Latest Equinox video by Brandon Neice at Detectival

[youtu.be]

Is it just me or do does anyone else think the targets sound terrible. The sounds seem very washy, unclear, it just does not seem to be able to lock onto the targets. I would not mind if the targets were deep but they are not.

It's hard to tell with all the louder sounds the microphone is picking up. Lots of lower frequency clunking and rattling going on like the phone is banging into something. Otherwise the tones sound pretty good to me.. like an X-Terra.

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.

Sounded good to me, easy on the ears. One note of a flute.

More info on Equinox from Mal on Minelab owners forum who’s an experienced detectorist.

If you only are at Corfe when we tested it against the Deus and even the CTX's.

A lot of raised eyebrows (and odd swear word) when the Equinox could find signals that the others could not.

Some of it was down to the set ups of the Deus (black coils and HF) and CTX's but other signals the Equinox showed what it could do in the iron loaded fields.}

4I'm more excited for the pinpointer then the Equinox. Sounds like it hits harder then the 1st gen pro finds



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/01/2017 12:05PM by Diggs4ever.

I don't know, Diggs. While the new ProFinds might be interesting, those are some pretty strong words coming from Mal, regarding the Equinox (the context of which was that Mal was responding to a poster who was doubting whether the Equinox was a machine that would prove to be faster/better than his Deus, or a "replacement" for his E-Trac).

For Mal to say that in a real world hunt, the Equinox -- when put head to head with a Deus and a CTX -- was causing "raised eyebrows" and the "odd swear word" by finding targets the other two "could not?" That, if it is to be believed/accurate, causes ME some "raised eyebrows."

Later in that same post, where Mal made those comments, he also directly implied that the Equinox could in fact prove to be the replacement for that poster's E-Trac...

Interesting, to say the least.

NASA-Tom, would I be wrong to assume that at some point (hopefully prior to, but at least shortly after completed production runs are available) we will get to see one of these in your hands, put through its paces, and then reported on?

Steve



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 10/01/2017 12:23PM by steveg.

steveg Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I don't know, Diggs. While the new ProFinds might
> be interesting, those are some pretty strong words
> coming from Mal, regarding the Equinox (the contex
> t of which was that Mal was responding to a poster
> who was doubting whether the Equinox was a machine
> that would prove to be faster/better than his Deus
> , or a "replacement" for his E-Trac).
>
> For Mal to say that in a real world hunt, the Equi
> nox -- when put head to head with a Deus and a CTX
> -- was causing "raised eyebrows" and the "odd swea
> r word" by finding targets the other two "could no
> t?" That, if it is to be believed/accurate, cause
> s ME some "raised eyebrows."
>
> Later in that same post, where Mal made those comm
> ents, he also directly implied that the Equinox [i
> ]could in fact prove to be[/i] the replacement for
> that poster's E-Trac...
>
> Interesting, to say the least.
>
> NASA-Tom, would I be wrong to assume that at some
> point (hopefully prior to, but at least shortly af
> ter completed production runs are available) we wi
> ll get to see one of these in your hands, put thro
> ugh its paces, and then reported on?
>
> Steve

It is very possible Equinox could see targets Deus wouldn't see.
But the question is what coil(s) were used on Deus.
It may turn out for a one coil 11" stock coil Equinox has overall bigger window for detecting various sites.

This may be attractive to folks.
Save them some loot too.

Now can Deus using the small elliptical HF Coil see things nonferrous the Eqinox with the supposed 6" coil that's coming can't??

The real question that will eventually be answered by users will be,,," How close has Minelab got the Equinox in total performance with limited coils??"

When I get the Equinox, I have the perfect place to see what the real deal is.

There is some thing I haven't seen mentioned much about Equinox.
And that's iron handling, falsing, and how does it respond tonally (behavior) on deeper somewhat bigger iron, various shapes???

I look forward to your evaluation, from this site you have in mind, Sod-buster...

Steve

steveg Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I look forward to your evaluation, from this site
> you have in mind, Sod-buster...
>
> Steve


Steve,
Iron handling is what separates the men from the boys, so to speak.
One problem here, when we start trying to make a detector that is a real slicer and dicer in iron to detect nonferrous targets, how the detector reacts tonally on the iron, the signals, how the transition happens is a big deal.

The Nokta Relic detector for example is very good in iron, but is sparky on some iron and nails.
Nokta Impact a bit better when compared over same/similar scenarios.
Deus is a bit better than even Impact. Using LF coils.
Deus using HF coils this sparkiness is amped up a bit, especially elliptical HF coil on Deus.
I still rate it as very good.

