Ole Calabash Bashes Legend Again

[AccurateCalls]

Just remember high iron sites. The iron/nails not all on top of ground or near surface necessarily and can be in different levels (planes).
Also actual separation abilities need to be taken into account.

See this link post 3.
When Eqx 11” coil is talked about and the 6” coil.
The percentage advantage far less than one might think with the significant coil size differences.
http://www.dankowskidetectors.com/discussions/read.php?2,152652,184093#msg-184093And

It's trivial to extend the 2D Probability Theory based argument into 3D. E.g. if a larger circle has a greater probability of encompassing multiple objects on a plane, so does a larger 3D EM field being projected into the ground.

It should be noted in 2D the area of the circle increases by the square of the radius (greater area = greater probability of encompassing multiple targets), while in 3D the volume of the electromagnetic field increases by the cube of the radius (greater volume = greater probability of encompassing multiple targets). So the probability based argument is actually stronger in 3D

Just keep in mind signal processing definitely matters, and these are approximations based on some theoretical "perfect" metal detector (one that process signals with 100% accuracy / no EMI, etc.) . It's still possible to make a bad enough metal detector with sufficiently crappy signal processing such that it defies this relationship.


Also, in the link, NASA Tom clearly is implying that Minelab has actual numerical data suggesting the 6" inch coil separates better compared to the 11". So even they have proven Calabash wrong in his assertion that smaller coilers do not separate better than larger ones.

Besides, 11% improvement is huge! As he states, given a random target configuration, the 6" coil will unmask an extra 11 coins per 100 trials. That's a huge advantage (also shows they are taking a probability based approach as well in the internal analysis!).

 

[tnsharpshooter]

It's trivial to extend the 2D Probability Theory based argument into 3D. E.g. if a larger circle has a greater probability of encompassing multiple objects on a plane, so does a larger 3D EM field being projected into the ground.

It should be noted in 2D the area of the circle increases by the square of the radius (greater area = greater probability of encompassing multiple targets), while in 3D the volume of the electromagnetic field increases by the cube of the radius (greater volume = greater probability of encompassing multiple targets). So the probability based argument is actually stronger in 3D

Just keep in mind signal processing definitely matters, and these are approximations based on some theoretical "perfect" metal detector (one that process signals with 100% accuracy / no EMI, etc.) . It's still possible to make a bad enough metal detector with sufficiently crappy signal processing such that it defies this relationship.


Also, in the link, NASA Tom clearly is implying that Minelab has actual numerical data suggesting the 6" inch coil separates better compared to the 11". So even they have proven Calabash wrong in his assertion that smaller coilers do not separate better than larger ones.

Besides, 11% improvement is huge! As he states, given a random target configuration, the 6" coil will unmask an extra 11 coins per 100 trials. That's a huge advantage (also shows they are taking a probability based approach as well in the internal analysis!).

Actually both gent’s are correct.
The 11% is not huge. As far as 6” coil on Nox.
Even Mr Danksowki has said. Should be higher but this is because of the platform. Minelab designed platform around 11” coil. The percentages given are I think Mr Danksowki’s numbers. He was involved with engineering development of Equinox.
So Equinox comparing 11” to 6” coil is a departure from the norm. And folks using the 6” coil hunting behind where they have used 11” coil have reported more limited success. I have observed myself as well.

If Mr Dankowski could do tests and experiments with Deus 2 he may find it too is a departure from the norm comparing 9” coil to the 11” coil. Why?
Remember Deus 2 coils have their own electronics inside. Are these electronics the same and set up the same way in the 2 different sized coils? I don’t know. I have pondered this though.

Yeah there is some depth restrictions with smaller coil vs stock coil. Why I brought up ferrous can be at different levels in a detecting situation.

Then there’s the time one spends detecting and how much ground they cover.
Hockey puck coils, it takes a long time to cover lot of ground. And I find it very hard to keep track of trying to cover all of the ground.

So Xp seems picked 9” coils to be there their bread and butter sized coils on their detectors early on. Why?
Could it be this based on their testing is best size all around not giving up much depth and not giving up higher percentage of separation abilities.

 

[AccurateCalls]

Actually both gent’s are correct.
The 11% is not huge.

Sure, I guess whether 11% is huge or not is a matter of opinion. But if for every 100 targets I dig, if I am getting ~11 more non-ferrous targets unmasked, that is huge to me.

Even in your own link Dankowski characterizes a 17% gain in separation as being "formidable".

Ether way, Calabash is asserting a NEGATIVE gain (or a loss) in separation when switching to a smaller coil, which is demonstrably wrong, regardless of any anecdotal evidence somebody can claim, and seems to fly in the face of logic and Minelab's own internal data as gleaned from Dankowski.

