From what I've seen on TH-cam, the Minelabs tend to reach a few inches deeper than the Legend in general, and the Legend gives a less stable signal. Could have been tuning, but that was my take from a number of videos..
The presenter in this video misspoke. The ORX is indeed a Multi-Frequency detector. He should have pointed out the difference is the ORX is SIngle-selectable Multi-Frequency, whereas the Legend is “Simulatanous” Multiple Frequency. I actually prefer he ORX over the Legend after using both.
You are technically correct, but when I say multi frequency I mean it is operational with multiple frequencies not operating at a single frequency. ORX is a great machine.
@@ProspectorsCache Yes. Also technically, most Simulataneius Multi-Frequency detectors end up blending frequencies which that blending signal is less accurate than s ingle freqeuncy result. Like many others have already proven in years past, I have also taken my oscilloscope to measure simultaneous multi-frequency detetors and found that they mostly average down to two frequencies (refereed to as blending). This is why I like to identify a target area first in line with the soil conditions & the type of target and then choose my frequency. I find running the single frequency then performs better than blend of multiple frequencies being averaged out. The simulaneous is, of course, better if you're just looking for a wider range of targets to hit a just dig which of course is a great way to learn tones and associate them to items. Then a good simulataneous machine can be switched down to a single frequency for more accurate ID tones. But for most who just want to run a detector with decent amount of target hits with capabilitie to adjust Iron tones and such,, there is little need to spend more than among the new offerings like the Nokta Triple Score and Minelab Xterra Elite as they are fabuous detectors to run and a great value:performance ratio offering.
The main point of simultaneous multi frequency is to reduce target masking due to other metals being close by. I have tested single frequency detectors and they can't unmask targets as well as a multi frequency detectors. That is a fact that is shown by many TH-cam videos. Iffy signals has great research on the unmasking of targets
@@ProspectorsCache Yes, I did not argue that point, actually I sort of supported it. I was just speaking to the known fact that Simulatanous Multiple frequences blend and when you are able to idenfiy conditions, and ajust to the proper frequency for the sought after ttarget desired, accuracy increases. My conludeing point was also that for Most desctorists out there, Simulataneous Multi detectors are the sure way to go, Especially now with all the great values to be had in the newest of offerings…. When I built Ham Radios in the 1970’s and 80’s from companies like Heathkit, they later added a lne of metal detector kits. I built about a dozen of them for friends back then, and for that time they were decent machines, but not alot of dicrimiation and depth. What we have today coud only be imagined back then and for how relatively inexpense this better technolgy has evolved is really mnd blowing.
From what I've seen on TH-cam, the Minelabs tend to reach a few inches deeper than the Legend in general, and the Legend gives a less stable signal. Could have been tuning, but that was my take from a number of videos..
My opinion is that depth is no longer an issue. Target separation in trash is what makes the legend so good.
Great video and info
Glad it was helpful!
The presenter in this video misspoke. The ORX is indeed a Multi-Frequency detector. He should have pointed out the difference is the ORX is SIngle-selectable Multi-Frequency, whereas the Legend is “Simulatanous” Multiple Frequency. I actually prefer he ORX over the Legend after using both.
You are technically correct, but when I say multi frequency I mean it is operational with multiple frequencies not operating at a single frequency. ORX is a great machine.
@@ProspectorsCache Yes. Also technically, most Simulataneius Multi-Frequency detectors end up blending frequencies which that blending signal is less accurate than s ingle freqeuncy result. Like many others have already proven in years past, I have also taken my oscilloscope to measure simultaneous multi-frequency detetors and found that they mostly average down to two frequencies (refereed to as blending). This is why I like to identify a target area first in line with the soil conditions & the type of target and then choose my frequency. I find running the single frequency then performs better than blend of multiple frequencies being averaged out.
The simulaneous is, of course, better if you're just looking for a wider range of targets to hit a just dig which of course is a great way to learn tones and associate them to items. Then a good simulataneous machine can be switched down to a single frequency for more accurate ID tones.
But for most who just want to run a detector with decent amount of target hits with capabilitie to adjust Iron tones and such,, there is little need to spend more than among the new offerings like the Nokta Triple Score and Minelab Xterra Elite as they are fabuous detectors to run and a great value:performance ratio offering.
The main point of simultaneous multi frequency is to reduce target masking due to other metals being close by. I have tested single frequency detectors and they can't unmask targets as well as a multi frequency detectors. That is a fact that is shown by many TH-cam videos. Iffy signals has great research on the unmasking of targets
@@ProspectorsCache Yes, I did not argue that point, actually I sort of supported it. I was just speaking to the known fact that Simulatanous Multiple frequences blend and when you are able to idenfiy conditions, and ajust to the proper frequency for the sought after ttarget desired, accuracy increases.
My conludeing point was also that for Most desctorists out there, Simulataneous Multi detectors are the sure way to go, Especially now with all the great values to be had in the newest of offerings….
When I built Ham Radios in the 1970’s and 80’s from companies like Heathkit, they later added a lne of metal detector kits. I built about a dozen of them for friends back then, and for that time they were decent machines, but not alot of dicrimiation and depth. What we have today coud only be imagined back then and for how relatively inexpense this better technolgy has evolved is really mnd blowing.
Great video
Thanks for the visit
81712 Reichel Forks
Thanks