Now, the real key is to get a detector to see the more/most crippled targets in iron and nails and not have this sparkiness.
Will we ever have NO sparkiness?
Probably not.
But reduction here with no sacrifice in separation ability is I think the goal with all the leading detector manufacturers.

Equinox
Where will it fall in the pack here?
To compare it to CTX don't really tell me much.
Why?
CTX even with the 6" coil is not terrible in iron, the problem CTX suffers is in order to get depth (especially on mid to lower conductors) sensivity has to be turned up, hence the sparkiness gets very immense- hence targets can be missed by operator not being able to hear the good stuff vs the bad.

I was have the same feeling about new Minekab tones on Detectival.

steveg.......... there would probably need to be enough generated interest from folks (volume-wise) on this forum....... in order for Minelab to see "value-added" ....... before they would send me a unit to test and report upon. If it were to come to this....... I would be glad to help. And............................ it may require someone to put the request in to Minelab........... in order for a unit to be sent my way.

Also: My type (methodology) of reporting..... may or may not....be exactly what they are looking for.

Hey guys, sorry for the bad audio on the new Nox vids. The GoPro mount that I use doesn't have much to clamp to (unlike the CTX) and it bangs around quite a bit while I swing. Im in the process of experimenting with new mounting options. Also, I was not allowed to travel with MY Equinox. The EQUINOXES (plural) that I was using at the rally all had deactivated Bluetooth/wireless options because, as you can imagine, 30 people in a 50'x50' space trying to connect wirelessly would be a total nightmare. This meant that I either had to hunt with my headphones directly plugged in (gaahhhhhh nope) or turn the volume on the machine waaaaaaay down so I wouldn't be "that guy" at the rally (which has a must wear headphones policy). I know, it was a selfish prick move on my part to disobey the "headphones required" rule, but I wasn't the only one. By day 3 half of the people who were camped out had dead wireless headphones due to lack of charging options. Hope you liked the vid. Wish I could go back!

The last vid you uploaded was a good one I could see the screen and then the target dug thanks.
Can't wait to get mine now.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/01/2017 04:07PM by GreenMeanie.

NASA-Tom Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> steveg.......... there would probably need to be e
> nough generated interest from folks (volume-wise)
> on this forum....... in order for Minelab to see "
> value-added" ....... before they would send me a u
> nit to test and report upon. If it were to come to
> this....... I would be glad to help. And.........
> ................... it may require someone to put
> the request in to Minelab........... in order for
> a unit to be sent my way.
>
> Also: My type (methodology) of reporting..... may
> or may not....be exactly what they are looking for
> .


NASA-Tom,

If I knew how to put in a request to Minelab, and have it be heard, I'd do it; I'm guessing though that there would be no reason for them to listen to some random voice from someone they don't know from Adam. Maybe Brandon would oblige, as he'd probably know the right people to mention it to...

With that said, I hear you -- regarding the question of whether or not they'd want "your methodology." It would be a shame if they didn't; but could see that it would be a double-edged sword for them -- if it performs in your hands as purported, it would be good for their sales...but the converse could also be true.

Still, what do they have to lose? After all, I expect you'll end up with in your hands, one way or another, sooner or later, and will eventually report on it...

Steve



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/01/2017 05:48PM by steveg.

Sod-buster Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> Steve,
> Iron handling is what separates the men from the b
> oys, so to speak.
> One problem here, when we start trying to make a d
> etector that is a real slicer and dicer in iron to
> detect nonferrous targets, how the detector reacts
> tonally on the iron, the signals, how the transiti
> on happens is a big deal.
>
> The Nokta Relic detector for example is very good
> in iron, but is sparky on some iron and nails.
> Nokta Impact a bit better when compared over same/
> similar scenarios.
> Deus is a bit better than even Impact. Using LF co
> ils.
> Deus using HF coils this sparkiness is amped up a
> bit, especially elliptical HF coil on Deus.
> I still rate it as very good.
>
> Now, the real key is to get a detector to see the
> more/most crippled targets in iron and nails and n
> ot have this sparkiness.
> Will we ever have NO sparkiness?
> Probably not.
> But reduction here with no sacrifice in separation
> ability is I think the goal with all the leading d
> etector manufacturers.
>
> Equinox
> Where will it fall in the pack here?
> To compare it to CTX don't really tell me much.
> Why?
> CTX even with the 6" coil is not terrible in iron,
> the problem CTX suffers is in order to get depth (
> especially on mid to lower conductors) sensivity h
> as to be turned up, hence the sparkiness gets very
> immense- hence targets can be missed by operator n
> ot being able to hear the good stuff vs the bad.

Outstanding stuff here, Sod-buster. You have done a great job in this post of explaining what you are saying.

I want to say a few things, and I'm sure this will get long-winded. I hope patience with my long-windedness can be endured, because in the end I have some questions that I hope some answers to will help me, and others, to become better hunters...

First off, I think it is fair to say that any machine out there can find good targets on virgin sites. You don't have to be "a good hunter" to come away from a previously unhunted site with a handful of keepers. But, at sites that have been heavily hunted, I think it is fair to say that most targets that are left at these sites are "hard" targets (except for the few easy ones that were simply "missed," for whatever reason). And so, to define "hard, or difficult," it seems fair to say that "hard" breaks down into two categories -- ONE, being "targets too deep to have been easily detected by other hunters," and TWO, being "targets too masked by trash to have been easily detected by other hunters." More specifically, I think number two (masked by trash) can be broken into two sub-categories...ONE -- masked by FERROUS trash, and TWO -- masked (or, maybe "partially hidden" is a better word) by NON-FERROUS trash.

So, when I am out detecting, the vast majority of the sites I hunt, I am -- in my mind -- hunting for targets that fall into one of these three categories (difficult due to DEPTH, difficult due to FERROUS MASKING, or difficult due to NON-FERROUS "MASKING.")

Now I, personally, am best at finding the tough targets that are DEEP. I have learned, over time, through experience, how to "hunt deep;" this is the type of hunting I've had the most practice at, and I have been rewarded enough when doing so to have gained some level of confidence in this style of hunting. Now, there are many others much better at it than I, but of the three skills, this is where I do the best.

SO, since "hunting deep" is where I am most confident, then when evaluating detectors I am naturally biased toward focusing on the qualities in that detector that will allow me the most success in that application -- good depth capability, ability to handle mineralization as well as possible, ability to offer the best, most accurate, most stable target ID possible (which of course is related to the prior issue -- ground mineralization handling), the best ability to offer tonal/audible clues as to depth and ID of the target, etc.

And so, it follows that when I look at a new machine, like the Equinox, THAT is how I am trying to evaluate it when I'm asking questions, and listening to reports from users/testers. And therefore, when someone says it "might replace the E-Trac," for instance, that really grabs my attention. Reason being, my brain hears that to mean that since an FBS unit's most notable skill, the one that it excels at THE MOST with respect to other machines, is accurate ID capability with depth -- both tonally, and numerically, then THAT is what the Equinox would have to be "better at," to replace the E-Trac. So to say the Equinox might "replace the E-Trac," I take that to be synonymous with saying "the Equinox is an excellent machine in the specific application of "hunting deep." Similarly, on the other hand, if someone tested an Equinox and said it "might replace the Deus," my brain would hear something entirely different. Since the Deus' "area in which it shines" is at hunting in iron, i.e. fast recovery and other such traits that allow it to be a good "unmasker," then to say the Equinox "might replace the Deus," I take that to be synonymous with saying "the Equinox is an excellent machine in the specific application of "unmasking."

Bottom line, I think you and I are PRIMARILY looking for two different things in the Equinox, which I think explains why if YOU hear someone say the Equinox "beat the CTX" on a hunt, you would not be that impressed, because you are thinking about it through the "unmasking" lens, which of course is not the CTX's BEST skill (not that it's bad). The Equinox exceeding the CTX in unmasking skill is "ho-hum" to you. Understood. But when I hear someone say the Equinox "beat the CTX" on a hunt, I AM impressed; I stand up and take notice -- because my bias leads me to be thinking about it through the "deep/accurate" lens, and since that IS the CTX's best skill, then to me, that's a BIG DEAL, to say that the Equinox "competes favorably" with FBS. Taken one step further, if someone testing the Equinox on a hunt says that it made a respectable showing, or maybe even exceeded, BOTH the CTX AND the Deus...then that, to me, suggests (assuming the person doing the reporting is honest/fair/careful in their testing) that the Equinox is a solid performer as BOTH an unmasker AND a deep hunter.

Anyway, this is getting so long-winded, and I have more to say -- regarding "unmasking." So I am going to post this reply, and then compose another one, here in a few minutes...I am really interested, Sod-buster, in the detailed way you were discussing "unmasking skills" in various machines. I have a lot to learn there...and I think your answers (and hopefully those of some others -- I know Keith focuses on similar things to what you do) would go a long way toward helping me, and anyone else who wants to become a "better unmasker" to further our understanding...

Steve



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/02/2017 04:42AM by steveg.

> NASA-Tom,
>
> If I knew how to put in a request to Minelab, and
> have it be heard, I'd do it; I'm guessing though t
> hat there would be no reason for them to listen to
> some random voice from someone they don't know fro
> m Adam. Maybe Brandon would oblige, as he'd proba
> bly know the right people to mention it to...
>
> With that said, I hear you -- regarding the questi
> on of whether or not they'd want "your methodology
> ." It would be a shame if they didn't; but could
> see that it would be a double-edged sword for them
> -- if it performs in your hands as purported, it w
> ould be good for their sales...but the converse co
> uld also be true.
>
> Still, what do they have to lose? After all, I ex
> pect you'll end up with in your hands, one way or
> another, sooner or later, and will eventually repo
> rt on it...
>
> Steve

If you want to apply and have someone get in contact with you. Personal message minlabs Facebook page. They normally reply within 24/hrs. I am going to say some things here and hopefully I don't bugger it up. Truth be told Minelab is my favourite brand in the detecting sector however I am extremely truthful when it comes to reviewing products. I do not bash a brand but if there is a issue I have no quams stating it. I started detecting when I was 14 years old on a serious level and have used many machines. Minelab to me is just a step ahead of the rest. I am a dealer of many brands in our industry and have contacted minelab on many occasions asking to test out new products etc etc etc. I never have been accepted nor do I believe I ever will be and truth be told it goes back to some people just say to much and they do not like wild cards. I believe they need to know there product is in safe hands in order to be accepted into that group. With me I will bring up negitives with a product to the general customer base and that just doesnt jive. I understand it I dont disagree with it. I would have a hard time handing a product over to someone who might say something negitive. The only company I personally have done work for who hasnt hardballed me for being honest has been Samsung. They however don't make metal detectors.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/02/2017 07:03AM by Diggs4ever.

Sod-buster Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> steveg Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > I look forward to your evaluation, from this sit
> e
> > you have in mind, Sod-buster...
> >
> > Steve
>
>
> Steve,
> Iron handling is what separates the men from the b
> oys, so to speak.
> One problem here, when we start trying to make a d
> etector that is a real slicer and dicer in iron to
> detect nonferrous targets, how the detector reacts
> tonally on the iron, the signals, how the transiti
> on happens is a big deal.
>
> The Nokta Relic detector for example is very good
> in iron, but is sparky on some iron and nails.
> Nokta Impact a bit better when compared over same/
> similar scenarios.
> Deus is a bit better than even Impact. Using LF co
> ils.
> Deus using HF coils this sparkiness is amped up a
> bit, especially elliptical HF coil on Deus.
> I still rate it as very good.
>
> Now, the real key is to get a detector to see the
> more/most crippled targets in iron and nails and n
> ot have this sparkiness.
> Will we ever have NO sparkiness?
> Probably not.
> But reduction here with no sacrifice in separation
> ability is I think the goal with all the leading d
> etector manufacturers.
>
> Equinox
> Where will it fall in the pack here?
> To compare it to CTX don't really tell me much.
> Why?
> CTX even with the 6" coil is not terrible in iron,
> the problem CTX suffers is in order to get depth (
> especially on mid to lower conductors) sensivity h
> as to be turned up, hence the sparkiness gets very
> immense- hence targets can be missed by operator n
> ot being able to hear the good stuff vs the bad.

OK, Sod-buster (and others), here's my follow-up.

Going back to what I said in the other post -- I see three basic categories that most targets fall under on heavily hunted sites, too DEEP, too masked by IRON TRASH, and too masked/hidden by NON-FERROUS TRASH. I noted that of these three types of targets, the ones I do the best with are the deep ones. I am "second best" at separating good targets from within non-ferrous trash. Reason being, I do get some practice at this; most of my sites have enough "modern non-ferrous junk" that I have an available "laboratory," so to speak, to hone my skills in. I have had small amounts of success at learning how the Explorer "reports" co-located non-ferrous targets, and I believe that I can continue to advance my skills in this area, with little difficulty and just patience and determination.

