Angel why 5 or 9?
- Thread starter DAN03USMC
- Start date
Hi Dan, sorry for the late reply, but I have been absent from the forum for most of the past several weeks.
My selecting those two particular noise cancel numbers is more of a personal preference, as I have found they work well at most of the sites I have been to where EMI may be a bit of a challenge. The truth is though that, for the most part, the difference between the channels tend to be quite nuanced.
The setting of 9 is more of a 'universal' one for me, the one I almost always have on at most sites. I also settled on 5 after detecting at once site early last year. The EMI had been a bit of a challenge, so I tried several of the channels before digging the targets. The machine had still been burping and crackling no matter what number I selected, but I did discern that I could make out the signals of the deeper targets slightly better while having noise cancel at 5, at least at that particular site.
My selecting those two particular noise cancel numbers is more of a personal preference, as I have found they work well at most of the sites I have been to where EMI may be a bit of a challenge. The truth is though that, for the most part, the difference between the channels tend to be quite nuanced.
The setting of 9 is more of a 'universal' one for me, the one I almost always have on at most sites. I also settled on 5 after detecting at once site early last year. The EMI had been a bit of a challenge, so I tried several of the channels before digging the targets. The machine had still been burping and crackling no matter what number I selected, but I did discern that I could make out the signals of the deeper targets slightly better while having noise cancel at 5, at least at that particular site.