Equinox Technologies Part 1

Here is a Minelab Treasure Talk on the Equinox Multi-IQ Technology..

[www.minelab.com]


Bryan



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/19/2017 06:15AM by Cabin Fever.

Thank you mate!

So its confirmed that the 600 has the full range of frequencies from 5kHz to 40 kHz with the 20 and 40 kHz frequencies just not select able as single frequencies that is good news to me. (look at the graphic at the bottom of the article)

''20 kHz and 40 kHz are not available as single operating frequencies in EQUINOX 600. The Multi-IQ frequency range shown applies to both EQUINOX 600 and 800.''

Interesting...

If anything, this seems to confirm that Multi-IQ is not a machine with "dumbed-down" performance, as compared to other Minelab hobby detectors, despite the attractive price point.

These three quotes catch my attention...

"When Minelab develop a new detecting technology we aim to create a paradigm shift from existing products and provide a clear performance advantage for our customers."

And...

"Multi-IQ is Minelab’s next major innovation and can be considered as combining the performance advantages of both FBS and VFLEX in a new fusion of technologies."

And...

"Multi-IQ achieves a high level of target ID accuracy at depth much better than any single frequency detector can achieve."

This, I thought, was also rather interesting...

"While we could have taken the approach of putting the X-TERRA (VFLEX technology) in a waterproof housing and adding a selectable frequency range, this would have been following the path of many of our competitors in just rehashing an older single frequency technology that had already reached its performance limits. Another option would have been to create a lower cost waterproof FBS detector, but that also had its challenges with FBS being ‘power hungry’, needing heavier batteries, heavier coils, etc., and relatively high cost compared to the more recent advances that our R&D team have been making with the latest electronics hardware and signal processing techniques."

Wonder what it is about FBS that REQUIRES it to be so "power hungry" and expensive to assemble, as compared to Multi-IQ?

Looking forward to part II of this discussion from Minelab.

Steve

I wonder why this is so?
Any guesses?

EDIT
Re read it saw my answer:
Multi-IQ uses a different group of fundamental frequencies than BBS/FBS to generate a wide-band multi-frequency transmission signal that is more sensitive to high frequency targets and slightly less sensitive to low frequency targets.


Multi-IQ copes with saltwater and beach conditions almost as well as BBS/FBS, however BBS/FBS still have an advantage for finding high conductive silver coins in all conditions.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 10/19/2017 03:10PM by GreenMeanie.

"Multi-IQ achieves a high level of target ID accuracy at depth much better than any single frequency detector can achieve, including switchable single frequency detectors that claim to be multi-frequency"

OUCH! Direct shot at Nokta there.

Great read though.

Minelab's new detector is not as deep but has a faster recovery speed than their flagship detector????

tabman

What I read into this is that the Multi-IQ will be deeper than FBS on lower conductors, ie. hammered coins and gold, whereas the FBS will be deeper than Multi-IQ on larger silvers and coppers. I know for sure which I prefer to find and its not larger silvers. Now the question has to be will the Equinox using 5khz be deeper than the CTX on higher conductors in low mineral conditions??

Well you can read into it whatever you wish but the article doesn't say the Multi-IQ will be deeper than FBS on lower conductors. it says "Multi-IQ uses a different group of fundamental frequencies than BBS/FBS to generate a wide-band multi-frequency transmission signal that is more sensitive to high frequency targets and slightly less sensitive to low frequency targets." To me that statement says the Multi-IQ generates a wide-band multi-frequency transmission signal that is more sensitive to high frequency targets and slightly less sensitive to low frequency targets. Although close, these are not the same thing.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/19/2017 11:54PM by Tom Slick.

We’re all so happy - reading advertising material and trying to figure out what the newest shiny object will do for our pursuit of our favorite hobby/obsession.

the guys at the detector companies who write the ad material (and so called Technical Papers are often not much more than that) aren’t telling us what really goes on back in the Electrical Engineering department.

It’s mostly stuff like this ....

[citeseerx.ist.psu.edu]

Physics, math, hard-edge science. That what is needed to do something new in this field. Minelab has lots of good engineers and they know this stuff - so do other manufacturers. The marketing and sales department understands pretty much none of this - they don’t need to.

P.S. I don’t understand it either - but I accept that it is real and I respect it.

Rick Kempf
Gold Canyon AZ- where there is no gold



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/20/2017 12:22AM by lytle78.

lytle78 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> We’re all so happy - reading advertising material
> and trying to figure out what the newest shiny obj
> ect will do for our pursuit of our favorite hobby/
> obsession.
>
> the guys at the detector companies who write the a
> d material (and so called Technical Papers are oft
> en not much more than that) aren’t telling us what
> really goes on back in the Electrical Engineering
> department.
>
> It’s mostly stuff like this ....
>
> [citeseerx.ist.psu.edu]
> sionid=C217ED72CDDD2E7F6FDF9E74FA3A9420?doi=10.1.1
> .513.107&rep=rep1&type=pdf
>
> Physics, math, hard-edge science. That what is ne
> eded to do something new in this field. Minelab h
> as lots of good engineers and they know this stuff
> - so do other manufacturers. The marketing and sal
> es department understands pretty much none of this
> - they don’t need to.
>
> P.S. I don’t understand it either - but I accept t
> hat it is real and I respect it.

