Here's the new Minelab Equinox

New guy wrote: "I detect in west coast of Florida. Should I get model 800 or is model 600 adequate for this territory?"

Location is a factor for detector choice, especially if you are detecting salt water but what you are hunting for is
probably more important for your decision.

Bryan



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 10/11/2017 01:45AM by Cabin Fever.

I'm very interested in the machine, but I want to see how well it performs in parks. All the fast recovery machines I've used or read about were tough to use in parks because, unlike the CTX/E-Trac, they ID'd deep, rusty bottle caps as coins.

Reeseb Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I'm very interested in the machine, but I want to
> see how well it performs in parks. All the fast r
> ecovery machines I've used or read about were toug
> h to use in parks because, unlike the CTX/E-Trac,
> they ID'd deep, rusty bottle caps as coins.

"I'm thinking and a few others also commented, the standard coil [ looks big ] for park use and I'd be inclined to order the 'small coil' at the same time when ordering the machine.
Traditionally, the small coils have been very hot: the 6" coils for X-Terra were fantastic as is the 6" for the CTX.
I once heard 3 separate signals from 3 different items in the same hole with the CTX6"

newguy........ are you beach hunting or inland hunting? Personally i see an advantage you might miss out on with the 600 if you are beach hunting. Freq matching and how all of them work together. We just havent seen a single bit of info for beach use yet. Still going to come down to how well it works out there vs what we thought we might be getting. For beach hunters where machines can pay for themselves with one find....... its worth the extra advantage the 800 offers on small gold..... because here in Fl, id say we wont notice the difference depth wise in the water until you have a good bit of time on it. Thats because it depends on how deep targets really are....... and you will have the haters and those that like fish stories lol. We are dealing with a lof of sand and recent drops....... its timing buddy..... but both machines offer an advantage with single freq option in the dry sand.

Quote

Sod-buster Wrote:

Looks like according to my sources, first folks likely to receive units around New Year's Day time frame.

Is this still the accurate timeline?

Will anyone here get one earlier?

dewcon4414 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> newguy........ are you beach hunting or inland hun
> ting? Personally i see an advantage you might mi
> ss out on with the 600 if you are beach hunting.
> Freq matching and how all of them work together.
> We just havent seen a single bit of info for beach
> use yet. Still going to come down to how well it
> works out there vs what we thought we might be get
> ting. For beach hunters where machines can pay f
> or themselves with one find....... its worth the e
> xtra advantage the 800 offers on small gold..... b
> ecause here in Fl, id say we wont notice the diffe
> rence depth wise in the water until you have a goo
> d bit of time on it. Thats because it depends on
> how deep targets really are....... and you will ha
> ve the haters and those that like fish stories lol
> . We are dealing with a lof of sand and recent d
> rops....... its timing buddy..... but both machine
> s offer an advantage with single freq option in th
> e dry sand.
Thanks for the explanation.

Quote

Sod-buster Wrote:

Looks like according to my sources, first folks likely to receive units around New Year's Day time frame.

Is this still the accurate timeline?

Will anyone here get one earlier?

[www.minelab.com]

"Pimento",take a bow!

Part 2 is a very interesting read.
It confirms one of my own theories Re: the subtraction of the ground signal quotient from the original target signal.

This thread is back as King of the Hill @ 15,728 Views.

Certainly encouraging the way there talking about it working in tough ground, most manufacturers bringing out a new machine would probably dodge the question of depth/mineralised ground, but not Minelab !!

Des...... didnt ML always claim to disregard the ground and not just GB?

I noticed the other day in the salt water with the CTX on deep tabs and such the Fer numbers were off...... reading 11 instead of 12.......BUT those Con were still pretty dead on. Having used the Explorer for many years ive never been a digit watcher. The explorers were tone first.. then smart screen rarely did i ever check the digits. Even on the CTX i use the small digit screen. IF they dont have the ability to adjust those tones like the CTX..... that will be a shame. I like that. I like a simple machine..... none simpler than the Xcal nor none that dislikes iron more. You know how it is with say WIFI..... the more you have going on the slower things work. Concentrating on that Con digit makes sense.

