Big Boys Hobbies

Just thinking out loud about VDI resolution

jmaclen said:
The biggest improvements have been the development of simultaneous multi frequency technology in the Equinox, and it appears the Deus 2 and Legend that do a much better job of making more of the iron/salt responses coming from the ground itself less of a factor when detecting a target. Take as much of the ground as possible out of the processing of the return signal and the VDIs will be more accurate even on deeper non-ferrous targets of ALL conductivities and of varying sizes. The Deus 2 running at a high of 40kHz in wet salt sand and surf........and it is quiet......that is something that hasn't been done before and it is because of making the salt signal almost virtually non existent. Same for iron mineralization using these detectors. Making the ground more invisible also improves target separation and allows for faster recovery speed.

So, for me it is not about having 40, 50, 200 or 1000 VDI segments. The big improvement is about being able to assign the correct level of conductivity to the target no matter how deep it is according to the detector's setting and the coil's capabilities. Hopefully, Deus 2 and the Legend will do better at more easily handling ferrous/non ferrous identification than the Equinox.
Click to expand...

And just what has that new technology led to? faster recovery for better unmasking is all I have yet to see. Where is the improvement in depth? I'd like to see one of these new SMFs with a more accurate target ID? Most of the videos on Youtube don't even show the VDI when comparing.

Accuracy is about being able to accurately tell junk from good in my view. Nothing does that as deep as the E-Trac from my experience. How can you be more accurate with fewer VDIs? Yes, a nickel may read a solid 26, but with few VDIs, so will a pull tab, a piece of can slaw. That isn't accuracy, that is nothing but a stable VDI. Still could be anything.

Heck, if you had only 5 VDIs you could call it accurate because it would read a 3 every time no matter the depth LOL.
 
Detector said:
Those who know me know I like to back up my claims with videos. So here you go. First is my $250 detector giving a solid VDI of 04 meaning iron. Hairpin, paperclip, wire. Iron and nothing else.
.......
Second is my $250 detector showing a VDI of 18-21 which means a piece of foil. The pictures below are each target just as shown with my VDI. Works exactly the same in the dirt. So yes, a high-resolution VDI does make a difference.
.......
I used the AT Pro for many years. If you get a jumpy VDI on a dime at 2-3" you've either got something else in the same areA, your AT Pro is not set up right, or it is trashed.
Click to expand...


Nobody said the Simplex (or any other machine with more than 50 segments) is incapable of a stable VDI. Nobody has said you don't get a solid 4 on some of the common trash in your tot lots and that it's always junk when you do. So, I appreciate the effort with the video, but it's evidence to support a point nobody is arguing against.

Your argument is that more segments are better, you've have held up the Simplex as your example, and stated that its VDI is stable/not jumpy. This is an important point of discussion because any argument that more segments is better breaks down if that potential for precision doesn't go hand in hand with reliability (i.e., steady VDI).

I provided examples of the Simplex not giving stable VDI in ideal and typical conditions with common detecting finds. That doesn't mean you're wrong. It just means you're only talking about very limited, specific hunting conditions, targets, and goals. Yet, this doesn't stop you from concluding that:

-Acceptance of fewer segments is evidence of people not caring about VDI.
-VDI is useless with 50 or fewer segments.

Both of those statements are nonsense.

Again, potential for precision (i.e., number of segments) is only one VDI characteristic. There's also reliability (discussed above), validity, speed, and flexibility. The detector companies are working on ALL of these things, and improvements in those areas have led to diminishing returns on the precision (higher number of segments). Not to mention practical limits on precisions, ESPECIALLY where improvements can and have been made on those other characteristics.

People do care about VDI. They just don't care as much as you think they should about number of segments.

For the record, what I was saying about the AT Pro is that the VDI can be as jumpy or more over the same targets as the Equinox. Again, that's not the same thing as saying it is always jumpy. Plus, the AT Pro also has some limitations on those other VDI characteristics (e.g., flexibility, speed, etc...)
 
woodbutcher said:
I think we're talking more about coin machines when we're looking for the very best information on a target, not relic machines. I see alot if posts about the deus 2 and I'm sure it's a great relic machine. But I highly doubt it's on the same level as a etrac when it comes to coin shooting deep old coins. Sure,you could take a deus 2 or a Deus 1 and chase all kinds of junk and eventually come up with a coin now and again. If that's your style of hunting more power to you, but don't try to convince anyone who knows the difference in real coin machines and try to put any XP machine on the same level as a etrac, it's not. Man, I keep reading the same misinformation from the same people.
Click to expand...