HOWEVER -- and this going to be the focus for me the rest of this post, is IRON UNMASKING. I am HORRIBLE at this, and I believe it is for two main reasons. ONE, I have never had the "best" machines to do that task (though I did have an F19 that should have done a pretty "decent" job), and TWO, I simply do not have the sites -- the "laboratory," so to speak -- to allow it. Obviously, I have sites with nails, but for me, the ideal "laboratory" to build unmasking skills has TWO THINGS -- it has SQUARE NAILS (which I find to be REALLY falsy/sparky as compared to most modern/round nails), and it has enough non-ferrous "keepers" amongst the iron to "reward you" when applying yourself at trying to learn the skills. In other words, you need the "feedback" from finding occasional "good targets" to show that you are "doing it right," in order to learn/further your understanding.

SINCE Oklahoma is such a "young" state, there are not near the number of sites with thick square nail pollution that you find in areas back east (I DO have some spots in PA that I hunt, when I hunt back home, where having iron umasking skills would be INVALUABLE). Anyway, lack of proper machine, AND EVEN MORESO, the lack of a good "laboratory," has left me highly deficient in terms of learning to "unmask."

So, I'd like to dig in and parse some of your words above, and see if I can learn something.

You talk about "sparky." If you mean what I call "falsy" around iron, then I know what you mean. Like I said, I find modern round nails to be "falsy," especially bent/rusty ones, with every machine I've ever used. My Explorer is "falsy," my F19 was "falsy," I just never have found a machine that I can put any confidence in, when dealing with nails, such that a high-tone chirp may actually be a high-conductive COIN, for instance, instead of just a "nail false."

What I have learned, is how a round nail behaves in most cases. By rotating around the target and listening carefully, I have learned to recognize rusty nails enough to distinguish the "high toning" of a nail from the "high toning" of a coin, in most cases (rusty bent deep ones can still fool me). So, what I have learned to do is IGNORE the nails, once I have identified them. Problem is, I KNOW that some of those "nails" I have "ignored" actually have a co-located coin with them, but I have rarely if ever managed to differentiate the "coin" chirps from the "false" chirps near a nail. And without a "non-sparky" machine, as you call it, to help "raise the odds" that those "chirps" are actually a "clue" that should be "interrogated," I am simply "handicapped" in my ability.

Now, to take this further, what REALLY kills me, are square-nail sites. The "tricks" I have learned to identify "nail falses" versus deep coins, don't work so well with square nails. Square nails simply sound "much better" to me, and I will dig a jillion of them, thinking they are coins, when hunting a square nail site. And if I turn my brain, my "mental discriminator" up high enough to "reject" square nails, I am missing coins, also -- and I have first-hand evidence of that; one dig in particular at a square-nail site, on a day where I had dug a million square nails that fooled me, I carelessly dug what I was sure was square nail number one million-and-one, and instead it was a 4" deep 1853 Seated quarter in with the nail! Meanwhile, that same day, my hunting partner who is a talented unmasker dug several coins and buttons from within the same iron trash I was hunting; he knew WHICH targets to dig and which ones NOT to; he could hear the differences that I couldn't. Part of it was probably differences in machines being used, but much of it, I am sure, is just skill level and experience.

You did a good job, Sod-buster, with the word "sparky," of describing my issue. I KNOW that if I had a machine that did NOT FALSE HIGH TONE on square nails, that careful, slow hunting, with a small coil, I could come to learn how to dig partially masked non-ferrous targets. It would make it easy for all of us, if this machine existed. BUT -- since it does not, we are left with having to find the machine that is the state-of-the-art, best-there-is at this point, and then accept -- I assume -- that while some square nails will still end up in your pouch, more often than not, the machine reports far fewer "falses" (i.e. is less "sparky,") such that those chirps around the nails can be assumed to be possibly, or even likely, a hint of non-ferrous that is partially masked.

So, here is my difficulty. WITHOUT the proper laboratory, even if I had the BEST machine, I have a steep learning curve ahead of me. I need to dig HUNDREDS of targets, obviously, that turn out to be partially masked non-ferrous NEXT TO iron, and HUNDREDS of targets that are NOTHING BUT iron falsing, to begin to learn the distinction between the two.

