Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;YOC, post: 2436119, member: 58941&quot;]My friend tested a bliss tool against all models and he found it to be far worse than the etrac.&nbsp; Far far worse.&nbsp;&nbsp; The reason was that with all the manual adjustments it is a bit like closing the stable door after the horse has bolted when trying to tune it in to beat another detector after you know the target type and size.&nbsp; &nbsp; when you walk along a field with a detector you want the detectors computer to take in all the information and decide what to ignore and what not to , then to give you an audible signal.&nbsp; You cannot walk over a target the etrac has found without getting a clear audible response from the blistool and then say, hang on I know there&#039;s something down there because the etrac found it, make adjustments and then say you had a clearer response than the etrac.&nbsp; I use two detectors and my son and I will often&nbsp; check each others signals when they are deep and faint, we get the best of both worlds then.&nbsp;&nbsp; Ground type and trash density change all the time and many hundreds of times in a days detecting.&nbsp; The etrac will adjust quickly to this and be consistently reliable at finding good targets.&nbsp; As with most detectors discrimination is a big issue,&nbsp; I don&#039;t use any, but the responses I get from signals based on their conductivity and ferrous properties are different as I set it up to tell me when I go over rubbish rather than nor telling me.&nbsp; I can make my own mind up then.... I don&#039;t trust the computer to make human like decisions.&nbsp;&nbsp; But as for the blistool being the best, sorry,&nbsp; but I don&#039;t agree.[/QUOTE]</p><p><br /></p>

Your name or email address:

Do you already have an account?

• No, create an account now.
• Yes, my password is:
• Forgot your password?

Stay logged in