What language was that in? LOL They have my respect, that's for sure

Yes, exactly - when we users read how detector X differs from Detector y in that it analyzes data in the “time domain” as opposed to the “frequency domain” - we nod and say - yes, that’s bright.

Wow - we actually know so little - and some manufacturers do their very best to obfuscate (I looked it up - I’m pretty sure it’s the right word) - obfuscate the real processes involved.

Rick Kempf
Gold Canyon AZ- where there is no gold

i just want you all to start selling some of your detectors for about 100.00 based on the advertisement material so I can get a couple.......

Tom Slick Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Well you can read into it whatever you wish but th
> e article doesn't say the Multi-IQ will be deeper
> than FBS on lower conductors. it says "Multi-IQ us
> es a different group of fundamental frequencies th
> an BBS/FBS to generate a wide-band multi-frequency
> transmission signal that is more sensitive to high
> frequency targets and slightly less sensitive to l
> ow frequency targets." To me that statement says
> the Multi-IQ generates a wide-band multi-frequenc
> y transmission signal that is more sensitive to hi
> gh frequency targets and slightly less sensitive t
> o low frequency targets. Although close, these are
> not the same thing.


LOL, not the same thing, really??, you just repeated what Minelab stated...... Its plain and simple, if its more sensitive to high frequency targets (low conductors) it will preform better on high frequency targets. The whole point in making it so is to improve its performance on low conductors, something FBS was lacking compared to others. Haha the makers of the "cute little French thing" will be laughing all the way to the bank if is not

I can see where this was written by an engineer. (Probably Mark L.)
Well written.......and very straight-forward.

NASA-Tom Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I can see where this was written by an engineer. (
> Probably Mark L.)
> Well written.......and very straight-forward.

Besides how well written it is, I would like to hear what you think about the Equinox technology with the information we have so far.
Are you intrigued by this detector in any way Tom??

Bryan

I suspect the multi freq running it will come up short for separation (not be pure apex performer) in iron hence why they added single freq capability.
But remember attaining accurate ID on challenged targets is not important vs more standalone/less challenged, just alerting on existence is important.

I'll go out on a limb right now and say, future Minelab release that will supersede Etrac/CTX will also have both multi and single freq capabilities.

Btw, it is by design or intentional that Equinox is almost as stable as BBS/FBS units?
Strange, why couldn't this new technology be as stable or more stable in salt beach/ water?



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 10/20/2017 02:57AM by Sod-buster.

Sod-buster Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

>
> Btw, it is by design or intentional that Equinox is
> almost as stable as BBS/FBS units?
> Strange, why couldn't this new technology be as
> stable or more stable in salt beach/ water?


Sod-buster,

I STILL think it's at least possible, if not likely, that Minelab is saying it's "not quite as stable as BBS/FBS" on the beach, and "not quite as good for silver coin hunting" because they have a $2500 flagship FBS coin-hunter, and a $1500 BBS beach-hunter BOTH still present in their lineup! I think it very well may be the MARKETING department saying it's "not quite as good" -- because they still want/need to SELL the $2500 flagship and $1500 beach hunter. I wonder if the engineering department is ready to say that this "new breakthrough" in multi-frequency technology is less stable than 15-year old BBS/FBS technology, and less capable for deep silver coin hunting than 15-year old FBS technology...

Look, something doesn't add up here. They drop a guy out of an airplane into Detectival, to announce this brand-new, cutting edge multi-frequency technology called "Multi-IQ, and tell us that it "may make all single-frequency VLF units obsolete;" they send the Chief Design Engineer -- the face of this amazing new techology -- to Detectival, to demonstrate his latest detecting breakthrough...

...and yet...

...they make sure they remind us at every opportunity that WHILE this cutting-edge technology is busy "obsoleting other units," it will nonetheless ALSO offer "sub-standard performance" to 15-year old technology that THIS SAME COMPANY patented, in the two specific areas -- deep silver, and beach stability...which just HAPPEN to be the two areas that are the forte of two other, much more expensive units in their product lineup?

I don't know...this sounds like a marketing move, to me. I believe Multi-IQ IS going to be a high-performing technology; I think we can generally agree (most of us, anyway ) that Minelab's engineers consistently develop top-notch technology. But -- I really think that due to market realities, Minelab found themselves in a place where they had to bring something BIG to market, but do it at a SMALL price, thanks to less expensive, high-performance competition that is rapidly nipping at their heels (and even passing them, in terms of market share). So, in that place they found themselves in -- and with several $1500 to $2500 machines in their product line-up -- what would you EXPECT them to say? I mean, do we really think their engineers were instructed to "create something great" -- greater than all other single-frequency VLF units on the market BUT....make sure it falls just a little below their CTX and Excalibur in terms of deep silver capability and wet salt sand stability? Is there even enough room between the performance capabilities of other new detectors coming on the market from various companies, and Minelab's top detectors, to "slide in" an Equinox "in between?" That's so ridiculous, from my perspective, that it does not even deserve consideration. Engineers don't work that way, in my experience.

