Lower Number of Tones= More Depth?

[OxShoeDrew]

No work today as we've received 22in of snow. So, by lunch I had a question. Does the number of tone choices affect the depth...does the new EQX get the same depth across the tone number choices within Park 1 and 2 (and all-metal)?


The sens was 21 and the recovery was 3.
I air tested a KG2, Rosie, 3 cm dandy button, and a 1909 IH. The average depth in inches of all these items is listed.


My findings-


Park1, 2 tones- 12.5(inch average)
Park1, 5 tones- 11.4




Park2, 2 tones- 12.3
Park2, 5 tones- 11.8


All Metal, 2 tones- 12.3
5 tones- 12.3

Seems the 2 tones gets more depth than 5 tones. Is this a thing? Does this happen across all detectors? I always used 2+ tones on the T2 as it gives the shape and size of the objects, but I didn't know it gave more depth.

[Digger_O'Dell]

By your testing, it would look like the less tones the more depth. I've noticed something similar on my CTX, though I never tested it. But from experience, I had tried getting to know the 50 tone setting and it just seemed like the deeper and iffy signals were much more pronounced with a 4 tone setting. My only way to explain it is that the processor takes more power to categorize the signal into many possible bins than only a couple, so has a possibility of missing weaker signals.

[Bucknut]

Well that seems kinda weird but maybe your tests are accurate. I prefer 50 tones so I hope that is not the case. I have had the Equinox for almost a week and have not used it yet except a few times in my test garden...weather has not be pretty here. But at least we do not have 2 feet of snow...feel sorry for those of you dealing with that mess!

[OxShoeDrew]

I did a re-test, only this time I added 50 tones, and I performed it in a sterile, sound proof lab :lol: Well, next to my furnace in the basement. I averaged the same four targets.

Park1
2 tones- 12.4
5 tones- 11.9
50 tones-12.4

Park2
2 tones- 12.6
5 tones- 12.4
50 tones-12.6

[Lodge Scent]

Crunching the numbers Drew, I ran a standard deviation on the geometric mean of both sets of data. I then doubled the sum and derived the square root using the negative log function. The result is a median of 0.1758 inches. This is statistically negligible when you factor in the covariance using even-biased rounding with two significant figures. ;)

[Digger_O'Dell]

Crunching the numbers Drew, I ran a standard deviation on the geometric mean of both sets of data. I then doubled the sum and derived the square root using the negative log function. The result is a median of 0.1758 inches. This is statistically negligible when you factor in the covariance using even-biased rounding with two significant figures. ;)

Yeah, what HE said! :shocked01:..... :rofl:

[OxShoeDrew]

:lol:
So, I'm guessing the MDing community has already figured out there isn't much difference in depth between the number of tones???

[Ken C]

The depth of the modes (park 1,2, farm 1,2, etc) are really related to the recovery presets for that mode. Higher recovery = less depth. If you adjust the recovery and sensitivity to the same settings, it's almost exactly the same depth for any mode.

Hope that helps!

[OxShoeDrew]

I used recovery 3 in all modes... I guess there isn't differences when changing tone numbers within the same mode.

[Lodge Scent]

Of course my math is suspect. But I agree with Ken. Recovery speed probably has more impact on depth than any other setting. Next time you get a good faint deep target using a low recovery speed, raise the recovery speed and watch that faint target disappear.

[OxShoeDrew]

I knew about recovery speed and regularly change it when the situation warrants...but my question was if the tone-numbers had anything to do with depth?...and the answer seems to be no. Thanks for your help guys!

[RaZR]

I also have my "Testing lab" in the basement next to the furnace. I actually use one of those plastic folding tables that I used a sharpie to mark off inches on the end of for coil testing. My wife was hardly perturbed with me.:hystericallaugh: