Results of 2 different park turf tests. Nox vs Exp. II duels

Tom,
I read MLs statement and took it at face value... FBS will be better at hitting high conductors in all conditions (paraphrasing for brevity). Iim not exactly sure what your challenge is? I think that the statement is pretty straight forward.

I'm bummed that you aren't going to give it a go in your ghost town sites as I always look forward to your phenomenal finds. Of course, you will still make those great finds hunting with the machines you have but I wanted to see how the Nox performed for you as you and I hunt the same type of sites.

Of course, you can always buy another one, in about two years, after ML finally gets their pre-orders taken care of!

Dean

TNSS,
Thank you for the kind words.

Dean

Quote
‘Minelab"
" .... still have an advantage for finding high conductive silver coins in all conditions.”

Quote
‘Minelab"
"EQUINOX, with Multi-IQ, will obsolete all the traditional VLF detectors that enthusiasts have been using for decades.”

I’ve owned half a dozen Minelab detectors over twenty years and have generally been very pleased with their performance. But Minelab’s marketing group was way out of line with these statements and it’s perfectly fine to call them out on this. Describing the Equinox’s strengths in certain hunting situations doesn’t validate the false claims made above. Then again, Minelab consciously engineered the hysteria that Doc has correctly labeled Irrational Exuberance. . I expect those ML Marketers will earn themselves a big, fat bonus this Christmas.

For coin hunters like me the Equinox appears to be a wash vs their own FBS units and other manufacturer’s top-of-the-line VLF detectors. Digging more nickels is a marginal advantage as I’ve never dug an old one that wasn’t terribly corroded. The weight loss is a bigger deal that hasn’t been given enough merit. If I can hunt 25% longer, that’s equivalent to seeing 25% more dirt volume.

Looks like I’ll put my money into a new Etrac battery...

Tom_in_CA Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Bayard Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> > Earlier today I dug a clad quarter with a pull t
> ab
> > on top of it. The quarter signal was strong and
> c
> > lear with quarter numbers on the readout. The E
> tr
> > ac would have averaged the numbers and given me
> a
> > readout of something like a zincoln.
>
>
> Ok Bayard: I just completed an air-test with the
> Nox 800. Took a square tab. It reads 14. Then t
> ook a quarter: It reads 30. Then put the quarter
> directly behind the square tab, with a tad of spac
> e between the 2 targets (ie.: not touching): The
> signal is now in the upper teens (18-ish). Thus,
> yes, averaging up. But no, not a "quarter readout
> ". Then I repeated the test with the quarter and
> tab smunched together (touching): Same results.
>
> So I'm not sure what to make of your post above.
> Perhaps your pull-tab was slightly off to the side
> , and not directly/exactly on top ?


Alright Tom.
Here's a pic.
I checked all my detectors that have 11" DD coils.


Deus with 11" DD coil = fails to tell me higher conductive coin exist
Etrac with 11" DD coil = fails to tell me higher conductive coin exist
Nokta Impact with 7x11" coil= fails to tell me higher conductive coin exist.
Rutus Alter 71 with DD coil passes actually, freq has to be between 4.4khz and 5.0khz with like a 6 reactivty setting. Rutus gives a more subliminal tone (short spark) on the clad dime, but I can hear. Nox tone more outright sounding.
Equinox passes, but not like folks might think. Single freq 5khz park 2 speed 7, user will get tone and ID readings behavior associated with tone to tell user higher conductive coin exist.

Now with a 6" dd coil, Nox will be one smoker hunting places like bleachers, you know those places we deem as aluminum pull tabs, rings, etc junk piles.

So folks have a go at some modern trash sites using 5khz with faster speed settings.
It is there for you to use.



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 03/24/2018 02:14PM by tnsharpshooter.

bado1 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Tom,
> I read MLs statement and took it at face value...
> FBS will be better at hitting high conductors in a
> ll conditions (paraphrasing for brevity). Iim not
> exactly sure what your challenge is? I think that
> the statement is pretty straight forward.

Ok ok ok, Now I get it. I was reading the statement all wrong. I am just accustomed to the Exp. II as being labeled FBS. But in the quote, it's being referred to as BBS/FBS. And, for some reason, I thought that was the Nox. So I was reading the quote wrong. Now that I've gone back and studied the paragraph from Steve H's original quoting of it: They are clearly identifying the nox as "multi-IQ" and identifying the Explorers as BBS/FBS.

My bad. And my apologies to Steve, Daniel, you , and the forum for my terminology screw up here

Tom,
No worries!
Yes, different tech. This is why my E-TRAC isn't going anywhere.

Dean

Tom_in_CA Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Bayard Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> > Earlier today I dug a clad quarter with a pull t
> ab
> > on top of it. The quarter signal was strong and
> c
> > lear with quarter numbers on the readout. The E
> tr
> > ac would have averaged the numbers and given me
> a
> > readout of something like a zincoln.
>
>
> Ok Bayard: I just completed an air-test with the
> Nox 800. Took a square tab. It reads 14. Then t
> ook a quarter: It reads 30. Then put the quarter
> directly behind the square tab, with a tad of spac
> e between the 2 targets (ie.: not touching): The
> signal is now in the upper teens (18-ish). Thus,
> yes, averaging up. But no, not a "quarter readout
> ". Then I repeated the test with the quarter and
> tab smunched together (touching): Same results.
>
> So I'm not sure what to make of your post above.
> Perhaps your pull-tab was slightly off to the side
> , and not directly/exactly on top ?

I got a quarter signal. I dug a small diameter plug. I extracted a pull tab from the hole. I then dug slightly deeper and pulled a clad quarter out of the hole. I know from past experience that my Etrac would have given something like a zincoln signal in the same circumstances.

The only comparable unmasking machine I've ever used was the Deus, and the Deus had an intolerable problem of giving high tones on crown caps and steel washers. I hope nobody near me buys your Equinox. You might want to take your profit and get back on the waiting list, lol.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/24/2018 02:59PM by Bayard.

tnsharpshooter Wrote:

> Deus with 11" DD coil = fails to tell me higher conductive coin exist
> Etrac with 11" DD coil = fails to tell me higher conductive coin exist
> Nokta Impact with 7x11" coil= fails to tell me higher conductive coin exist.

tnsharp....help me out on this one. What do you mean when you state 'fails to tell me higher conductive coin exists'. Do you mean the unit did not hear 3 separate targets or did not ID the dime as a high conductive target...ie, it tells you the dime is there, but when isolating the dime, it cannot ID it as a high conductor ?

therover61 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> tnsharpshooter Wrote:
>
> > Deus with 11" DD coil = fails to tell me higher
> conductive coin exist
> > Etrac with 11" DD coil = fails to tell me higher
> conductive coin exist
> > Nokta Impact with 7x11" coil= fails to tell me h
> igher conductive coin exist.
>
> tnsharp....help me out on this one. What do you me
> an when you state 'fails to tell me higher conduct
> ive coin exists'. Do you mean the unit did not hea
> r 3 separate targets or did not ID the dime as a h
> igh conductive target...ie, it tells you the dime
> is there, but when isolating the dime, it cannot I
> D it as a high conductor ?


Correct, detector gives me no clue that higher conductive coin, object exist.
When sweeping, using lots of varying sweep speeds.
Gotta get some thing tonally to make me stop and investigate.
Even coil hovers I call it- no cigars given on the above that failed.

Getting tone or sound yes. But I get tone and sound over the junk items too.

And notice this is a 3D test.
2D different ballgame- easier.

Now, my reporting here is subjective.
What do I mean by this.
If Nox goes into 20s ID with tone to match that is my standard in suspecting higher conductive target.
Nox don't have to give clad dime ID per se.
Detectors that failed gace me neither tone or ID to suspect clad dime exist, nothing close to go on.
Now will a person possibly using Nox dig some aluminum screw caps hunting modern trash sites in search of higher conducive coins/jewelry? Sure.
But Etrac, Deus likely won't even give higher conductive signal (or even close) on some aluminum screw caps mask by pull rings, etc. and at the same time be missing the true higher conducive jewelry and coins. Recognizing my test is coils size for coil size comparisons.

Let's look at this this way.
We see folks say using Etrac I don't dig much junk. Ok
So if we turned 2 proficient folks loose on a concession area, fairgrounds site.
One using Etrac stock coil or even a CTX.
And the other using Nox with stock coil.

Yep the fbs runner likely would still dig less junk.
They could find more worthy higher conductive targets than Nox user too depending on luck factor of how their finds were oriented vs modern trash.
Nox user likely would dig more screw caps and junk.
But Nox user is able to be alerted on more targets higher conductive on average than Fbs user.
Maybe Nox user finds more.
Where the prize find is exactly and how oriented to junk nonferrous could make difference for a Nox success or an fbs failure to detect.

Now another scenario.
Seeded hunt.
Let's suppose a seed hunt was held.
And it was declared to hunters, modern trash exist inside area with the planted coins.
And stock sized coils only allowed on detectors.
If I Were the planter of the coins.
I could indeed plant coins and modern trash to give Nox the advantage purposely.
The Deus runners, Etrac runners and I'm sure many other detectors would be SOL for a timed event.
Likely by huge margin.



Edited 9 time(s). Last edit at 03/24/2018 03:51PM by tnsharpshooter.

tnsharpshooter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> therover61 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > tnsharpshooter Wrote:
> >
> > > Deus with 11" DD coil = fails to tell me highe
> r
> > conductive coin exist
> > > Etrac with 11" DD coil = fails to tell me high
> er
> > conductive coin exist
> > > Nokta Impact with 7x11" coil= fails to tell me
> h
> > igher conductive coin exist.
> >
> > tnsharp....help me out on this one. What do you
> me
> > an when you state 'fails to tell me higher condu
> ct
> > ive coin exists'. Do you mean the unit did not h
> ea
> > r 3 separate targets or did not ID the dime as a
> h
> > igh conductive target...ie, it tells you the dim
> e
> > is there, but when isolating the dime, it cannot
> I
> > D it as a high conductor ?
>
>
> Correct, detector gives me no clue that higher con
> ductive coin, object exist.
> When sweeping, using lots of varying sweep speeds.
> Gotta get some thing tonally to make me stop and i
> nvestigate.
> Even coil hovers I call it- no cigars given on the
> above that failed.
>
> Getting tone or sound yes. But I get tone and sou
> nd over the junk items too.
>
> And notice this is a 3D test.
> 2D different ballgame- easier.
>
> Now, my reporting here is subjective.
> What do I mean by this.
> If Nox goes into 20s ID with tone to match that is
> my standard in suspecting higher conductive target
> .
> Nox don't have to give clad dime ID per se.
> Detectors that failed gace me neither tone or ID t
> o suspect clad dime exist, nothing close to go on.
> Now will a person possibly using Nox dig some alum
> inum screw caps hunting modern trash sites in sear
> ch of higher conducive coins/jewelry? Sure.
> But Etrac, Deus likely won't even give higher cond
> uctive signal (or even close) on some aluminum scr
> ew caps mask by pull rings, etc. and at the same
> time be missing the true higher conducive jewelry
> and coins. Recognizing my test is coils size for
> coil size comparisons.
>
> Let's look at this this way.
> We see folks say using Etrac I don't dig much junk
> . Ok
> So if we turned 2 proficient folks loose on a conc
> ession area, fairgrounds site.
> One using Etrac stock coil or even a CTX.
> And the other using Nox with stock coil.
>
> Yep the fbs runner likely would still dig less jun
> k.
> They could find more worthy higher conductive targ
> ets than Nox user too depending on luck factor of
> how their finds were oriented vs modern trash.
> Nox user likely would dig more screw caps and junk
> .
> But Nox user is able to be alerted on more targets
> higher conductive on average than Fbs user.
> Maybe Nox user finds more.
> Where the prize find is exactly and how oriented t
> o junk nonferrous could make difference for a Nox
> success or an fbs failure to detect.
>
> Now another scenario.
> Seeded hunt.
> Let's suppose a seed hunt was held.
> And it was declared to hunters, modern trash exist
> inside with the planted coins.
> And stock sized coils only allowed on detectors.
> If I Were the planter of the coins.
> I could indeed plant coins and modern trash to giv
> e Nox the advantage purposely.
> The Deus runners, Etrac runners and I'm sure many
> other detectors would be SOL for a timed event.
> Likely by huge margin.

Excellent , excellent, excellent post . Thanx Rover and TN for typing that all out. Shows you guys are most definitely taking myriads of factors into consideration.

tnsharpshooter Wrote:

> Correct, detector gives me no clue that higher con
> ductive coin, object exist.
> When sweeping, using lots of varying sweep speeds.
> Gotta get some thing tonally to make me stop and i
> nvestigate.
> Even coil hovers I call it- no cigars given on the
> above that failed.
>

thank you brother.

Freakin snow finally melting here in NJ. Got some free time so I am going to try this same test using some of my faster reacting units (F75, Deus, MXT Pro,V3i). Will have 10-11 inch DD's on them all. I may try this with the Ultimate 13 on the Whites units. For a bigger coil, that thing can separate.

Just got a Makro Multi Kruzer the other day. Had not time to figure it out yet but if I do, will put that to the test too.

Tom-in-CA --

I was about to ask what you were seeing that was misleading about the "BBS/FBS have an advantage on high conductive silver coins in all conditions" statement -- but now I see where you said you were misreading it. Makes sense now.

Good report, I enjoyed it. Sounds like you didn't "click," and the Equinox is "not for you."

I, like you, LOVE FBS, and my CTX's are not going ANYWHERE.

But, two things...

One, I'm surprised your Equinox couldn't see that 7-8" wheat cent, AL ALL. Now, I get that you said it's "funky soil" and that machines won't "lock on" to deep targets, and will ID them a couple of points "lower" than they should. BUT -- you had just dug that mid-conductive nut that the Explorer wouldn't have alerted you to properly, so that suggests that at least for some targets, the Equinox was "neck and neck" in that dirt with the Explorer. So, with that in mind -- I am wondering why the EQ could not see that wheat cent AT ALL? I'm puzzled by that, based on what I know a 7-8" wheat cent sounds like on the EQ in my moderate mineralized red clay. Yes, different dirt, I know, but based on what you had seen just before that wheat cent dig, on that nut the EQ saw... ??

Anyway, I am curious as to why you didn't give it more than two hunts, in some other environs? Two hunts would NOT have been enough for you, to have assessed your Ex. II, back when you first started with it, I am pretty sure! I really would have liked to have seen how it did for you at some of your stage stop-type sites...as Dean mentioned...

BUT -- you gave it a pretty good workout. And in that application, FBS has a bit of an edge (that's also what I have concluded thus far). Not a lot IMO, but a little (i.e. hunting specifically for deep, high conductors, and wanting the clearest, most efficient "dig" signals on those targets).

Thanks for the length insights!

Steve



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/24/2018 06:41PM by steveg.

Daniel Tn Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> There were charts and hints in the Minelab technology posts prior to the release of the machine that showed and hinted the Nox would be a 2nd string player to the FBS flag ship machines *in certain are as and conditions*, while excelling at others. The chart at the dealer's shin dig showed more of what they were marketing the Nox against with competitor models. I just assumed that was common knowledge that had been passed around and talked about prior to the Nox release and was surprised that people were still putting the Nox up against the flagship FBSs in their core strength areas, and expecting different results. But I also assumed it was common knowledge for people to not eat Tide pods and to not take a suppository orally, and look where that got us. haha. I will say this though, I'm not going to sit here and philosophize what they meant with their words. I personally thought they were plain and straight forward about it, and not coded like a Playfair cipher.
>
> I will say...Dilly Dilly on putting it on eBay right now under an auction. Mining the miners. Haha . It's already at MAP pricing with 2.5 days left to go on it. You'll end up making money off it, e
> ven after fees. And the best part of it is that you can do it without people saying you are price gouging, because it is an auction...which means you aren't setting the price that it sells for; the pr
> ospective buyers are regulating what they are willing to pay for it.

Actually I negotiated a discounted group buy for several EQ800's. One person flaked out, now ones fleabaying theirs (thanks to the group buy discount, he's already up over $100 ), but myself and the other buyer (who coincidentally has both an Etrac and CTX) are sticking with ours.

Why am I? Because I invested the time to follow the updates that Minelab posted on their Treasure Talk EQUINOX Technologies metal detecting blogs, as well as demo's and forum posts from respected detecting authorities (some who hunt the same sites I do, so I now know that it should excel at my sites), and intelligent discussions that lead credence that the EQ800 would fill a gap in my current detector technologies.

I do not own a Explorer or Etrac (I had an Etrac, found it to be less then stellar in iron, so sold it off), so for me, it definitely brings a lot to the table, now I have a capable simultaneous multi-frequency waterproof salt water beach detector, a deep turf detector, that as Tom noted is no better, no worse then his beloved Exp2 (which IMO says a lot about the detector), and a detector that I know will excel at some of our relic sites that have funky soil conditions which handicap my current single frequency VLF detectors. Yes I can make them work at these sites, but it's a LOT more effort, and I know the VLF machines are leaving finds behind, as I've seen the EXp2 and Etrac have no issues handling the mineralization and funky alkali soils at some of these sites. So the EQ800 with it's simultaneous multi-frequency, and fast recovery speeds should open up these sites for me, perhaps not for Tom as he seems to do well with his Exp2.

It will certainly be interesting to see when we're able to get to one of these sites, what our comparative results are. I will say this, Tom is a very fast detectorists. He hunts fast (which amazes me with a slow Exp2) and has faster recovery techniques then I do, so even if Tom and I were 100% equal as far as detector capabilities go, I would still expect Tom to have a higher non-ferrous conductor count then I, but I have over the past couple of years closed the gap with the Racers and Impact, should be fun to see what the EQ800 brings to the table.

Cal_cobra --

I am glad that you will be running yours in your irony sites that you and Tom hunt in. I agree with you, THIS is where the Equinox should have an edge. "Holding its own" on turf hunting for deep high conductors is pretty good; in the iron and trash is where it should show a sizeable advantage over FBS. The question will be if, in the end, you find that it has advantage over the other machines you like to swing in those environments.

Steve



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/24/2018 06:47PM by steveg.

steveg Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Tom-in-CA --
>
> I was about to ask what you were seeing that was misleading about the "BBS/FBS have an advantage on high conductive silver coins in all conditions" statement -- but now I see where you said you > were misreading it. Makes sense now.
> Good report, I enjoyed it. Sounds like you didn't "click," and the Equinox is "not for you."
>
> I, like you, LOVE FBS, and my CTX's are not going ANYWHERE.
>
> But, two things...
>
> One, I'm surprised your Equinox couldn't see that 7-8" wheat cent, AL ALL. Now, I get that you said it's "funky soil" and that machines won't "lock on" to deep targets, and will ID them a couple of po
> ints "lower" than they should. BUT -- you had just dug that mid-conductive nut that the Explorer wouldn't have alerted you to properly, so that suggests that at least for some targets, the Equinox wa
> s "neck and neck" in that dirt with the Explorer. So, with that in mind -- I am wondering why the EQ could not see that wheat cent AT ALL? I'm puzzled by that, based on what I know a 7-8" wheat cent sounds like on the EQ in my moderate mineralized red clay. Yes, different dirt, I know, but based on what you had seen just before that wheat cent dig, on that nut the EQ saw... ??
>
> Anyway, I am curious as to why you didn't give it more than two hunts, in some other environs? Two hunts would NOT have been enough for you, to have assessed your Ex. II, back when you first started with it, I am pretty sure! I really would have liked to have seen how it did for you at some of your stage stop-type sites...as Dean mentioned... BUT -- you gave it a pretty good workout. And in
> that application, FBS has a bit of an edge (that's also what I have concluded thus far). Not a lot IMO, but a little (i.e. hunting specifically for deep, high conductors, and wanting the clearest, mos
> t efficient "dig" signals on those targets).
>
> Thanks for the length insights!
>
> Steve

Steve, to be honest, I didn't read Tom's lengthy write-up as I've been preoccupied with other work, but he debriefed me on the phone about his hunts.

I don't know if he pointed out that the EMI was so bad at the site with the wheat cent that the EQ purportedly couldn't see? Apparently the EMI was so bad, on both the EQ and Exp2, that the sensitivity had to be severely lowered. In his mind, the two detectors were still equal, because they were both challenged by severe EMI and required gain drops. In my mind, having worked in commercial wireless communications for over five years, any time there's EMI, all bets are off for testing, because it affects different devices differently. Sure both were somewhat crippled, but what was the actual net affect on each detector? And what gain level on the Exp2 is equal to what gain level on the EQ800? Just more data points to ponder.

steveg Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Cal_cobra --
>
> I am glad that you will be running yours in your irony sites that you and Tom hunt in. I agree with you, THIS is where the Equinox should have an edge. "Holding its own" on turf hunting for deep high
> conductors is pretty good; in the iron and trash is where it should show a sizeable advantage over FBS. The question will be if, in the end, you find that it has advantage over the other machines you
> like to swing in those environments.>
> Steve

Agreed. I have a feeling that at sites that present normal soil conditions, like our Spanish trail sites, the Multi Kruzer may reign supreme BUT at our other sites with heavy alkali soils and/or high mineralization where the FBS type machines have no issues (with soil), that the EQ800 will reign supreme over my VLF machines.

My goal is to get my current fleet of detectors down to TWO, hopefully one EQ800 and one Makro Multi Kruzer. That should cover any type of site that I'll ever encounter, and the great thing about these two detectors is that their both super light weight, waterproof and employ wireless headphone technology, taking my detecting capabilities to the next level

steveg Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

>
> Anyway, I am curious as to why you didn't give it
> more than two hunts, in some other environs? Two
> hunts would NOT have been enough for you, to have
> assessed your Ex. II, back when you first started
> with it, I am pretty sure!

Steve, good to hear from you. And thanx for your forgiveness for my terminology booboo at the Minelab pre-release statement . Doh!

The word "other", in your quote , speaks loudly. Yes: The deep-turf scenario is a closed book. But other scenarios can be compared/dueled at a later date. However, unfortunately, to correctly compare them, they should not be compared with an Exp. II (since the Exp. II , I can already say would loose). Instead should be compared with Racer, Impact, Kruzer, and Deus. I have none of those machines. My only iron-see-through machine I own is 77b and Bandido. Both of which are admittedly weak on depth. So I'd be relying on Cal-Cobra Brian for that comparison. But.... he's not into such comparisons. (see his posts). Hence I made the decision to sell.

As for my decision way-back-when to advance from the Eagle SLII to the Exp. II : Actually , it was made @ over the course of 2 hunts (much like the 2-hunts of this post), where I was dragged, kicking and screaming .... with side-by-side flagged target tests, where it was clearly shown that 1 unit got it, while the other had to struggle. And no amount of time, # of hunts, or practice, was going to change it. Trust me: I was there, studying the flags I was shown, making durned sure that my Eagle could equally see them . It could not. So in the same way: So-too did this test go similar directions.

Tom --

I guess I stand corrected on your "two hunts to decide on the Ex. II!" LOL!

I guess what I was saying is, I am certain you have gotten more skilled with your Explorer over time (and obviously, at this point you are expert at using it). And you could hand that Explorer II to another experienced detectorist, let them run it for a couple of hunts, and you would still SPANK them on the deep silver. There's something to be said about "knowing" your machine, is all. Now, if you took that "other detectorist" running your Explorer to a target you flagged, and told them to "work it," they'd "hear it," but they may not be all that "impressed" with what they heard. YOU know exactly what to listen for, and your brain is trained for it. Theirs is not. That's what I was saying; said differently, I would expect that IN TIME, if you ran the Equinox long enough, you'd learn the "deep sound" of the Equinox, and it would do better for you on deep silver, than it would the first time or two. BUT -- "better than it did the first time or two" is not the point, I agree. It would have to do BETTER than you EXPLORER, and I think we both agree that it's unlikely that would be the case, no matter HOW much experience one has on the Equinox. So I do understand what you are saying.

Again, like you, I'm keeping FBS for deep coin hunting. And I am saying that even though my Equinox in my dirt seems to be hitting high conductors even a little DEEPER than the CTX does. Because obviously, how a machine responds to a known, flagged target is NOT the same as how efficiently it FINDS an un-flagged target, in real-world hunting conditions. Right before I switched to my Explorer years back, I had another unit that was, in terms of "raw depth," deeper than an E-Trac OR Explorer. BUT, in my hands anyway, it would NOT find the deep coins efficiently, nor ID them correctly enough, as compared to the E-Tracs my friends were running. There was not a single coin they would find, that my machine could not detect. HOWEVER, they were finding silver each hunt, and I was finding none. Within two weeks of me finally being convinced to switch to an Explorer, I started finding silver. Consistently. Case closed. My point is -- the FBS units are, for me, able to find silver in ways that other (even "deeper") machines won't.

We agree that the Explorer would "lose" as compared to the Equinox on "challenged" targets, and I agree with you that the Equinox needs to be compared "apples to apples" to the Impact, Racer, Deus, etc. in that type of scenario. I guess all I would say is, for ME, having an FBS unit AND an unmasker "fills out my arsenal," and there are enough similarities tonally (as I had hoped) that I'm most comfortable with the Equinox being that "unmasker" for me. I was hoping you'd have kept the Equinox, because I DO feel that it would "very capably" have filled that niche for you, as well -- better than your Bandido (don't know enough about the 77b to say). And I would have liked to have heard your take on it, in those stage stops...

