*Minelab Equinox 800 vs Nokta Impact in nail test.

I made sure to show if there was any falsing.

[youtu.be]

Moral of the story is the Impact whopped butt on the Equinox (I'm sure the coil design played a huge factor in the test).

I HOPE Minelab, Coiltek or NEL makes a 10" elliptical DD or an elliptical concentric coil for the EQ.

Pretty good video.
Just remember Equinox in video due to factory detect modes used - speed settings were never pushed upwards.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/21/2018 02:53AM by tnsharpshooter.

Two words. Iron. Bias.

Just so we are clear, I'm not favoring any machine over another.

Clearly the park 2 and Field 2 modes were better than the Park 1 mode on the Equinox. It's likely due to the default Iron Bias setting in Park 1 which is 6 and 0 for the other modes.

Park 1 is likely set up for dealing with aluminum trash-predominant areas where picking around dense iron isn't really a major consideration. Where iron is the predominant trash, like at old homesites or ghost towns, you'd definitely NOT want to be in Park 1 without at least dropping the iron bias setting. This is stated pretty clearly in the manual: "In areas where you do not want to miss any non-ferrous targets amongst iron trash, a lower [iron bias] setting is recommended." And this test proves it.

Edit: I see you beat me to it, Dr. Tones, while I was typing. Iron Bias indeed.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 02/21/2018 03:08AM by wayfarer.

For one thing the Eq would be more effected by the indoor conditions--wider band. Secondly, I do a ton of bench testing of both these machines--and when you take the Eq outside, in-ground it sounds very different in that it's processing more than one response at a time and you can hear this. It has a nice overtone sound which seems to be pretty good in the iron. Both of these machines have very sophisticated electronic and are able to report more than one signal at once. I've done a quick UTube video showing the Kruzer doing much the same thing but at the same time a surface test in a basement is not that telling. Sorry good try though. I mean you wouldn't call testing an Excal on the surface conclusive hmmm?
cjc



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/21/2018 04:04AM by cjc.

cjc Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> For one thing the Eq would be more effected by the
> indoor conditions--wider band. Secondly, I do a t
> on of bench testing of both these machines--and w
> hen you take the Eq outside, in-ground it sounds v
> ery different in that it's processing more than on
> e response at a time and you can hear this. It ha
> s a nice overtone sound which seems to be pretty g
> ood in the iron. Both of these machines have very
> sophisticated electronics. I've done a quick UTub
> e video showing the Kruzer doing much the same thi
> ng but at the same time a surface test in a baseme
> nt is not that telling. Sorry good try though. I
> mean you wouldn't calll testing an Excal on the su
> rface conclusive hmmm?
> cjc

I never said it was definitive, conclusive, nor the final test. It's just a test requested by peeps. I would love to live in a region that isnt frozen and freezing cold half the ear. So I can only do certain tests.

Understand, but these two detectors are both very different animals--both amazing. Very hard to compare in any context.
cc

cjc Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Understand, but these two detectors are both very
> different animals--both amazing. Very hard to com
> pare in any context.
> cc

Agreed but people wanted to see it.

These machines have similarities and differences. Both have a great bias for clean "non-alloyed" metals. As well, both have extremely sensitive reporting--that is they can sound off on everything a target contains. My tests with the Eq so far show that many bottle caps give broken or multiple tones--a huge plus. It stands to reason that a detector that can do this will have good in-ground separation. The Impact is also designed to separate simple "clean" metal from inconsistent responses--such as iron and does a superb job at this. I think that it will be only when the relic and "ghost town" hunters get out there with the Eq that we will know what it's capable of.
cjc

It may be worth trying these settings,
[m.facebook.com]

ghound Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It may be worth trying these settings,
> [m.facebook.com]
> 735183751&id=100004817922742

Gee I think I hurt his feelings. Maybe he shouldn't watch my videos.

For him to get "cheesed off" because of a couple of videos sounds a bit immature.

cjc Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> These machines have similarities and differences.
> Both have a great bias for clean "non-alloyed" met
> als. As well, both have extremely sensitive repor
> ting--that is they can sound off on everything a t
> arget contains. My tests with the Eq so far show
> that many bottle caps give broken or multiple tone
> s--a huge plus. It stands to reason that a detect
> or that can do this will have good in-ground separ
> ation. The Impact is also designed to separate s
> imple "clean" metal from inconsistent responses--s
> uch as iron and does a superb job at this. I thin
> k that it will be only when the relic and "ghost t
> own" hunters get out there with the Eq that we wil
> l know what it's capable of.
> cjc

hey Clive, you should be able to walk over to Dentonia and see how it does for relics, eh.....

With my Bosh hammer...

This looks a bit more even handed...

[www.youtube.com]


cjc



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/22/2018 11:53PM by cjc.

cjc Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> With my Bosh hammer...
>
> cjc

haha, painful waiting for the thaw, you should just take the Kruzer and 800 and fly off to one of your spots...

question for you re: 800...with all the crap in our parks what will you do for ground balancing? advice?

cheers, beaches guy....