No, you keep believing the same information that you want to believe which is fine. Everybody has different ground conditions and not everyone is looking for US coins. If you want a detector that is calibrated for US coins, only, and will hit them perfectly down to the depth of detection and that is the only criteria for accurate VDIs.......talk to Garrett. They are the only company that would probably be willing to build a detector like that. Otherwise, the detectors being built by non-US companies will be more generic.

If you are able to swing an Etrac for hours and hours and still find deep silver in you soil conditions....great. The Etrac and CTX will not hit silver any better than an Equinox where I live and they do much worse on copper, nickel, gold, and lead where I live.
 
Actually.
And if folks care to know.
If we take small 10k, 14k and 18k rings and then take bigger 10k, 14k, and 18k rings and use these to determine where gold ring are ID wise using both Equinox and Etrac.
Which detector will tell the truth ID wise or even locate?
The EQx will.
If ferrous enters equation near gold ring all bets are off for Etrac ID being in gold ring range. It can be. EQX rules roost here though.

Notice Gold is lower conductor. I left out higher conductive targets.
 
Detector said:
And just what has that new technology led to? faster recovery for better unmasking is all I have yet to see. Where is the improvement in depth? I'd like to see one of these new SMFs with a more accurate target ID? Most of the videos on Youtube don't even show the VDI when comparing.

Accuracy is about being able to accurately tell junk from good in my view. Nothing does that as deep as the E-Trac from my experience. How can you be more accurate with fewer VDIs? Yes, a nickel may read a solid 26, but with few VDIs, so will a pull tab, a piece of can slaw. That isn't accuracy, that is nothing but a stable VDI. Still could be anything.

Heck, if you had only 5 VDIs you could call it accurate because it would read a 3 every time no matter the depth LOL.
Click to expand...

You're talking about just 1 piece of the puzzle. If the machine can actually make use of the additional VDI segments then yes, more VDIs are going to be better. But if the machine can't, and you're just increasing the number of VDIs segments just for the sake of it, then no, additional VDI segments won't be as useful as you think (or useful at all).

If you took a science class in high school, you probably learned about significant figures. If you don't remember learning about it, click on that link to brush up on the general idea. Once you understand "sig figs," you'll understand why many of us know that boosting VDIs for the sake of boosting VDIs isn't that helpful.
 
jmaclen said:
No, you keep believing the same information that you want to believe which is fine. Everybody has different ground conditions and not everyone is looking for US coins. If you want a detector that is calibrated for US coins, only, and will hit them perfectly down to the depth of detection and that is the only criteria for accurate VDIs.......talk to Garrett. They are the only company that would probably be willing to build a detector like that. Otherwise, the detectors being built by non-US companies will be more generic.

If you are able to swing an Etrac for hours and hours and still find deep silver in you soil conditions....great. The Etrac and CTX will not hit silver any better than an Equinox where I live and they do much worse on copper, nickel, gold, and lead where I live.
Click to expand...

That's your opinion, I see the opposite. The equinox in my hunting does not hit as hard,or as deep consistently as a etrac. Apples and oranges comparison. Etrac is a dedicated coin machine, equinox and deus are middle of the road machines when it comes to comparison to the etrac
 
woodbutcher said:
That's your opinion, I see the opposite. The equinox in my hunting does not hit as hard,or as deep consistently as a etrac. Apples and oranges comparison. Etrac is a dedicated coin machine, equinox and deus are middle of the road machines when it comes to comparison to the etrac
Click to expand...

Etrac has relic feature.
Jewelry feature too.

Is Etrac a dedicated coin machine in Canada?

Was Minelab’s goal to make Etrac better coin machine solely. Or did it just turn out this way. I mean USA seems has more high conductive coinage than many others countries.

Was Etrac and or prior earlier released fbs models even tested in USA?

If more of the older coinage was still intact in Europe in the fields and parks. Would Etrac be the supreme coin detector over there? Or would it have been Deus back when?
 