But, IF I decide to seek out a few sites with square-nail iron, to dive in, and try to educate myself as best as I can (and like I say, I have a few of those up in PA, which I can hit anytime I visit), WHAT AM I LISTENING FOR? I understand that the answer involves subtleties and nuances, and I understand that these subtleties and nuances differ from machine to machine. But are there any sort of "universal" clues that apply to most of the good unmasking machines (you mentioned the Nokta Relic, the Impact, the Deus; others here have mentioned the GMP, I believe it is...)? Ideally, I would have opportunities to hunt the right site WITH A VERY TALENTED (and patient!) unmasker, who would be willing to hunt side by side, so that we could "compare targets." That's the BEST way to learn, IMO. But barring that, if I'm trying to figure it out on my own, does anyone have any advice, any clues to offer, so as to help?

I plan to get an Equinox, and even if it is not going to replace my Explorer, or out-perform the Impact or the Relic or the Deus, I at least expect it to fall into the category of "good" unmasker, better than anything I have used previously. And I am committed to learning to become at least as capable at "unmasking in iron" as I am at "hunting deep." But, I'm going to need help -- and, I'm guessing, the ideal will be "help" from someone who is also swinging an Equinox...

Thanks, to whomever has hung in there and read all of this!

Steve

Dr.Tones Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Hey guys, sorry for the bad audio on the new Nox v
> ids. The GoPro mount that I use doesn't have much
> to clamp to (unlike the CTX) and it bangs around q
> uite a bit while I swing. Im in the process of exp
> erimenting with new mounting options.

"I'm with you on that one Brandon!!!
Just yesterday, a new GoPro part came my way after a year trying to acquire the part!
GoPro changed their Distribution Policy in the UK/Euro regions and it's difficult to get parts!

Tip: I got a great tip from Tom Boykin, of White's who had a fabulous GoPro mount on an MX Sport
So I asked him about it and even he was having difficulty mounting his 'smaller Session' camera!
He used 'a series of right angle clamps', and a GoPro 'Gopole arm 2 piece extension kit' (as seen on a Facebook page & video )

I used a huge New York camera source (420 Ninth Ave) to order their Part No. GOGPA14 @ $13.59 + 3.50 shipping

It arrived yesterday after a convoluted trip and I'm trying to figure it out and use it with another clamp I bought from 'Kaiser Baas', X80 sports mount.

Des D

Sod-buster Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> steveg Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > I don't know, Diggs. While the new ProFinds mig
> ht
> > be interesting, those are some pretty strong wor
> ds
> > coming from Mal, regarding the Equinox (the cont
> ex
> > t of which was that Mal was responding to a post
> er
> > who was doubting whether the Equinox was a machi
> ne
> > that would prove to be faster/better than his De
> us
> > , or a "replacement" for his E-Trac).
> >
> > For Mal to say that in a real world hunt, the Eq
> ui
> > nox -- when put head to head with a Deus and a C
> TX
> > -- was causing "raised eyebrows" and the "odd sw
> ea
> > r word" by finding targets the other two "could
> no
> > t?" That, if it is to be believed/accurate, cau
> se
> > s ME some "raised eyebrows."
> >
> > Later in that same post, where Mal made those co
> mm
> > ents, he also directly implied that the Equinox
> [i
> > ]could in fact prove to be[/i] the replacement f
> or
> > that poster's E-Trac...
> >
> > Interesting, to say the least.
> >
> > NASA-Tom, would I be wrong to assume that at som
> e
> > point (hopefully prior to, but at least shortly
> af
> > ter completed production runs are available) we
> wi
> > ll get to see one of these in your hands, put th
> ro
> > ugh its paces, and then reported on?
> >
> > Steve
>
> It is very possible Equinox could see targets Deus
> wouldn't see.
> But the question is what coil(s) were used on Deus
> .
> It may turn out for a one coil 11" stock coil Equi
> nox has overall bigger window for detecting variou
> s sites.
>
> This may be attractive to folks.
> Save them some loot too.
>
> Now can Deus using the small elliptical HF Coil se
> e things nonferrous the Eqinox with the supposed 6
> " coil that's coming can't??
>
> The real question that will eventually be answered
> by users will be,,," How close has Minelab got the
> Equinox in total performance with limited coils??"
>
> When I get the Equinox, I have the perfect place t
> o see what the real deal is.
>
> There is some thing I haven't seen mentioned much about Equinox. And that's iron handling, falsing,and how does it
respond tonally (behavior) on deeper somewhat bigger iron, various shapes???

I'm very curious about that as well. I know it has a way to go to be finalized but perhaps Brandon can give us some early info on the subject?

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.

AWESOME! Thanks! I'm doing some hillbilly engineering over here. Beh n Atche is great huh?