Steve

steveg Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I would expect that IN TIME,
> if you ran the Equinox long enough, you'd learn th
> e "deep sound" of the Equinox, and it would do
> better for you on deep silver, than it would t
> he first time or two.

Steve, I held out this hope (as you'll see in my opening posts) very generously. Acknowledging , the whole time, that perhaps someone more familiar with the sounds would interpret differently . Even though, yes , I was giving the Explorer more points for bold-ness and room to spare. Yet the fact that it *could* be made to hear the flagged signals, kept me from making a blanket bold statement.

It was not until the one sample super deep signal, THAT THE NOX COULDN'T EVEN HEAR, that I decided this is beyond the pale. No flicker of audio, no flicker of #'s, no flicker of threshold, no nothing. And let's be clear: No amount of additional time, settings, practice, and experience, is going to change that. And as you can see from the acknowledged experts here, Even Minelab themselves has acknowledged this potential. Thus no amount of time is going to change that.


As for the rest of what you wrote: You seem to make a distinction between "flagged" and "real world" (un-flagged and wild). But this fails to take into account that the flagged targets WERE real world. They were not planted. They were un-disturbed actual targets found in real world conditions. In locations where I could reasonably be certain that I could, given some time, go to known parks, and flag suspected deep wheats, IH, or silver. How much more real world can it be than that ??

And yes: I have acknowledge that this is true for *just* the location I was at. There could be other "challenged" targets (masked ? minerals?) where results could be different. HOWEVER: I have to say: This location was chosen FOR EXACTLY THOSE REASONS: funky minerals and lots of low conductor junk. Ie.: It was not a test of raw depth . The 1919 penny, in question, was, as said, only 7"-ish deep. That's not outside the depth range of the Nox, as you know. Hence something else was at play. And, the explorer could hear it, while the Nox remained silent (despite all the fiddling and coaxing).

But, for sake of argument, yes: This is only for this one particular spot. Perhaps minerals vary ? Perhaps junk levels vary ? Perhaps someone's got a suggested setting I should have done (although I went to great lengths to stymie that claim, by studying inputs before I even started).

The only thing I really see missing from your report are Recovery Speed testing..
They affect the Equinox quite a bit and I didn’t see any mention of changing those up.
Soil and trash conditions matter for these settings but just going from 3 to 7 drops depth by as much as 2” in air testing..
A recovery Speed of around 3 or so probably would be close to your Explorer speeds..
The 4 setting definitely gives a much better tone at depth.. More like you will hear on FBS except not as high of pitch..
Recovery speeds of 6 and higher will have very clipped tones at depths of 8 + inches and give the appearance
of maybe not hitting as hard as your Explorer..
My deepest coin so far with the Equinox is 10” which is very rare for my area..
I have never done this with a stock size 11” coil before. I have pulled a few with the CTX/17”, E-Trac 13” Tornado
and 1 with 705/15” coil..
I was running Park 1 FE 0 and Recovery Speed 4.. Soft but solid signal..
Again this was with an 11” Coil.. I have also pulled several 8 and 9” silver dimes, Wheats and IHs.
Some at higher 5 and even 6 Recovery speeds..

Bryan

The speed settings have turned out to be one of my favorite features of the Equinox for park hunting..
I am constantly adjusting on the fly to match my trash and ground conditions..
After you get some hours on the Nox you can really get a feel of when your starting to get a little sluggish
and can bump it up a notch or two to match conditions..
Then when you venture out into an open area you can drop back down and hunt the extra deeps..

Bryan

steveg Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Cal_cobra --
>
> I am glad that you will be running yours in your i
> rony sites that you and Tom hunt in.

Thanx for the input Steve. The videos that Brian and I made, have really put a "face" on the type sites. And as anyone knows, who's ever hunted chaparral / desert type terrain ghost towns (as seen in our videos), then you get a feel for the objective. Places where, sometimes the nails are so thick, they seem like toothpicks lying all over the ground. And another spot Brian and I sometimes go back to, is just a giant "null" (so-to-speak) in an area the size of a basket-ball half-court. Yet anytime we go there to try something new, a few lone pistol balls or henry shells or a phoenix button, or whatever can still be un-masked. Contrast to the first time I worked the site 25 yrs. ago, I recall we were in park-mind-set. Not stopping to dig anything less than penny/dime clear 4-star bangers, haha

Not sure how our west coast ghost town spots compare to east coast cellar holes. From what I see in the pix of east coast cellar holes, those are more lush-type landscape. Eh ? Whereas a lot of the places Brian and I hunt are better described as chaparral and or high-desert type terrain. Stage stops, emigrant stop spots, trading posts, old defunct resorts, contact-period indian rancherias, etc....

One of the spots we researched, found, and tried last year, was a middle-of-nowhere stage stop site. We were dismayed to find that someone had obviously done their homework, and worked it to smithereens. So much so, that they even appeared to have SIFTED the entire site. (We could see sift pile tailings). Doh! And the iron was thick and horrible. But with effort, we managed a suspender buckle, a few rimfires, etc.... I would love to see what Brian's Nox can do there. Not that we don't have "better spots to do" (more coin-potential), but ... that one sticks out in my mind as being the ultimate iron-see-through test. And since we already have a base-line (ie.: struggle for 3 or 4 conductors each), then this would prove interesting.

Cabin Fever Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> Recovery speeds of 6 and higher will have very cli
> pped tones at depths of 8 + inches and give the ap
> pearance
> of maybe not hitting as hard as your Explorer..
>

Bryan, thanx for the excellent input. You're right: I did not vary the recovery speeds in the tests. Kept it at 6, in both park 1 and park 2, the whole time. However, a few others on this thread have suggested that ... yes ... while lowering it might have added depth, yet the flip side of that, is then you're loosing target separation.

And then it would boil down to: Is the exact target I've flagged, one-in-which "separation" was a factor ? Or was it sitting solo, all-alone, with nothing nearby ??

And question for you: When you say that the recovery speed of 6 gives a more "clipped" tone: You're right. That was my impression. Ie.: as if I had to be centered right over . And yes, giving the appearance of less depth (ie.: needing to "coax"). But is your observation merely the audio ? Or are you saying that I could have also expected more depth too ? If so, then I regret not trying that 1919 wheatie with a lower recovery speed of ... say .... 3.

Yes Tom, the Recovery speeds affect depth noticeably.. Slower usually deeper but this may vary with soil and trash conditions..
I’m not technical enough to go in to this subject deeply.. Maybe Tom D can weigh in on the Equinox Recovery Speeds and how they affect performance..
You can kind of turn your Equinox audibly, as in length of tone by slowing it down, into an Explorer type feel..

Get out some coins and play around with the settings if you still have it and you will see what I mean..

Bryan



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/24/2018 11:00PM by Cabin Fever.

Thanks for posting that Bryan, at least I got something out of this thread

There's quite a bit of depth to be gained by simply lowering Target Recovery Response speeds.

There's quite a bit of depth to be gained by simply lowering Target Recovery Response speeds.


So how low would the recovery speed need to be set on the Equinox 800 to equal the normal speed of the Explorer, etrac or CTX for detecting deep coin targets?

Tom,

I guess I wasn't clear on what I meant about "flagged" versus "real world." I was actually agreeing with you, and what you found while hunting the Equinox, and the reason you prefer your Explorer.

Let me try and explain better. When coin hunting and not "digging it all" as in a relic hunt, obviously we are trying to get our machines to give us a "dig me" signal on the "good stuff," a signal that differs from the signal it would give on other (trash) targets -- so as to allow us to move efficiently through a site, ignoring junk but being alerted to those things we are interested in. And what I was saying was, let's say I find a half dozen targets with my machine, that I suspect are silver coins -- all at deep depths and including some that are on the fringe of detectability. And on each one, I call you over, and with your machine (another brand/model) you can indeed detect each of them. What I was trying to say was, just because your machine can report on all the same targets mine can, does NOT (obviously) mean that both machines are "equally good" at deep coin hunting. If mine is superior, for instance, at deep target ID and/or discrimination, or tonal nuance, or whatever, such that it allows me to effectively ignore most trash items, and yet it gives very clear "dig" signals on all the "good targets," but yours on the other hand reports deep targets "all over the map" in terms of ID, or maybe reports all deep targets as "iron," or whatever, then clearly my machine is a better "deep coin hunter" than yours is. EVEN THOUGH there was no target my machine detected, that yours couldn't also detect.

SO, what I was saying was, even IF the Equinox can "see" most or all of the same targets your Explorer can at depth, that does not mean that you'd hunt deep coins as successfully with it. That's what I was trying to say, and thus was agreeing with you that it would be tough for me in my mind to think the Equinox could replace FBS for deep coins. I'm trying to keep an open mind with the Equinox, but it's hard to imagine it -- FBS machines are, in my opinion, simply "that good." Now, on "challenged" targets? Different story. We both agree. I'm only talking deep high conductor hunting, in mild to moderate dirt, without a ton of iron to deal with.

That old F70 I used for several months, trying to deep coin hunt with my hunting buddies who were all running E-Tracs -- no way was it happening. Again, that F70 could report on EVERY target the E-Tracs would find and identify as a likely "silver coin." So, it was just as "deep" (it was actually deeper -- just as my Equinox seems to be a bit "deeper.") But, in the case of that F70, it was the fact that coins at depth did NOT report as coins, and meanwhile, other junk at depth DID report as coins. I would spend the whole hunt digging the wrong targets, and skipping over the "right" targets. And hence, by April of that year, I still had not dug a single silver coin (and just a few wheats), while my partners were digging deep silver coins on every hunt. I concluded at that point -- and it's a conclusion that still holds true, for me -- that FBS is a better deep coin hunter in a trashy turf-type environment than an F70. Within two weeks of the Explorer arriving at my house, I had learned enough about it to start digging silver, consistently; my third or fourth hunt with it netted two half dollars, and I ended that year with 54 silver coins -- all dug in the last 8 months of the year, with the Explorer. The first four months, with the F70 -- zero. Not bashing the F70, but in my dirt, it simply did not have the ability to ID deep targets accurately enough to be a good choice for a park/schoolyard coin hunter.

