Do Above Ground Tests Actually Hinder 'in ground' Performance?

Now let me remind you that I do plenty of 'above ground' tests because it allows me to get some insight into the language of the machines that I swing, I've written a blog, Bench Testing Vs Reality which can be read HERE 

I understand the limitations of above ground tests and always take the results with a pinch of salt, but a lot of my 'in field' videos have displayed 'unmasking results' that fall in line with a lot of my 'bench tests. I believe newcomers to the hobby can have their views warped on certain machines because they take what they see in above ground tests as fact. I don't think many people out there actually understand how complicated the 'ground' is and when it's brought into the equation it can totally change the performance of the machine, especially ones with a VDI display.

The Dirt Is Complicated

Now with the rise of social media, especially YouTube, we're being inundated with self-appointed experts that like to project their infinite wisdom on a vast array of subjects. Metal detecting is no exception, I've said it before that subscriber count doesn't equate to said channel having superior knowledge or intelligence on said subject. But this is where the waters start to muddy because if you've got a guy spouting shit about specific metal detectors and then demonstrating 'apparent faults' with these detectors to his huge army of gullible subscribers. Due to both his reach and influence the detector companies have no other choice than to take notice. 

How Do The Above Points Effect Metal Detector Manufactures? 

Maybe ... just maybe ... they might start to build detectors that perform better above the ground than actually in the ground. Why Is This? because if you've got channels, combined with hundreds and thousands of subscribers all adopting the same 'above ground tests' these companies don't want their detectors to fail or be seen in a bad light. Let me play devils advocate here, do we really know if the machines that perform better above ground actually excel on targets in the ground - no we don't. 

Let me use the Nokta Anfibio as my example, I haven't used one but I've watched loads of videos because the machine sort of interested me at one point. This is a detector that appears to do really well on test gardens and seems to punch really deep. BUT when people are hunting with it in the fields they don't appear to find anything deeper than any of the other machines out there. When I say deep I'm not talking about pin-pointer depth, pin-pointer depth isn't deep to me.

Performs Great In Test Gardens

Another point that I've mentioned before, you can't rate a machines depth capabilities through air tests, the results are completely void because the second you put the dirt between the coil and the target, depending on the make up of the dirt, the depth will decrease drastically. The only machines this doesn't happen with are Nexus, it's a fact that Nexus detects deeper in the ground than in air. I personally don't know of any other machine that reflects the same results. Despite what people think, I personally feel that high gain/high sensitivity machines suffer in the ground when it comes to overall depth performance. My dad always told me that too much of one thing has the reverse effect, gain and sensitivity is the perfect example of this point. 

So to conclude, if we're all showing above ground tests 'me included' that might bare absolutely no bearing on actual in-ground performance. Are we, without being aware about it, making manufactures focus on performance in all the wrong areas? I personally feel that this could very well be the case. Maybe a change of mindset is required, bench tests are great to learn the language of your machine but maybe that's all they're good for. It's certainly something to think about.