My conclusion is this...Minelab's engineers have created a really impressive new unit, that will compete solidly in terms of performance against other machines available to detectorists, AND, by default, will also compete solidly in terms of performance against their OWN machines...but the marketing department won't -- as a wise business decision -- show those cards to us in this particular poker match...

Steve



Edited 5 time(s). Last edit at 10/20/2017 10:32PM by steveg.

Tom Slick Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Well you can read into it whatever you wish but th
> e article doesn't say the Multi-IQ will be deeper
> than FBS on lower conductors. it says "Multi-IQ us
> es a different group of fundamental frequencies th
> an BBS/FBS to generate a wide-band multi-frequency
> transmission signal that is more sensitive to high
> frequency targets and slightly less sensitive to l
> ow frequency targets." To me that statement says
> the Multi-IQ generates a wide-band multi-frequenc
> y transmission signal that is more sensitive to hi
> gh frequency targets and slightly less sensitive t
> o low frequency targets. Although close, these are
> not the same thing.

Agreed.

"...to generate a wide-band multi-frequency transmission signal that is more sensitive to high frequency targets and slightly less sensitive to low frequency targets".

Until the Nox is released, nobody can quantify "slightly" so to say that the FBS/FBS2 machines are deeper at this point is purely speculation, not fact.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/20/2017 04:43AM by Cal_cobra.

Bryan, For many reasons....... I'm highly interested in the EQIQ.

Does anyone know what other detectors or technology Mark Lawrey from Minelab designed?

Really? Do you really think ML will come out and say, "The Equinox will surpass all of our detectors"? Of course not! It wouldn't be smart marketing. They expect customers to "read between the lines" on this. Look at the facts:

Brandon said that this machine is replacing his CTX. Do you think he would be able to make such a statement without some sort of discussion? Even if it was directly stated, i'm sure he mentioned it in passing to the higher ups.

Detectival. Sure there were other ML machines, but the EQ was the star with promotional materials and a symposium.

The verbage of the Multi-IQ article. There are some very ambiguous phrases in there. Nothing stated directly, just a lot of muddy water on certain sentences.

Speculation is the quest for the truth, but sometimes, truth was there all along, you just had to notice it.

I have nothing to add to this conversation but simply wish to express that I enjoyed reading such cogent thoughts on what this new information might mean. Hopeful folks and sceptics alike should all be heard.

The Equinox is a potential threat to the sales of other detectors in the $600 - $1000 MAP range. It is a DEADLY threat to $1500 and above machines. Who has the most to lose in that range - only Xp and - ironically - Minelab.

Minelab has to walk a tightrope - boosting the Equinox against single-frequency-at-a-time machines while avoiding direct comparison with their own multifreakers.

It was a gutsy decision to go for this move at this price point NOW - without a new top-end machine ready to keep "the cream" of the market for ML.

Will the Excalibur withstand the threat of a multi-role machine which equals or surpasses it in the water?

Will the heavy, expensive and not overly reliable CTX continue to attract buyers - will a big price cut happen for the CTX?

We shall see. Until the EQ is out there in sufficient numbers for its performance to be evaluated by a significant number of users, the dust won't start to settle.

Rick Kempf
Gold Canyon AZ- where there is no gold

lytle78 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The Equinox is a potential threat to the sales of
> other detectors in the $600 - $1000 MAP range. It
> is a DEADLY threat to $1500 and above machines. W
> ho has the most to lose in that range - only Xp an
> d - ironically - Minelab.
>
> Minelab has to walk a tightrope - boosting the Equ
> inox against single-frequency-at-a-time machines w
> hile avoiding direct comparison with their own mul
> tifreakers.
>
> It was a gutsy decision to go for this move at thi
> s price point NOW - without a new top-end machine
> ready to keep "the cream" of the market for ML.
>
> Will the Excalibur withstand the threat of a multi
> -role machine which equals or surpasses it in the
> water?
>
> Will the heavy, expensive and not overly reliable
> CTX continue to attract buyers - will a big price
> cut happen for the CTX?
>
> We shall see. Until the EQ is out there in suffic
> ient numbers for its performance to be evaluated b
> y a significant number of users, the dust won't st
> art to settle.

Totally agree. Nice post.

Steve

possum mo Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Does anyone know what other detectors or technolog
> y Mark Lawrey from Minelab designed?

Well, Mark Lawrie was involved heavily in the GPZ 7000 at least and is featured in a couple Minelab videos that explain the GPZ 7000. Here is a screenshot from one....

[youtu.be]





Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 10/20/2017 11:54PM by Steve Herschbach.

Thanks, Steve. Wasn't aware that he was that involved with the "Zed." That's heartening info, to me...

Steve