SO, does that make more sense, Tom? What I was saying was, even if the Equinox would have been able to detect that wheat cent, there's more to it than that -- in terms of it pushing you to consider setting your Explorer aside. Just because a machine can "detect" a flagged target -- i.e. one that has already been located and pinpointed with another unit, does NOT mean that it would have efficiently, effectively found that same target if the user of said machine did not already know it was there. It's one thing to point at a spot and ask me if my machine can detect that target. It's another to turn me loose in a trashy park and tell me to use my machine to FIND THAT TARGET.

Steve

Steve to play devils advocate, I believe that Tom mostly found targets first with the Exp2, and the cross checked them with the EQ.

A more fair test, would've been to spend one hour flagging signals with the Exp2, then crosscheck with the EQ. Then spend one hour with the EQ flagging targets and then crosscheck them with the Exp2.

Otherwise it's a bit skewed favoring one detector over the other. I know he said he did a bit of both, but it did appear that the Exp2 was the primary target locator and EQ crosschecker.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/25/2018 03:11AM by Cal_cobra.

Yep, it's a good point, Cal_cobra. That would have been an interesting comparison, had he done an equal amount of flagging with the EQ. But still, it would have been difficult for the EQ to do well for him, even in that scenario. I contend that when someone has spent years, over literally thousands of targets, honing their mind, ears, and senses to know how to get in the "zone" and zero in on the subtle signals that deep coins present on a given machine, it's going to be next to impossible for that person to pick up a brand-new machine, and then assess clearly which one "gives a better dig signal." Now, if one will not hit a target AT ALL, and it's not a "settings" issue, then obviously it's not just a "tune your ears" issue. Otherwise, though, it takes time and experience to know the nuanced clues a given machine gives, on a tough target. And you simply don't KNOW those clues, when it's a machine "unfamiliar to you."

Here's what I am guessing was going on. Tom trusts his Explorer. It has earned that over the years, from him. I understand that. For him to consider a switch, that Equinox would have had to have blown his socks off on deep coins. Not just "almost as good." Not even "possibly hit the targets as well or even a tad better in some cases." But truly blown his socks off. He came in "biased" toward his Explorer, and I really don't blame him one bit. BUT -- whatever the case, the Equinox just didn't "wow" him enough cause him to consider giving it some more time -- let ALONE cause him to consider the possibility of setting down his trusty weapon! And to me, that's really what it boils down to. He was skeptical (and rightfully so), and he gave it a short, small window to "wow" him. It didn't. So, he's parting with it. Totally understandable.

I'm going to tell a story, to illustrate this. I am a golfer. I used to play a lot more, but nonetheless...

While playing college golf back in the early '90s, I was using a particular TaylorMade driver, and it was PERFECT for me. I could KILL the ball, with that thing. I LOVED that driver. I used it for several years, and just LOVED it. But after college, I moved from Pennsylvania to Texas (for career purposes), away from all my golfing buddies, and found myself a poor, single guy who knew nobody. After a year, I was transferred to Tennessee, still the same poor, single guy who knew no one. So, bottom line, I played VERY little golf, after literally playing EVERY day. The times I WOULD play, would be when my Dad would come and visit. After several years, my dad started telling me about this awesome driver he was using, the newest TaylorMade driver. This was during the time when the shafts went to all graphite, and the heads on the drivers started getting larger and larger. So, eventually, I broke down and got one of these "new technology" drivers. And you know what? I eventually got pretty good with it. It became my "go-to" club, while my old college driver sat in the closet, collecting dust.

Well, one day, about 15 years after graduating from college, I was going to the driving range for some practice, and I had the crazy idea of bringing that old "college driver" with me, just to crush a few drives with it "for old time's sake." I started out with my current "go-to" driver, and was hitting nice, long, straight drives. So, once warmed up, I grabbed the old "college" driver, and let 'er rip. And you know what? I could NOT hit the dumb thing! I was flabbergasted! What happened??? It didn't even FEEL right! I tried adjusting my swing, my tempo/timing, trying to get "in sync" with the different balance and weight of the club, everything I could to "make it work." Even though I was eventually able to get to where I could "keep it straight," I simply could NOT get any good distance out of it. It was such an odd feeling, in that I KNEW what I used to be able to do with that club, and at the same time I also KNEW what I was able to do with my current driver. But I could not do ANYTHING with that old college driver, 15 years later.

SO, what's my point? Imagine if I knew nothing about that old college TaylorMade driver, had no history with it, never used it, and some guy on the driving range came over with that very club and said "you gotta try this club...man, it CRUSHES the ball." I may have given it a half hour, hit a bucket of balls with it, but I would have handed it back to the guy and said "sorry, this driver doesn't work for me...I'll stick with my "go-to" club; I can't hit that one nearly as well."

It's not all that different with detectors, I don't think. SURE, the machine (like the golf club) has to be a good one (in the golf club case, it was TaylorMade vs. TaylorMade, in Tom's case, it was Minelab vs. Minelab). But assuming you are essentially comparing "apples to apples" (i.e. not a Bounty Hunter Junior versus a GPZ7000), there is absolutely something to be said for what you are used to, "tuned" to, familiar with, and confident in. And it takes ALOT to get a guy to set down something that has earned his trust, in favor of the "new one." And it is ESPECIALLY NOT LIKELY to occur, in just a couple of hours (or a couple of buckets of balls!) And like I said, it's understandable...

Steve