 

[tnsharpshooter]

I check spots where I find targets when rehunting sites when I am using another detector model. Check for iron presence and yes rotate around target many times. Trying to find a reasonable reason why I didn’t locate previously. An objective look.

Now we see this said lot of times. Folks do head to heads and say my or this detector would have found that. Is this necessarily true? May or may not be.

I can say with 100 percent certainty one model can give more alertive signal.
Deus 2 does just this vs Eqx imo. Yeah I have done some head to head on Deus 2 located targets. So one detector can just plainly alert to user better. And this should mean less missed targets or more found targets. Now part of this is how each detector behaves when they are being swept in polluted areas.

Even Deus 1 using pitch program could be set up to be more alertive vs lot of models.

So basically this giving more alertive signal (tones) while using in polluted sites could be easily conflated thinking its the coil size driving. And this is not the case necessarily. So here Calabash May be in error somewhat.

He and I have been talking about this as far as Deus 2.

Bottom line.
There will be situations where a 9” coil will detect a find. And 6” coil won’t. And vice versa. And where a 11” coil will detect and 6” coil won’t and Vice versa.
Same goes when talking about comparing 9” and 11” coils.

I post data and try to be honest as I can be.
Hard to put into words sometimes. And some folks think some folks are trying to pull the wool over their eyes.
If I could show video clip where I was comparing detector models except only show audio, no video and narrate what I am doing (sweeping) Where folks have to only use their ears. This would help more clearly show what I am referring to.

Folks will watch typical video and will try and (watch) link meter readings (behavior) to what they are hearing in video. And this is not what an actual user will be doing while they are infact using the detector sweeping trying to locate target. So can be misleading.

Forgot to say.
This is big imo.
Watching videos trying to gauge which is doing better or suits one better. External speaker many times can fall short of what headphone audio sounds like.

 

[Diga]

The bottom line is that in such a nail test, there are many variable to take into account. For example, positioning of the targets relative to the coil, type of coil, first tone break, discrimination pattern, recovery speed, and whether or not the detector has a preset or manual iron bias control.

In other words, the nox, d2, or legend can be set up to either hit or miss the good target based on those variables. As such, to make an absolute conclusion that "X detector has a major flaw" due to such a test, shows either a fundamental misunderstanding of how detectors work, or the tester is deliberately trying to make a particular detector look bad.

In specific regard to the Legend, there may be a case in which certain nail tests come down to the iron bias. Given that the Legend has a preset iron bias, and the nox / d2 do not, then the legend might miss the good target (see it as ferrous) when the good target is very close to nails. This of course will be remedied by the up and coming manual iron bias control.

 

[jmaclen]

So, once again….

Two YouTube creators make glaring mistakes and misrepresentations about the Legend and expect me (and maybe some of you) to actually believe them.

So first a UK YouTube creator digs a bottle cap that is obviously reading almost no ferrous on the FerroCheck meter, has a target ID in the low 40s and a tone to match. After digging the bottle cap he claims that FerroCheck did not report it as iron. It’s an aluminum bottle cap….plain as day to see it has a detachable rim and isn’t a steel crown bottle cap…..so why in the world would it report as iron??????

Then we have this forum’s banned person (what is this Legend video number 40) once again showing tests of the Legend in relation to iron. One is the same 3D test (nothing new there) one is a 2D test where the Legend actually does well (of course Calabash claims that is an unrealistic test) and two tests are complete misrepresentations and once again show that the operator of his Legend, refuses to follow the instructions in the manual.

A 9” gold ring target reading 14/15 most of the time also has mostly non-ferrous FerroCheck responses while often showing 1 to 2 bars of Ferrous with a few swings where there are 3 or at most 4. For you who don’t know, FerroCheck has 20 bars in its graph (10 ferrous and 10 non-ferrous) which get progressively larger when the probability of ferrous or non-ferrous increases. Sensitivity is on 22 of 30. I can’t tell which coil is on the Legend……6” or 11”. Anyway, the manual (manuals occasionally have accurate information in them) says clearly that FerroCheck is for shallower targets. That’s what it says. That is how it is supposed to work as an iron/not iron probability meter. Not supposed to be 100% accurate. It’s a tool. Why is Calabash doing a FerroCheck test on a target that absolutely anyone would agree is a deep target……9” gold ring which with the 6” coil is beyond the reasonable depth for that coil and with the 11” is approaching its limit with sensitivity on 22 of 30. Of course Deus 2 is shown with the horseshoe bar staying mostly in the non-ferrous or no reading…again this is a 9” deep ring. Deus 2’s horseshoe meter barely registers in the non-ferrous side when it does register something indicating a deep target.