Let me remind some that at the start of this thread I pointed out that I hunt mainly tot lots and this is what I have found. Yes, I am aware ground conditions all play a part in how deep the accuracy goes.

Another point some seem to have missed, is that the main reason for this thread was to express my disappointment in the new machines and the lack of VDI improvement. I used as a comparison the E-Tracs double VDIs, and how having such improves your odds of telling good from bad at extreme depth.

The E-Trac CO VDI is pretty accurate down to roughly 7"-8" depending on the conditions of course. A penny, for example, may get a jumpy VDI at 8", but you know if a good number of swings gets you a CO VDI in the penny range of 39-44, you know it stands a good chance of being a penny very deep. It could also be a rusted nail, piece of wire, etc. So you go to the FE VDI. If the CO reads in the penny range on a few of your swings, and the FE reads 12 or lower there is a very high chance it is a penny. If the FE read 17 or above, there is a very high chance it is going to be a rusted nail, wire etc.

That is my meaning of accuracy. That is why I question why Minelab didn't stick with it on the CTX and now the Equinox. That has been the whole point of this thread. It worked very well with the E-Trac so why would they seem to have gone backward in ability?
 
Detector said:
Let me remind some that at the start of this thread I pointed out that I hunt mainly tot lots and this is what I have found. Yes, I am aware ground conditions all play a part in how deep the accuracy goes.

Another point some seem to have missed, is that the main reason for this thread was to express my disappointment in the new machines and the lack of VDI improvement. I used as a comparison the E-Tracs double VDIs, and how having such improves your odds of telling good from bad at extreme depth.

The E-Trac CO VDI is pretty accurate down to roughly 7"-8" depending on the conditions of course. A penny, for example, may get a jumpy VDI at 8", but you know if a good number of swings gets you a CO VDI in the penny range of 39-44, you know it stands a good chance of being a penny very deep. It could also be a rusted nail, piece of wire, etc. So you go to the FE VDI. If the CO reads in the penny range on a few of your swings, and the FE reads 12 or lower there is a very high chance it is a penny. If the FE read 17 or above, there is a very high chance it is going to be a rusted nail, wire etc.

That is my meaning of accuracy. That is why I question why Minelab didn't stick with it on the CTX and now the Equinox. That has been the whole point of this thread. It worked very well with the E-Trac so why would they seem to have gone backward in ability?
Click to expand...

Most likely b/c MIQ and FBS/FBS2 tech work differently. And I'm guessing Minelab's engineers felt that MIQ was an overall improvement over FBS tech due to more stable VDIs in harsh ground conditions and on low and mid conductors (in addition to much faster recovery speeds and much lower weight).
 
For starters.
When I use a Etrac I am looking at conductive number mainly. Sure onnsome targets I will see how ferrous number and cursor is behaving.
But Etrac has 50 numbers in conducive range.
I don’t get to see a 12-44.5 in the window. And if a person in wild can look at cursor and ascertain a 44.5 conductive reading your eyes lot better than mine. Lol

Next
Why did Minelab stop with only a 50 number conductive range to start with on Etrac ? Lot of other vlf detectors had 99 range conductive scales or maybe 95. Could it be because a lower and higher frequency being transmitted and received. ( Note how Deus 1 responds when changing freqs using non normalized ID setting).
So using this higher and lower freq Etrac uses there are multiple responses driven by transmit freq.
So, how far can the ID be bent using SMF and allow say a 99 conductive scale and be more reliable.

Also note the new Nokta Makro Legend it stops short of s full 99 tangerine scale too. Only 50 I think used for nonferrous. Why? Anfibio had full 99 range.
There must be a good reason.
And worthy work arounds then not discovered.

EQX is also a better bad ground detector vs Etrac. And coke can read low on Eqx’s nonferrous scale. So could the scale used in EQX be linked to it better abilities in bad ground, plus and I could be wrong but isn’t freq span of ts freq higher with Eqx versus Etrac.
 
mh9162013 said:
Most likely b/c MIQ and FBS/FBS2 tech work differently. And I'm guessing Minelab's engineers felt that MIQ was an overall improvement over FBS tech due to more stable VDIs in harsh ground conditions and on low and mid conductors (in addition to much faster recovery speeds and much lower weight).
Click to expand...

Perhaps I should be using the description of reliably rather than accuracy. Although accuracy is important, a nickel, a pull tab, and a piece of canslaw could all read the same accurate VDI with only a limited number of VDI segments.

I would tend to agree that maybe it is a limitation of MIQ/SMF vs FBS. Or it could be they're saving a high VDI system for a planned high-end Equinox to replace the CTX in time? I'm just wondering why they seem to have gone backward with the CTX? I would have thought their flagship would have every feature available.
 
Deus 2 has big scale for multi freq.
But I wonder if the way it is set up (the way it IDs things) has more to do with the higher freq modes the detector has or maybe it is the lower freq modes it has like dive program.
Notice what a zincoln reads on it.
Pay close attention to that.
Exciting times ahead.
 
tnsharpshooter said:
For starters.
When I use a Etrac I am looking at conductive number mainly. Sure onnsome targets I will see how ferrous number and cursor is behaving.
But Etrac has 50 numbers in conducive range.
I don’t get to see a 12-44.5 in the window. And if a person in wild can look at cursor and ascertain a 44.5 conductive reading your eyes lot better than mine. Lol

Next
Why did Minelab stop with only a 50 number conductive range to start with on Etrac ? Lot of other vlf detectors had 99 range conductive scales or maybe 95. Could it be because a lower and higher frequency being transmitted and received. ( Note how Deus 1 responds when changing freqs using non normalized ID setting).
So using this higher and lower freq Etrac uses there are multiple responses driven by transmit freq.
So, how far can the ID be bent using SMF and allow say a 99 conductive scale and be more reliable.

Also note the new Nokta Makro Legend it stops short of s full 99 tangerine scale too. Only 50 I think used for nonferrous. Why? Anfibio had full 99 range.
There must be a good reason.
And worthy work arounds then not discovered.

EQX is also a better bad ground detector vs Etrac. And coke can read low on Eqx’s nonferrous scale. So could the scale used in EQX be linked to it better abilities in bad ground, plus and I could be wrong but isn’t freq span of ts freq higher with Eqx versus Etrac.
Click to expand...

??? The E-Trac has 85 VDI segments,35 ferrous and 50 conductive. I'm not sure where the 44.5 comes from, but the total VDI is the 2 digit FE & the 2 digit CO together. For example, FE 12 and CO 44 would indicate 1 VDI segment on the display screen. There are 85 possible VDI segments on the display screen.

Sorry, had to correct my VDI count on the E-Trac. I was quoting from bad info.
 
Last edited:
Detector said:
??? The E-Trac has 1500 VDI segments, and if I remember right, FE ends at the FE of 20 or there abouts. I'm not sure where the 44.5 comes from, but the total VDI is the 2 digit FE & the 2 digit CO together. For example, FE 12 and CO 44 would indicate 1 VDI segment on the display screen. There are 1500 possible VDI segments on the display screen.
Click to expand...

Why did they stop with only a 50 segment conductive scale?
I mean wonder if they could have got copper penny farther from silver dime with larger scale? Or a zincoln farther from a copper penny.
There had to be a reason they did what they did.

And yes the 50 segment scale bunches small sized (varied) aluminum to read 01 conductive number.

But back in the day what was Minelab (etrac) competing with?
Seems Etrac best thing out there then on coins compared to competition.

I am betting it had to do something with limiting how many times ID of target was normalized. There has to be a limit on how many times it can be normalized before it becomes more unreliable or accurate.

Why don’t we see 200 segment conductive ID scales on detectors?
If it could be done and give better info.
 
Detector said:
Perhaps I should be using the description of reliably rather than accuracy. Although accuracy is important, a nickel, a pull tab, and a piece of canslaw could all read the same accurate VDI with only a limited number of VDI segments.

I would tend to agree that maybe it is a limitation of MIQ/SMF vs FBS. Or it could be they're saving a high VDI system for a planned high-end Equinox to replace the CTX in time? I'm just wondering why they seem to have gone backward with the CTX? I would have thought their flagship would have every feature available.
Click to expand...

One, they didn't go backwards with the CTX, as it came out well before the Equinox.