Very, very interesting stuff there, in that link (yes, as Des said, hat tip to Pimento!)

What I find interesting is this. If you read this paragraph from that Minelab article...

“For each frequency the detector transmits and receives there are two signals which can be extracted which we refer to as I and Q. The Q signal is most sensitive to targets, while the I signal is most sensitive to iron content. Traditional single-frequency metal detectors use the Q signal to detect targets, and then use the ratio of the I and Q signals to assess the characteristics of the target and assign a target ID. The problem with this approach is that the I signal is sensitive to the iron content of the soil. The target ID is always perturbed by the response from the soil, and as the signal from the target gets weaker, this perturbation becomes substantial. With some simplification here for brevity, if a detector transmits and receives on more than one frequency, it can ignore the soil sensitive I signals, and instead look at the multiple Q signals it receives in order to determine a target ID. That way, even for weak targets or highly mineralised soils, the target ID is far less perturbed by the response from the soil. This leads to very precise target IDs, both in mineralised soils and for targets at depth.”

...that sounds exactly like what I have described many times before, as being my experience when hunting other VLF units, and then the reason I switched to FBS instead. I have posted here several times how I had an F-70 years back (as just one example), but on any target deeper than 6" to 7", it ID'd these targets SOLIDLY as iron, assigning mostly -- if not exclusively -- a "15" (iron) ID number. Clearly, the iron in my soil was "biasing" target ID strongly, and this bias increased with depth. Not surprising, a described very well in that paragraph above. But, what WAS surprising to me was that when I switched to FBS 7 years ago, I learned that I could get accurate ID on coins to 8" or even 10" deep -- all the way to the very bottom of the depth capability of the unit. Even as a fringe depth target was being barely detected, any ID number the machine was producing was still in the "decent" range, in terms of accuracy.

I say all this, because over the years, just getting a "feel" for FBS and how it behaves (without the technical background), I would have absolutely concluded (and have posted this many times as well) that somehow, FBS is "eliminating" the soil iron/mineral "biasing" of target ID, and NOT through traditional ground balancing. As we know, there is no ground balance adjustment, no "autotracking" ground balance...somehow FBS does this WITHOUT ground balance adjustment -- manually by the user, or automatically, by the machine. Obviously, soil mineral is being eliminated SOMEHOW -- by the processing of the multiple frequencies being transmitted.

None of this is "new," and I know is much better understood by those with more "electronics/engineering" backgrounds -- but my point is, that paragraph above describes EXACTLY how I "perceive" that FBS works. While I can see the "twist" here, that with Multi-IQ they are "amplitude- and phase-locking" from the actual transmit SIGNAL, and not the transmit voltage DRIVING that signal, I still think that what Multi-IQ is accomplishing in terms of "removing" soil/ground effects to leave you with a more "pure" target ID, is exactly the "magic" that is accomplished by FBS, even if the WAY it is performed in FBS is slightly different...

Very, very interesting, and I'm excited about this.

Steve

Steve,

"I love it when you get going!!!

NB: note where they 'read' this Forum!!! I'm really happy about that.

Steve, do you hunt in Ferrous Tones? You're probably getting 'faster ID on iron' than I am in Conductive Sounds!
But I watch the FE display for '27's' and dropped cursor.

To prepare for the "Equinox", I'm taking out an X-Terra tomorrow.
I'm thinking the EQX will behave more like an X-Terra than any of the FBS units?"

Des D

They haven’t mentioned a word about BBS or FBS units.
I’m really hoping it will help the ID of a VLF. I’ve grown use to questioning the guesstimate my units make.
Is it deep,... could be something good.
Do I need to re groundbalance a lot,... not sure if it’s telling me the truth.

Usually my VLF’s don’t lie, but often they speak another dialect. You just have got to know the local language.
But you adore them for their speed!

