How far have detectors come?

[gonzo]

Just wondered how far people think that technology has helped us up until this point in time.I was pondering this after doing sone tests with both simple and higher tech machines.
Basically,the test that provides the biggest questions are those that involve placing small hammered coins close to iron,underground to replicate actual detecting conditions.The main point here is "actual detecting conditions" and not some ridiculous nailboard test that proves absolutely nothing.
Basically,the biggest hit rate on such a target is if you run your machine in all metal .......you cant fail to get the target as you will pick up the iron and find the small hammered at the same time,as long as you re check the hole of course.
After this,things get more complicated,we are generally too impatient to run in all metal so we  add a touch of discrim to help us id the iron.However,even small amounts can render a small coin  next to iron invisible....try it on a testbed in your garden,even the high tech machines with a program for this and that can fail this test very easily.
So basically what i am saying is that all the latest high tech machines are probably helping us miss finds as well as find them........the old method of "minimum discrim lad and dig everything else" seems to hold true still.Technology still has'nt replaced hard graft and digging up rubbish even if we like to think it has.You see people vrtually running over fields swinging their latest high tech wonder like a golf club missing vast areas of ground in the knowledge that their latest machine will pick up those lovely small staters and hammered coins.
Maybe getting back to basics would be good for us.......we just have to stop relying on all the technology and be prepared to put that bit of extra work in......it will be hard for me because im a lazy git but after doing quite a  bit of testing (in ground) i'm going to have a go again;
Less discrim = hard graft= more finds.
What do you guys think.

[Keith67]

This is my kind of question    I love learning about the evolution of the hobby.  It's been done to death a bit on here but I will sling my twopenneth in the hat.

Recovery speed is the big leap from what I have learned.  Whether it's the digital technology and microprocessors or not,  people have told me that modern machines are faster. 

Your comments on less disc and dig it all gets me thinking of Gary's hot programme.  Full tones, no disc, and the fast recovery speed of 3 to pick out the goodies from around the iron.  And if it's a mucky tone then have a spadeful out of you want to make sure you don't miss anything near iron. 

[Gary]

Sometimes I think machines have not evolved much, but them I pick up an older machine and it quickly reassures me they have.
Some manufacturers are still making the same mistakes as they were 15 years ago such as floppy coils and wobbly shafts.

Targets next to iron tests
I have stopped watching comparison videos now it's embarrassing to see the level of ameturism endorsed by people who should know better.

Lower discrimination and working Iron is my preferred method, but I think the first thing to do is find your and the machines limits.
There will be an article in this month's treasure hunting magazine and we have just finished a new XP video on the subject.

[gonzo]

I find nailboard tests particularly annoying.The problem here is that  people with less experience,particularly begginers,see certain machines nailing.....excuse the pun......small coins amongst a load of iron and they automatically think it is a great detector.I would love to see somebody actually testing machines in real conditions ie,coins mixed with iron that have been in the ground long enough to give realistic results.
This is sort of why i started this conversation......from the testing i have done on a few such objects,i have found that the best way to locate such coins is definately with minimum discrim and that many programs and settings just don't bring home the bacon.
In this respect,an old,simple machine can be just as effective as the latest £1500 hi tech wonder, which brings me back to the point that in terms of a machines ability to find things,not much has changed and in some cases things have gone backwards.

[Gary]

Take the old metal box Silver Sabre from Tesoro, still a very capable machine and it passes many tests.

[Keith67]

Take the old metal box Silver Sabre from Tesoro, still a very capable machine and it passes many tests.

What tests does it pass and what are it's weaknesses against some more modern machines Gary?

Just curious to know in what environments the Silver Sabre can stand up to modern machines, and where you can see a difference?

[gonzo]

There was a chap who used to own one of those machines in a club i was in.......he used to claim it did'nt miss a thing.He got rid of it and bought a newer machine......everytime i saw him on a rally he used to say that he wished he had'nt sold it.We jokingly used to take the mick out of him because it looked archaic but he swore by it.
Thats about as much as i know about this particular machine........i think he found a tiny quarter stater with it which shows it was sensitive at least.

[Gary]

The Sabre is an honest machine, the iron separation is very good and it is great on a Roman site. I think I did a Gary's detecting review somewhere.
What I liked about it is you had sensitivity ( that was on max all the time) and discrimination what was at minimum all the time.
You were encouraged to learn your machine back then without extra settings to add to the confusion.

Now we have modern machines packed with features we will never go back to old style machines which in many ways is a good thing.

However I personally think detector users were possibly more skilled back then because there was no internet and you learned your machine or failed.

[kevsat]

thats why i love the adventis ..simple to use ..really powerfull ..excellent discrim ..fast as f..k .dont think ill ever sell it 

[gonzo]

The adventis.........this is a good example of what i'm talking about.It's a really simple machine but really effective in getting the targets.No stupid depth meters or programs just good honest performance......it beeps  and you dig.I just wonder,if it were possible to compare a machine like this with all the top price machines on a 100  "real life" targets........just how many the adventis would miss that the others would find.If my own limited testing is anything to go by,this would be a real eye opener........and maybe a wallet closer.

[Gary]

Earlier this year I was at a rally in Belgium, it was a token hunt and most people had 5 or 6 tokens on average.
But there was one old boy with an XP ADX 150 who had about 20.
I remember thinking at the time there must be some key formula we are all missing.

[Keith67]

Earlier this year I was at a rally in Belgium, it was a token hunt and most people had 5 or 6 tokens on average.
But there was one old boy with an XP ADX 150 who had about 20.
I remember thinking at the time there must be some key formula we are all missing.

I wonder how much of that was down to speed.  Nothing to do but hear a tone and dig.

[The oil man]

He probably had confidence in his machine and kept digging rather than fiddling 

[gonzo]

Earlier this year I was at a rally in Belgium, it was a token hunt and most people had 5 or 6 tokens on average.
But there was one old boy with an XP ADX 150 who had about 20.
I remember thinking at the time there must be some key formula we are all missing.

Could have been "more jam than Hartleys".

[Nigel at Regtons]

That comparison with original Silver Sabre that Gary made........

What you also have to remember is the SS only had a 7" narrow scan concentric coil when it came out, also wasn't very deep, so if we take a modern machine & put a small coil on it then turn sensitivity down, guess what, we have just re-invented the old machine again. Problem with these older machines, they simply couldn't handle higher sensitivity & depth as they were too unstable, & that's the area progress has been made with more modern equipment.