a shiver up the spine. LOL. yeah...all you are really doing is putting a blended tone break on a target range, where most trash is just going to sound harsh, but that gold band is going to clearly stand out because due to the tightness/smoothness of the signal its going to play the tone break different. It really is a strange sound.

However you loose all this with a DD coil.

Wish CZ Dan and Gene R. were still around to post on the GSII audio attributes.

Tom-CA will come on now and blast all this. LOL.

HH
Mike



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/07/2022 02:03PM by Mike_Hillis.

Interesting stuff, Mike. Having never used an old analog machine (nor have I used a round concentric coil before), I can't imagine the audio nuances you describe. I think there would be a pretty steep learning curve there, in my case, but maybe it's something to think about.

At least, until this new "density" capability might come to fruition...

Steve

Well, if the density of the target form were to be done, perhaps in the future, the approximate volume of the target could be determined with multiple sweeps from differing angles, similar to the Garrett GTI series, but more accurately. Then the phase shift would relate to the conductivity of at least the surface composition of the metal to the eddy skin depth. The assumed metal type and approximate volume would give an approximate target density. A foil ball of the same volume as a mini-ball would display a much lower density, assuming the composition difference between foil and lead could be determined accurately enough.

Mike H. ....... exactly. QUITE a bit was lost..... when Multi xxxx coupled with DD xxxx coupled with 'digital cleanup' xxxx coupled with Filtered(s) ...............etc................etc ...,,,...,,,...,,, took place. YET......... SOOOOoooooooo much was gained in another arena (that we ---oh-so--- love).

Steve G. .... the CTX presents some interesting/applicable attributes AND detriments. The target-trace is a 'forward-direction'....... yet, some of the filtering (and DD coil) and processing .,.,.,.,., takes a toll!

(((Withholding information....does not constitute a lie))). Soooo........... I need to 'come clean' and explain a additional step. I have been comparing a certain caliber ball of foil.......to the same caliber lead musket ball. There's a large delta (on a tracible O-Scope) between the two discrete visual (and easily convertible to 'audio') signatures. BUT.......... if you compare a modern square-tab (stay-tab) to a woman's gold wedding band..........,,,,,,,,,.......... the delta/delineation/differentiation reduces......,,,,,,,, a huge amount. About 80% 'gap-closure'. BUT........ the remaining 20% delta...... is still more than enough (electronically) to delineate/differentiate.

John........... correct; yet a accelerometer then becomes a mandatory requirement. (Certainly NOT impossible...... with today's technology).

this is correct! take any single tone Tesoro,and hear the audio!.it takes some commitment, but the
detector will "talk to you" if you listen to it, and "most" single tone Tesoros WILL get down around 7.0r 8" or so with a small concentric coil on board!
the 180 disc. on a tesoro is very 'tight" in ferrous trash, and outstanding in iron "most" good audio will indicate a "softer" deeper, "'modulated" hit on a
non-ferrous target.the 12 kHz frequency is an excellent compromise in trash, but the key is in "learning" the audio.

(h.h.!)
j.t.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/08/2022 01:39AM by jmaryt.

I'll be the negative Nancy on the Tesoro thing. I say if their machines were that accurate at IDing gold from trash, then they would still be around today instead of not being in business. There would surely be a huge market for machines that people could go out and, with a little learnin', be able to hear those nuances and ignore most all the trash and dig only gold. And surely by now, somebody would have done videos on doing exactly that, calling the shots and doing live digs to showcase how good they are at doing it. All I've ever heard and seen from it from people, were excuses. I liken it to this right here. When I look for native artifacts, I carry a flipping stick with me, to save me from bending down to every piece of flint I see. During periods of slow times between finds, I will tap my boot out of boredom with my stick...and then suddenly I will spot a point. I could say I have a lucky stick and that every time I tap my boot with it, I find an arrow head. In reality...there are FAR more times I tap my boot and NOT find anything, than when I tap it and actually spot an arrowhead. In detecting...you're not going to have a high percentage of accuracy calling your shots in trash. There's just too many variables. Too many different pieces and shapes of trash...too many different pieces and shapes of jewelry. You may call it right SOME time but I'm betting you're wrong MOST of the time. Even a clock with dead batteries is correct twice a day.

For Density display....off the audio....using delta pitch audio....could you have a single line display that would show 'thin' vs 'thick', using the line size for a density check? "Thin" line corresponds to a tight signal, vs 'Thick' corresponding to a more spattered signal.....maybe rolling like the old QXT signal display or the V3 rolling pinpoint display...????..maybe coming off the all metal channel even...

The problem with filtered disc modes is you don't even get a response until after the signal peaks and starts to decay....for real time, it would need to be independent of the filtered disc mode or some sort of mixed mode....but it needs to be clear what you are looking at..

Signal intensity is currently a pretty clear graphic...perhaps ramp up/ramp down could be appended to that???

I dunno...

HH
Mike

BEACH = The Design Engineer of whom tackles SALT the best = WINS

I think I need to put forth a couple of definitions:

CARPETS OF NAILS = When there are 2 (or more) nails under the coil at any given time.