With the added curve ball that it uses different frequencies in multi for different modes.
This is starting to sound like someone has really doen their homework :-)

Des D Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Steve,
>
> "I love it when you get going!!!
>
> NB: note where they 'read' this Forum!!! I'm reall
> y happy about that.
>
> Steve, do you hunt in Ferrous Tones? You're probab
> ly getting 'faster ID on iron' than I am in Conduc
> tive Sounds!
> But I watch the FE display for '27's' and dropped
> cursor.
>
> To prepare for the "Equinox", I'm taking out an X-
> Terra tomorrow.
> I'm thinking the EQX will behave more like an X-Te
> rra than any of the FBS units?"
>
> Des D

HH
Johnb

scoopjohnb Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> Usually my VLF’s don’t lie, but often they speak a
> nother dialect. You just have got to know the loca
> l language.
> But you adore them for their speed!
>


A few years ago I was detecting a Spanish site I located. I took a friend and he'd gone off to explore another area near the site, but I stuck with the area I thought the outpost was located at. After 30 minutes or so I dug my one and only bust dime, a musket ball, and some other period age indicators, and texted him that I was in the right spot. I was using my Red Racer with the 11" DD factory coil, and although the bust dime was shallow, some of the other targets were deep. I had detected around a bush, and recalled getting a crumby signal that I passed on. Tom detected around the same bush, and called me over. Said he got a good signal on his Explorer2 under the bush, and I told him nah I got it too on my Racer and I think it's iron. He dug it, and to my amazement it was a 1700's Spanish 1 or 2 reale (don't recall which) at about 10" or so. It was at that point I realized that for some odd reason some of the targets at this site were on the fringe detecting capabilities of my VLF machine, yet the Explorer was able to pull them in. I believe at this particular site, the adobe walls had been razzed and spread around the area, making some of the targets deeper then their original earth strata, yet others where the adobe wasn't spread over, had more shallow targets. This would be a great site to test the Equinox if their tech info is accurate, and not just marketing BS.

Des D Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Steve,
>
> "I love it when you get going!!!
>
> NB: note where they 'read' this Forum!!! I'm reall
> y happy about that.
>
> Steve, do you hunt in Ferrous Tones? You're probab
> ly getting 'faster ID on iron' than I am in Conduc
> tive Sounds!
> But I watch the FE display for '27's' and dropped
> cursor.
>
> To prepare for the "Equinox", I'm taking out an X-
> Terra tomorrow.
> I'm thinking the EQX will behave more like an X-Te
> rra than any of the FBS units?"
>
> Des D

Des --

LOL! Yes, I'm "guilty" of "getting going" about things -- quite often, in fact! Too much passion for my own good, I think... LOL!

No, I -- like you -- normally hunt conductive sounds.

In either case, though, I am amazed at whatever goes on, behind the scenes in FBS, that Minelab has been able to conjure up to essentially "remove," to a large degree, the soil effects. Where the "rubber meets the road," for a detectorist in the field, it's really, really remarkable how well it works. I have tried to read up on exactly what "removing" soil effects means. As I understand, it gets into X signals and R signals and such, but I only have a basic understanding of the technical part of it. But there's no doubt in my mind that instead of "iron effects" (X-effects, I guess) "polluting" target ID as targets get deeper and deeper, "iron effects" are instead "separated from," and "not included in" the determination of target ID (to a large degree) in FBS technology. I guess, in technical terms, it has to do with the fact that if using multiple frequencies, you then have the benefit of having multiple "R-signal" reads of a target, such that calculations and comparisons of the multiple R signals can be done, to glean more accurate target ID -- all while the "x-signal" is kept "off to the side," so to speak, and thus less able to "bias" the target ID toward "iron."

And what the new Minelab write-up suggests to me, is a FURTHER refinement of all of this stuff being done within FBS. What I glean, from reading between the lines, is this...since a receive waveform is compared to the transmit waveform, as a part of calculating target ID, it would make sense that you must use an accurate depiction of your transmit waveform (to which you will be comparing your receive waveform) in order to make accurate comparisons/calculations. And apparently, I'm gleaning that in FBS (and I guess other detector technology), the specific characteristics of the transmit waveform have traditionally been "assumed," as based on the "transmit voltage" generated by the control box. BUT -- in Multi-IQ, it seems implied that the engineers are exploiting an idea that "assuming" a transmit waveform, based on the transmit "drive voltage," is slightly inaccurate (presumably due to voltage loss, or something, between control box and coil, or something like that?) Anyway, whatever the case, it seems that the engineers decided that if they measure ACTUAL transmit voltage AT THE COIL, thus allowing the processor/algorithms to use a more ACCURATE depiction of the transmit waveform as the baseline for comparing receive waveforms to, then you get much more accurate and stable target ID. Makes complete sense to me, if I am understanding things correctly. And since receive current is TINY, then I could see where even TINY differences between the "assumed" transmit waveform and "actual" or "measured" transmit waveform would be a BIG DEAL, in terms of accuracy of ID computation.

If I am off on any of this, I'm sure some of the smarter, more educated electronics/engineering folks here will set me straight. But, if I have the gist of this correct, then this to me is VERY cool stuff, and I could see how this would be a possibly substantial improvement for detectorists...

Finally, Des, I have never swung an X-Terra. Totally different "feel" than FBS? Or some similarities there?

Steve

With the Equinox nearing production-run........ (and subsequent product roll-out) in a few weeks..... (if all is still on-target)....... I retain one primary question: If the multi-freq option is the pinnacle performer; ........ What function/purpose/niche does retaining the option of single-frequency operation have....... other than a basis unto which to 'compare' ....and/or..... for old-school folks?

On another thought: Minelab has become substantially more 'interactive' (via social media resources) ..... as of recent. I applaud this paradigm-shift/ 'awakening'.

And yet on another note: Mark L/Minelab must protect their Artwork/Intellectual Property. Because of this ........ their graphs/charts....for explanation purposes.... may appear to be 'broad/aggregate' (vs. exacting/precise). They are not perfectedly specific........ for this reason. I do not believe there is any malicious intent to 'deceive' or 'bend-truth'. . . . . for the purposes of 'sales-pitch'. An engineer(s)...... most probably.....would not do that. (However; a marketeer..... may otherwise).

I wonder how good it's going to be across the khz range, will it be sharp /hot like a tuned single freq detector or will it be 90% as good?
Will the coil have separate windings for all the freqs, how would they fit it all in, or is there something new there?
I fear it may be a compromise, good at everything but specialized in nothing, but i really hope i'm wrong.

With the Multi frequency units in the past, they were not very sensitive to small gold. By setting the machine at 20 or 40 KHz, that should help in detecting small gold.

possum mo Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> With the Multi frequency units in the past, they w
> ere not very sensitive to small gold. By setting
> the machine at 20 or 40 KHz, that should help in d
> etecting small gold.


Yes, for prospecting as well. I thought I read that the prospecting mode on the Nox is a multi freq mode? 40kHz is a good prospecting freq...so that freq alone will suit the gold hunters needs as possum mo mentioned. As to the other freqs, I'm with NASA Tom, not sure why they are there? Especially if the multi freq modes on the Nox can recover as fast as advertised in the iron. The recovery speed of multi freq units has been it's Achilles heel compared to single freq. Although, experienced operator's of multi freq units can work iron very well. So, we will see very soon what the Nox is all about. I'm expecting good things will come of this machine mostly because it's "different" tech. Many times, "different" is all that is needed to wake up old sites.

Dean

I assume since ML was combining those freqs they felt why not give them the single freq options for use. I used to use the DFX.... multi freq was good, but in the dry sand 15Khz did very well and in some dirt 5Khz did well where there wasnt a lot of EMI. I agree...... if their multi freq combos are that good rarely will anyone use the lower single freqs. Im hoping that fast recovery doesnt equate to chopped tones.

dewcon4414 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Des...... didnt ML always claim to disregard the g
> round and not just GB?

Dew,

That's right. BBS, FBS & FBS2 disregard ground minerals after 'seeing the ground', for a few seconds after lowering coil etc.

You can DEMO this for yourself if you bob the coil up/down for a few seconds and watch the 'E Trac's', [ Actual Sens Bar Left one ] and the 'scrolling' 'A' finally settle on 'X, Y or Z Sensitivity Level'
That's what I do with the E Trac: I 'quicken' the time it takes for the SENS to range up by 'manually bobbing the coil'...it really works well on light minerals but can take extra time on tough soils and it might not stop 'scrolling' at all?

Does anyone know if the 'X-Terra's 705' Prospecting algorithm is used in the EQX, or is it something New?

I'm not seeing anything different in the standard 11" coil for the EQX from the CTX coil with the noteworthy exception that it has 6 Cross Struts as of the CTX17", for enhanced 'torsional rigidity' for working in stubble stalks, stony and uneven areas. This would help minimise 'coil shaking' and uneven erratic TID's. (CTX standard 11" has just 4)
The 'toe and heel' are also different to the CTX in that they are 'Garrett like' and squared off!
So, the coil 'looks like' it has just one internal processor as per CTX, E Trac, X-Terra etc, so the 'magic' must be happening in the software embedded in the new hardware in association with a new coil processor perhaps?

Des D



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/04/2017 06:32PM by Des D.

I would expect that the single frequencies will be deeper than the multi frequency mode but they wont ID as good at fringe depths.

sanjuro Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I would expect that the single frequencies will be
> deeper than the multi frequency mode but they wont
> ID as good at fringe depths.

That is my hope as well. I would be very disappointed if they do not equal or beat other single freq machines in depth. Along with many others a good benchmark would be Minelabs own X-Terra and Musketeer series.

Tom

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
In a democracy, it is difficult to win fellow citizens over to your own side, or to build public support to remedy injustices that remain all too real when you fundamentally misunderstand how they see the world.

But............. isn't the verbiage/semantics: Will OBSOLETE single frequency metal detectors?

If they set it up as per their graph the Multi-IQ will be sensitive to everything.
But sometimes you don’t want everything, low frequency for high large conductors, high frequency for small non-ferrous.

Multi-IQ is the recon mode, the single frequencies are the “clean-up”.

Having the multi and the single in 1 unit will indeed obsolete carrying 2 or more detectors in the car boot.

Anyway, that’s my perception.
But I would probably carry a back-up just for the sake of it, why else would you have a large car boot!

HH
Johnb

John,

If that's the case...... THAT would be categorized as verbiage/semantics "deception"....... which....... in turn....... would probably anger the public. That would be a marketeer 'marketing-spin'............... because................. what is being 'portrayed' is: Multi-frequency IQ will obsolete all single frequency metal detectors.

I'm just happy that some manufacturer is finally releasing a light weight salt water hunting machine. Tom I have to agree with you on the single frequencies. Why have them? How many will actually use them? Do they offer something multi frequency can not do? If they do then single frequency is far from extinct. If they offer nothing why include them and why should I pay for them? Multi frequency with a PI is the dream machine. Some day!

Perhaps the single freqs are faster than multi?

I guess there could be a play of words in play there with the marketing statement.

For me personally, I have a CTX for multi frequency but the only places I use it is on the beach. Contrary to what most people seem to report, I find that the FBS and BBS machines don't go as deep in bad ground as some single frequency machines. This is exactly why the veteran hunters at the DIV hunts, wont have an FBS machine. There have been plenty of people try them, because they do so well for them back in their home locations. The catch though, is that the single frequency machines seldom have accurate target ID at the depths they are capable of detecting...i.e. the target ID can come in anywhere from iron all the way to coins, and tends to bounce instead of locking. Deeper objects tend to ID as iron on them, which makes having a true all metal based mode a big help. Where the FBS/BBS machines shine, is more accurate ID down to certain depths, which will vary depending on the soil type. All this really matters is if you are relying on target ID to determine whether to dig a signal or not; i.e. cherry picking.

In wet salt sand, the only thing I've found to go deeper than FBS are pulse machines. Single freq VLFs are crippled in it. That's why I have a CTX and currently have the AT Max for everything else. One excels at this, and the other at that. When I am away from salt water beaches, I wont even pack the CTX unless it's for a backup.

That's where I see an advantage of having both multi freq and single freq options in one machine, and how it could obsolete other detectors. It could potentially eliminate the need to have multiple machines, if it is equally effective in operation in multi freq and single freq.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/05/2017 01:16PM by Daniel Tn.