Two, whether it's a limitation of MIQ or a business decision that Codan made, the Minelab engineers are well aware of the desire for a VDI system that can more accurately and reliably tell users what's in the ground.

I don't claim to know why MIQ has 50 segments. But I'm pretty sure it's not b/c Minelab is ignorant about our needs.
 
When did Minelab market EQX 800 as there flagship?
I missed that.
Did folks just assume since it was dropped out of plane?
And the CTX or Etrac wasn’t.

If my memory serves me correctly a Minelab engineer posted directly to Dankowski forum that clearly gives some evidence comparing fbs and Multi IQ.
Leading one to believe EQX doesn’t do all well as fbs.

I’ll find it if I can and post link here.
 
tnsharpshooter said:
When did Minelab market EQX 800 as there flagship?
I missed that.
Did folks just assume since it was dropped out of plane?
And the CTX or Etrac wasn’t.

If my memory serves me correctly a Minelab engineer posted directly to Dankowski forum that clearly gives some evidence comparing fbs and Multi IQ.
Leading one to believe EQX doesn’t do all well as fbs.

I’ll find it if I can and post link here.
Click to expand...

Their flagship I was referring to the CTX
 
DEUS 1, AT PRO, EQUINOX 800 VDI ACCURACY VIDEO

This video was made in my backyard two years ago. My video making skills stink. Sorry for the glare.

The Deus 1 mineralization bar is 3/4 full.

First you will see me put a Jefferson nickel in a PVC tube at 3" depth. Then you will see a similar Jefferson nickel on the surface. Then there is a similar Jefferson nickel buried at 6" under the silver plastic cap. The two other targets are a surface clad Washington quarter and a clad Washington quarter buried at 6" under the red plastic cap.

Deus 1 is in default 3 tone Fast mode with 9" X35 coil. AT Pro in default 3 tone Pro Zero with 8.5X11" coil. Equinox in default 5 tone Park 2 with 6" coil except I had to lower the sensitivity to about 60% of maximum to lessen the effect of EMI.

Accurate target ID is dependent on a detector first being able to sort out conductivity. When a detector cannot get past that step.......even on a 3" target you can have as many numerical target ID segments and ferrous/non ferrous graphs and windows as you want. Step 1 is assigning the correct conductivity.

At the end I use the nickel targets to show that the Equinox using its selectable single frequency settings cannot identify the 3" nickel either. It can only identify it using its Multi IQ Multi setting. By the way, all of the Vanquish models pass this test easily.

I have also tested the CTX 3030, Whites DFX, Whites V3i, and the new Garrett APEX on these targets along with too many single frequency detectors to remember. They all failed to identify the conductivity of the 3" and 6" nickels. Most struggled on the 6" quarter too.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xba2jTFT1OQ
 
Last edited:
mh9162013 said:
One, they didn't go backwards with the CTX, as it came out well before the Equinox.

Two, whether it's a limitation of MIQ or a business decision that Codan made, the Minelab engineers are well aware of the desire for a VDI system that can more accurately and reliably tell users what's in the ground.

I don't claim to know why MIQ has 50 segments. But I'm pretty sure it's not b/c Minelab is ignorant about our needs.
Click to expand...

By backward I'm talking about a single VDI as vs the double VDI. I thought I pointed out how I find the double VDI very helpful in telling very deep targets good from the bad?
 
Detector said:
By backward I'm talking about a single VDI as vs the double VDI. I thought I pointed out how I find the double VDI very helpful in telling very deep targets good from the bad?
Click to expand...

You did, but that's not a statement that applies to all targets in all situations (at least in regards to comparing FBS to MIQ).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

John-Edmonton
Come On Garrett.....Send Us A Signal, I'll Throw You A Line.
Replies
5
Views
308
metaladdict
metaladdict
RgnFn
Question for you D2 users
2
Replies
22
Views
485
jmaclen
J
E
Thrift Store Tesoro Golden Sabre Find
Replies
3
Views
154
metaladdict
metaladdict
T
New Manticore owners please read - Involves user manual and software update.
Replies
2
Views
196
AirmetTango
AirmetTango
K
Deus 2 controller battery replacement help
Replies
9
Views
222
tnsharpshooter
T
Back
Top Bottom