ONE-WAY HIT = When you sweep the coil in ONE direction ....and detect a desired target.
TWO-WAY HIT = When you sweep the coil BACK (in the opposite direction)....... and detect the same desired target again.
FOUR-WAY HIT = When you rotate your body 90-Degrees..... AFTER acquiring a 2-way hit. , . , . , . , . , . and you receive desired target detection from Left-to-Right coil sweep......AND.......again receive desired target detection when you sweep the coil back....from Right-to-Left.

I learn something each time you post.

Thanks Tom,

I know how busy you are these days.

Regards



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/11/2023 12:31AM by FloridaSon.

THANKS!

For the sake of definitions, I assume "one-way hit" includes a target that "high-tones" in one direction, but reports as iron on the return sweep (in fact, I assume that's MOST OFTEN the type of "one-way hit" that occurs, as it certainly is for me... )

Steve

NASA-Tom Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I think I need to put forth a couple of definition
> s:
>
> CARPETS OF NAILS = When there are 2 (or more) nail
> s under the coil at any given time.
>
> ONE-WAY HIT = When you sweep the coil in ONE direc
> tion ....and detect a desired target.
> TWO-WAY HIT = When you sweep the coil BACK (in the
> opposite direction)....... and detect the same des
> ired target again.
> FOUR-WAY HIT = When you rotate your body 90-Degree
> s..... AFTER acquiring a 2-way hit. , . , . , . ,
> . , . and you receive desired target detection fro
> m Left-to-Right coil sweep......AND.......again re
> ceive desired target detection when you sweep the
> coil back....from Right-to-Left.

Steve....... yes. That is exactly correct.
It is a VERY 'learned' skillset/trait in order to have some success picking good targets out of 1-way hits!

NASA-Tom Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Steve....... yes. That is exactly correct.
> It is a VERY 'learned' skillset/trait in order to
> have some success picking good targets out of 1-wa
> y hits!


I should think so, LOL! It's a skillset I certainly haven't honed, yet...my lack of experience in having any success when attempting it (digging one-way hits), has biased me toward ignoring those types of hits nearly all of the time. I do much better, with the "how much angle/sector can you rotate through, and still hold the high tone" approach. Obviously, 360 is a no-brainer, but of course, as you back off of that, the likelihood of a good dig, diminishes. I rarely dig a good non-ferrous, if I can't hold at least SOME semblance of high tone for at least 180 degrees (but, of course, iron bias setting plays into that as well, for those who run any iron bias...)

Steve



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/11/2023 05:45AM by steveg.

NASA-Tom Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Steve....... yes. That is exactly correct.
> It is a VERY 'learned' skillset/trait in order to have some success picking good targets out of 1-way hits!

I've had some success with 1-way hits, but in area that've been depleted of targets so in desperation one starts digging the abnormal targets. Usually they turn out to be junk conductors and iron, but once in a blue moon a keeper surfaces.

Mike_Hillis Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Wish CZ Dan and Gene R. were still around to post on the GSII audio attributes.
>
> Tom-CA will come on now and blast all this. LOL.
>
> HH
> Mike

Nah Tom-CA's been busy digging up piles of gold at the beach...hopefully he posts once the storm systems finished...for now.

Cal_cobra Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> NASA-Tom Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Steve....... yes. That is exactly correct.
> > It is a VERY 'learned' skillset/trait in order t
> o have some success picking good targets out of 1-
> way hits!
>
> I've had some success with 1-way hits, but in area
> that've been depleted of targets so in desperation
> one starts digging the abnormal targets. Usually
> they turn out to be junk conductors and iron, but
> once in a blue moon a keeper surfaces.


Yep, Brian -- that would be about the only place I would ever be inclined to dig such a target...a site that is known to produce REALLY special finds, and which has been worked to death to where there are only "crap" signals left...

Steve

And THAT is EXACTLY where you (painfully) learn: what/how/when to dig one-way hits!!!
(((When you dig 1000's of one-way hits...... is when you REALLY ascertain: Skillset. -----It is rather: Hard-bought knowledge))).

I apologize for being a little late to the party, but I do want to chime in on depth. My deepest detector of the dozens I've owned was my first one from nearly 30 years ago. It was a White's Silver Eagle. It was the little brother to the Eagle Spectrum. In the relic mode, I dug mine balls at 18" all day near Port Gibson, LA. I thought, "If I get that depth on the little brother, imagine how deep I could go with the big brother." Sold little brother for big brother and quickly learned an important detecting truism. More expensive does not always mean more performance. Anyway, I have had every brand of detector since. I have even used the Minelab GPX machines. None of them have gone as deep on a mine ball. NONE! So, no, in raw depth in mild ground, we haven't gotten deeper. At least that's my experience.

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

> * Less than 1% of the folks that buy detectors in
> this world.......... are on any forums. And the de
> tectorists/folks on this specific forum (percentag
> e-wise) are even less. BUT/HOWEVER: the intelligen
> ce conveyed/imparted on this forum is priceless da
> ta to Manufacturers.... and paves the road to huma
> n advancement in many regards.

Much Respect To My Mentor, Tom D.