Another misguided test that Calabash does, (this is not the first time he has done this exact test) shows the Legend with 11” coil swinging just the center spine of the coil over a foil covered steel crown bottle cap. Of course, the Legend is reading this mixed alloy signal as mostly non-ferrous with a aluminum number in the mid 30s. Calabash, my Legend behaves just like yours in this test, but unlike you I use wider swings over suspected ferrous bottle cap targets so that the outer rim of the coil also detects the bottle cap. That is the clearly stated recommended procedure in the manual. When that outer rim of the coil crosses over the steel alloy bottle cap the FerroCheck meter will show iron responses along with iron audio and iron numbers. Since it doesn’t during this test due to the operator of the Legend, Calabash let’s the viewer know that FerroCheck is a gimmick, cannot be trusted and really should be removed from the Legend. He could not be more wrong.

Calabash continues to say Dilek said the Legend is as good as the Deus 2…..(she never said that=watch her last video) which is once again, the real reason for this video…….make Dilek into a liar and make it clear (in Calabash’s view) that the Legend also cannot be trusted as a detector.

The real untrustworthy part of Calabash’s video was the video maker.

And before anybody labels me as a Legend fanboy/defender…..I would make a post like this about any YouTube content creator who accidentally or on purpose misrepresents any detector by making obvious mistakes. If you choose to post a mistake filled video, some fool like me might decide to critique it or at least comment.

If you care to watch Calabash’s video referred to here it is “Nokta Makro Legend Can It Be Trusted?

 

[goodmore]

When is this going to stop? A person who is banned on the forum influencing every sub forum. There should be Legend posts and Deus 2 posts. Why does there have to be comparison after comparison? A target wrapped in foil. A target this a target that. Really really sickening. And then there are those that just go out and hunt. A cancer has infected this forum and it is allowed to metastasize because of a few. Yes I have said in the past that I will take a time out. But the ability of a banned person who has basically bad mouthed this forum and moderators to keep popping up here is just rediculous. I'm done. Bookmark erased. I just can't take this passive position anymore. A banned member influencing every darn post about new detectors. I speak only for myself and I deserve better than this constant BS.

 

[Diga]

Maybe it's good that Calabash's videos are posted?

Is there any other forum that has others exposing his BS?

 

[Diga]

So, once again…. /SNIP/

Well said sir!

 

[jmaclen]

Goodmore, I share your frustration. The only way that I can counter the misinformation being put online by some is to call it out somewhere. This forum is as good a place as any.

I’m sorry you have to read the BS from me and about others who are banned and current members.

What is posted online about any detector can and is viewed and read by many current users or by potential buyers during the learning process.

I could just stuff it like some on here have told me to do. I won’t stuff it when innocent users and possible buyers are being mislead for whatever reason….

I won’t post anymore of Calabash’s videos here however…….

 

[Rudy]

Another misguided test that Calabash does, (this is not the first time he has done this exact test) shows the Legend with 11” coil swinging just the center spine of the coil over a foil covered steel crown bottle cap. Of course, the Legend is reading this mixed alloy signal as mostly non-ferrous with a aluminum number in the mid 30s. Calabash, my Legend behaves just like yours in this test, but unlike you I use wider swings over suspected ferrous bottle cap targets so that the outer rim of the coil also detects the bottle cap. That is the clearly stated recommended procedure in the manual. When that outer rim of the coil crosses over the steel alloy bottle cap the FerroCheck meter will show iron responses along with iron audio and iron numbers.

Gosh, I wrote about this such a long, long time ago. Maybe Calabash didn't read it while he was still a member here.
https://metaldetectingforum.com/showthread.php?t=15664

 

[jmaclen]

Gosh, I wrote about this such a long, long time ago. Maybe Calabash didn't read it while he was still a member here.
https://metaldetectingforum.com/showthread.php?t=15664

Yes Rudy, it is just normal DD VLF search coil behavior…….and has been for years.

 

[tnsharpshooter]

I guess I look at this like this.
I could go on every forum and make up some bs about any model detector.
Couldn’t I?
Intentionally make up false stuff about any model.
And post.

Or I could be one of those let’s save everyone from Xxx person’s thoughts, opinion, and or findings on a unit they have used and tested.

Why can’t the product just survive on its own for what it truly is?
Should be able to do imo.

I get the feeling some here think one persons you tube channel or one persons thoughts on any model detector will be the nail in the coffin of how a detector sells or is viewed by other folks.
Pure hogwash.

