Detector signal sound analysis

[Infamy]

In the past I've recorded signal locations and the sounds coming from detectors for analysis in Audacity.
Just wondering if anyone else has done this and if there are benefits from this approach beyond being able to go back and check the signal?
Is there better software for this than Audacity?

[Smirnov-Arta]

...

Good afternoon. The question is not clear, because the purpose of your actions is not clear. There are a huge number of audio editors. And what will this give you?
Even on one MD, you must conduct many hours of tests in the formation (in the formation itself) for different targets, for different positions of the targets in the formation. This includes single targets and targets near debris. This includes different types of soil. This includes different soil moisture levels. And so on and so forth. And what will these sound rows/arrays give you? Neither the sound of the target, nor the VDI, will ever give you 100% certainty of what you will find. Never. Either dig or don't.

[Infamy]

Good afternoon. The question is not clear, because the purpose of your actions is not clear. There are a huge number of audio editors. And what will this give you?
Even on one MD, you must conduct many hours of tests in the formation (in the formation itself) for different targets, for different positions of the targets in the formation. This includes single targets and targets near debris. This includes different types of soil. This includes different soil moisture levels. And so on and so forth. And what will these sound rows/arrays give you? Neither the sound of the target, nor the VDI, will ever give you 100% certainty of what you will find. Never. Either dig or don't.

I have a few constants to play with,
1) speed of travel for the detector coil,
2) moisture
3) soil/mud.

This is not beep dig, it is record a large number of targets then do a focused second or third pass with different setup, now you have two or three sets of information to analyse. If you can work out the promising targets you could save time not digging rubbish, as its mud digging is not easy, so worth the time in preparation.

[Smirnov-Arta]

...

Once again, and let me disagree with you. Everything you have written is a perfect idyll. And here's a simple example. Take half a cubic meter of the soil layer (0.5 x 0.5 x 0.5 m). Place the target in the center parallel to the ground level (for example, a 25-30mm coin). Delete the data. This is going to be an idyll. And then, get down to reality. For example: rotate the coin (changing its position), add debris (for example, a forged nail, at different distances, and in different positions relative to the ground level (with the head facing up, for example). As a result, in 99% of cases, you will get an extremely ambiguous response. And if you only rely on this analysis (while setting the analysis parameters... you set the cut-off points yourself...the algorithm), the goal will remain unexcavated, since everything will go away (will be voiced or displayed) or as a ground signal or as an iron signal or as a disputed signal. That is, in the end. Whatever tests you apply, you decide whether to dig or not. BUT! If you understand that the principles of MD and its algorithms are not perfect, to put it mildly, then you will dig up the target regardless of the readings. If you "trust" the principles/algorithms, then unfortunately, you may miss a large number of necessary targets. Most of the good targets were found by a simple Garret Ace 250, simply because they were digging everything without considering the sounds or numbers on the display. I'll go even further... The "archaeologists" of the past used an even simpler but more comprehensive method: a shovel and a sieve. It was hard and challenging, but they cleaned everything thoroughly and 100%. However, it's up to you. Either you fully trust imperfect algorithms (which can't be perfect because of the laws of physics) or you use your intelligence. And I'll give you an example. It was a long time ago. About 20-23 years ago. I was given the first MD. XLT E-Series. I didn't know anything about instrument search, or principles, or anything at that time. I set up the MD software and went to look for it. This MD has a function for visualizing targets with icons (ring, nail, etc.). At the same time, please note that this was done by a serious company...with algorithms...ostensibly to simplify the search for users. I'm looking for it. Signal! On the screen, a ring - dug it up - a cork. And so many times in a row. I thought that if it happened again, I would break it against a tree). I didn't break it, but I didn't find the ring either). However, I started studying the principles and algorithms... and then it became clear how much conditional information is embedded in them, and how they are unable to provide accurate indications due to the physical processes and principles involved. sorry for the Google translation

[Infamy]

Well I think post processing has many advantages to that of beep dig. When you are going to have too many targets to dig its the only way to prioritize. It also allows one to build up patterns, and identify trails to follow.

[Smirnov-Arta]

...

Yes, it's no problem. Everyone decides for themselves what is more convenient. The main thing is not to forget that any algorithm is only possible, not the truth.