I met you few years ago at Lori Wilson parking lot, we "nerds" hit it off (I am female), I had CTX, dumped it for the EQN after you suggested it, you were spot on. I had multi patents smart fishing light and was granted the utility finally last year. Your DVD changed my life and I till this day few times a year I re-watch it. I wish there was a part 2. I teach your theories, I show folks via my YT channel. It is a master class educational tool.

I read this forum. You all are a real time "think tank". 99% of the world enjoy the spoils of a detector that is push and play. Most do not care to mess with settings (anxiety trigger) because they desire the push and play approach to hunting running in defaults. I profess there are 3 parts to this sport (using beach for example). You need to understand how to read the beach, you need to understand your machine settings for location, you need to perfect your swing (low, slow, overlap).

I read this forum, but honestly I have no idea what your talking about, you members split atoms in here. Clearly, I am the wrong target market. But there are morsels of things that pop out I enjoy. I am by no means criticizing, I am just responding to where is the rest of the sport enthusiasts.

Tom, it just astounds me how many cannot understand the must have DVD you made. So many ppl turn to me to just set up there Nox and then ask about learning the art of science and its role in sport success. It is my belief the difference between "luck" and "skill" is consistency. The industry does not have this "industry standard" bridge to education.

We have Top 1% here, detector manufacturers 5 years ago delivered plug and play machines. Turn it on, hit a ring, rinse and repeat. Newbies are rewarded for naivety and see no need to understand the settings or the other features available to them. This ignorance malignancy is more the majority than the minority, To me consistency is the "is how much time elapsed between 2 good targets". It is then detectorists realize there is more to the sport. This is now the biggest struggle in this sport the manufacturers created. How do we educate a beginner into a season detectorist.

Yes, this forum is heavy leaning towards great feedback for manufacturers. Yes, this forum likes to dive into techie weeds.

But 99% who own detectors, don't know they don't know nothing. Power Up, swing, dig and pray for luck.

Hi Steve.
Years ago I owned a Rutus Detector. If I remember correctly the number scale was 0-120. I detected alot of parks with pulltabs gallore. I dug every target in the aluminum range that locked onto one number. I always dug those. Many times those were rings. Every now and then it was aluminum, but most aluminum wavered between 2 or 3 numbers. My number of found rings went way up that year. It took alot of patience and slow going to grind thru all the signals. If you take the time to observe what you are hearing and seeing, you may find an angle that will help. Sounds like Mike found one with the machine he uses.

cap........ About 25-years ago....... I had two White's Silver Eagle's in my test-garden.I was impressed with their depth/performance on a dime (just under a foot).,.,.,.,.,.,., but what I was most impressed with.... was: these analog/digital (mix) detectors expressed extreme consistency between each other. I am uncertain if the Silver Eagle would ascertain 1.5-feet on a Minnie ball; yet, is plausible. I do believe the Manticore (and probably the Tarsacci) will do this; yet, untested.

Lee....... I CLEARLY remember you! But what is hard to believe....is: YEARS have passed! ((( I thought................... by now................ you would have completely forgotten about our meet-n-greet )))
THANKS for all the Kudo's! And........ I'm glad that you found a new (ultra-lightweight) CTX!
I also recall you had lots of 'business' going on.
I'm really glad you 'came alive'.....and posted on this forum.,.,.,.,., that you are still in full-swing........and that i (we) have helped you a bit!
Yes....... you would be rather surprised as to 'how many' ............. even 40-year seasoned detectorists.....are using 'Factory Presets'.

I've got another general concern ((from recent promptings)) =

JUST BECAUSE you Disc out (or Notch out) iron........ (or anything..... for that matter)...................... does NOT mean that the detector will now magically "see through" the discriminated item.
Many folks are thinking that: I can no longer hear iron and aluminum soda tabs. , . , . , . , . , therefore..... I can see right through them now. , . , . , . , . and detect things that are beneath iron & tabs. This is NOT true!!!
You are still equally blinded/masked.
Beware!

NASA-Tom Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I've got another general concern ((from recent pro
> mptings)) =
>
> JUST BECAUSE you Disc out (or Notch out) iron.....
> ... (or anything..... for that matter)............
> .......... does NOT mean that the detector will no
> w magically "see through" the discriminated item.
> Many folks are thinking that: I can no longer hear
> iron and aluminum soda tabs. , . , . , . , . , the
> refore..... I can see right through them now. , .
> , . , . , . and detect things that are beneath iro
> n & tabs. This is NOT true!!!
> You are still equally blinded/masked.
> Beware!

Wouldn't that be nice? It would be a dream unit. Then ID would have to step up then depth could be worked on. PS. Your post may sadden new detectorists. It would be like telling a kid there is no Santa Clause. Shame on ya Tom. lol!

It's not the first time I've BURST folks bubble(s) !!!

I hear it TOO many times........ and it bothers me:

""Drop Sensitivity down...... tune this/that down.......and lower this. You will still have "plenty" of performance"".

To me...... the word "plenty" means: Accepting mediocrity ..... less than peak-performance = (less-than optimal).

[[[ Yes. There's something to be said about: Quiet/Stable performance; yet, peak-performance should be sought. ]]]