Any sensible person looking at things concerning detector performance, etc likely are looking at trends. One off views on a detector model will be just that in the end.

When these new models materialize I am shocked at how folks carry themselves here. An inanimate(nonhuman) object. Yet the talk often moves toward talk of just that a human (person).

Ok.
Let’s go back to just having treasure magazine reviews only or just maybe your bud will take a chance and buy new release and share it with you. Then you’ll know more about the unit. The real deal.

The term bash is being overused too I think.
Pointing out deficiencies is not necessary bashing.
The detectors are what they are. Some can be improved with updates. Even newer models can be released addressing.

Yeah. I heard it. Why pay more for less. Catchy ain’t it. But is it a true statement?
Guess anyone who is grand with semantics will say YES.

And to close here.
I get the idea some folks may be thinking detector A can be made to match detector B totally via software updates. Is this true? I don’t really know the answer even if both detector A can be made or are actually run on exact freq as detector B.
Right now I am thinking the answer is NO.

Cheers.

Oh forgot to say.
And I have made comments about this on another forum some time ago.

Can a manufacturer making an updatable detector hamstring themselves with possible future improvements with their design (engineering) ? Sure can.
Already one clear example. Stated in latest video from you know who.
Folks can go watch and see what I am talking about.

 

[Diga]

The term bash is being overused too I think.
Pointing out deficiencies is not necessary bashing.

No, pointing out deficiencies is not bashing, but anyone with an objective mind can see an obsessive salesperson with a narcissistic disorder, that is also blatantly biased and deliberately misleading. At that point, it's not just bashing, but something even worse.

BTW- One of his latest videos shows a kid haphazardly going over a pre selected bottle cap. It's absolutely pathetic and reeks of desperation (even more so than his misleading bashing videos usually do).

IMO, anyone who defends that guy, is profoundly naïve, or one of his puppets.

 

[jmaclen]

I agree a good product like a detector will more than likely survive on its own no matter how skewed a reviewers opinion may be in one direction or other. Not everyone is going to like a certain detector.

Not liking a detector for whatever valid reason is one thing.

Deliberately misrepresenting a detector’s abilities is another especially when that comes from a well known and widely trusted source for accurate information.

 

[jmaclen]

Nokta Makro Legend Does It Need A Bottle Cap Reject?

Calabash continues to beat up the Legend just because he doesn't like a certain feature.....

There has been a daily barrage of Legend videos and its iron handling woes according to Calabash.

All it takes is a look at the forums and Facebook and the vast majority of people who actually own a Legend for use as an in the field hunting with it metal detector instead of a testing detector (for the purpose of proving a point which is it stinks next to Deus 2) actually like the FerroCheck function and believe it will only get better when the adjustable iron bias feature is included in the next software update.

So no, the Legend already has a steel bottle cap Identification feature. Bottle cap reject is for people that don't want to hear shallow steel bottle caps and similar steel alloy targets. Using too much bottle cap reject type features especially in thick trash, can mask other more desirable adjacent targets. If a person does not want to hear them......max out the iron bias settings when they become available.

Why would Nokta Makro even remotely listen to Calabash concerning the Legend and especially FerroCheck after his multiple daily monologues about it and Dilek personally? Go hunt with it in thick steel bottle cap trash and see if it can identify a steel bottle cap or two instead of making this up for ulterior reasons. Give it up man, you are in an extreme minority of one with you biased opinion.

 

[Gauntlet]

Why am I reminded of Peter Griffin and the Never Ending Story?

 

[itsaring!]

No, pointing out deficiencies is not bashing, but anyone with an objective mind can see an obsessive salesperson with a narcissistic disorder, that is also blatantly biased and deliberately misleading. At that point, it's not just bashing, but something even worse.

BTW- One of his latest videos shows a kid haphazardly going over a pre selected bottle cap. It's absolutely pathetic and reeks of desperation (even more so than his misleading bashing videos usually do).

IMO, anyone who defends that guy, is profoundly naïve, or one of his puppets.

When you deal with a couple " Know it all's" you will never win an argument since they are never wrong. The one guy on here doesn't hunt beaches but will tell you how easy it would be if he went and tells you how to hunt beaches and such. I decided to just go out and hunt beaches and let him think he won. Heck i got a deus II and it hit on an iron tent stake at a 6 and a 70. "My" CTX and Nox wouldn't do that stuff. Set up wrong the deusII probably. But that is how you can alter any detector argument in a test garden.

 

[Cfmct]

You know what I wish.... members could stop mentioning a banned members name.... he has nothing good to say about this forum... he does not deserve recognition.

 

[ghound]

Great to see Calabash still helping folks on here with his user videos