Nox update mini rview.

Tony from Tidewater Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I installed the update. How do I check to see it i
> n the menu? Thanks for the help


Don’t believe there is a process currently.

ChrisMD Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> ncwayne Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Hey Chris,
> >
> > Aren't you nearly perfectly describing how auto
> gr
> > ound balance works? You're swinging over the tar
> ge
> > t so much that the machine interprets it as grou
> nd
> > effect and adjusts it out, which leads to clippi
> ng
> > of the target signal (and theoretically if not a
> ct
> > ually up to the total elimination of the target
> si
> > gnal).
> > Wayne
>
> Yeah, I only threw it out there in case someone wa
> s reading that wasn’t experienced enough to recogn
> ize what was happening with the auto ground balanc
> e. I saw the same question come up all the time on
> the 3030 forum on Findmall, so I guess it’s not to
> o common knowledge/understanding.

OK, guys, I'm confused.

Unless my understanding is completely off, you CAN'T "track out" a target, if you ran the "auto" ground balance procedure, because that "auto" procedure sets a FIXED ground balance, on the Equinox. The only way I know of that a target could be "tracked out," is if you were running "tracking ground balance" -- which again, unless my understanding is totally wrong, is entirely different from running the "auto ground balance procedure" on the Equinox. So, for Beyonder, who I think said he ran the "auto" procedure (which MEANS he is running a fixed ground balance, per my understanding), there's no way what he describes is due to ground balance "tracking out" the target.

Like Beyonder, I HAVE had the Equinox sort of eventually begin to "dislike" a target that initially high-toned, after repeated, continuous sweeps of the target. And I run auto ground balance (fixed ground balance). And so, my interpretation was that that had NOTHING, of course, to do with "tracking out" the target, but instead, my feel for this is that by doing those continuous, repeated, short sweeps over the target, you are giving the ID algorithms in the machine more "snapshots" of the target so as to more accurately determine the target's make-up. And so, if you get a high-tone that starts to "deteriorate" with repeated sweeps (and you are running a FIXED ground balance, such as I understand is what is set, with the auto procedure), then the reason the target is deteriorating is because the ID algorithm is "clueing in" over time that it's an iron target. Meanwhile, if you do the same "repeated sweeping" of a high-toning target, and it continues to sound good, then my experience says it's more likely to be a "good" target. Again, my guess is because you allowed the machine enough "snapshots," to make a more accurate ID. YES, the same thing happens on FBS, and to me, it's a GOOD thing. To me, it's the machine doing what it's supposed to do -- i.e. "accurately figuring out" what it thinks the target most likely is. Isn't this the whole reason that everyone uses the "Minelab wiggle?" To "tease out" as much target information as can be gleaned, so as to allow the machine to communicate that information to our ears as accurately as possible?

One more thing I will say. This whole "snapshots" thing is just a guess, on my part. Perhaps the algorithms do NOT "build up" information over time, so as to be able to spit out continuously-more-accurate info. Maybe the algorithms don't have that capability at all. PERHAPS, instead, the other explanation, is that by doing those repeated little sweeps (the "Minelab wiggle,") you are sub-consciously moving the coil to become more centered over the target, as YOU interpret the machine's audio, and thus you are sub-consciously "helping" the machine to get the best ID; in other words, maybe your BRAIN is the "algorithm," in this case; maybe the initial high tone "deteriorates" on a nail, because instead of hearing a false off the tip, the "Minelab wiggle" helps you to kind of sub-consciously, gradually "hone in" on the center of the target, and thus -- when centered properly over the nail -- the machine more correctly sees and IDs it as iron.

I'm not sure which of these is true -- but EITHER WAY, I do NOT think the explanation to Beyonder's observation is a "tracking out" thing, as has been suggested...

Steve



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 09/20/2018 11:47AM by steveg.

steveg Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> ChrisMD Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > ncwayne Wrote:
> > ------------------------------------------------
> --
> > -----
> > > Hey Chris,
> > >
> > > Aren't you nearly perfectly describing how aut
> o
> > gr
> > > ound balance works? You're swinging over the t
> ar
> > ge
> > > t so much that the machine interprets it as gr
> ou
> > nd
> > > effect and adjusts it out, which leads to clip
> pi
> > ng
> > > of the target signal (and theoretically if not
> a
> > ct
> > > ually up to the total elimination of the targe
> t
> > si
> > > gnal).
> > > Wayne
> >
> > Yeah, I only threw it out there in case someone
> wa
> > s reading that wasn’t experienced enough to reco
> gn
> > ize what was happening with the auto ground bala
> nc
> > e. I saw the same question come up all the time
> on
> > the 3030 forum on Findmall, so I guess it’s not
> to
> > o common knowledge/understanding.
>
> OK, guys, I'm confused.
>
> Unless my understanding is completely off, you CAN
> 'T "track out" a target, if you ran the "auto" gro
> und balance procedure, because that "auto" procedu
> re sets a FIXED ground balance, on the Equinox. T
> he only way I know of that a target could be "trac
> ked out," is if you were running "tracking ground
> balance" -- which again, unless my understanding i
> s totally wrong, is entirely different from runnin
> g the "auto ground balance procedure" on the Equin
> ox. So, for Beyonder, who I think said he ran the
> "auto" procedure (which MEANS he is running a fixe
> d ground balance, per my understanding), there's n
> o way what he describes is due to ground balance "
> tracking out" the target.
>
> Like Beyonder, I HAVE had the Equinox sort of even
> tually begin to "dislike" a target that initially
> high-toned, after repeated, continuous sweeps of t
> he target. And I run auto ground balance (fixed g
> round balance). And so, my interpretation was tha
> t that had NOTHING, of course, to do with "trackin
> g out" the target, but instead, my feel for this i
> s that by doing those continuous, repeated, short
> sweeps over the target, you are giving the ID a
> lgorithms in the machine more "snapshots" of the t
> arget so as to more accurately determine the targe
> t's make-up. And so, if you get a high-tone t
> hat starts to "deteriorate" with repeated sweeps (
> and you are running a FIXED ground balance, such a
> s I understand is what is set, with the auto proce
> dure), then the reason the target is deteriorating
> is because the ID algorithm is "clueing in" ove
> r time that it's an iron target. Meanwhile, i
> f you do the same "repeated sweeping" of a high-to
> ning target, and it continues to sound good
> , then my experience says it's more likely to be a
> "good" target. Again, my guess is because you all
> owed the machine enough "snapshots," to make a mor
> e accurate ID. YES, the same thing happens on FBS
> , and to me, it's a GOOD thing. To me, it's the m
> achine doing what it's supposed to do -- i.e. "acc
> urately figuring out" what it thinks the target mo
> st likely is. Isn't this the whole reason that ev
> eryone uses the "Minelab wiggle?" To "tease out"
> as much target information as can be gleaned, so a
> s to allow the machine to communicate that informa
> tion to our ears as accurately as possible?
>
> One more thing I will say. This whole "snapshots"
> thing is just a guess, on my part. Perhaps the al
> gorithms do NOT "build up" information over time,
> so as to be able to spit out continuously-more-acc
> urate info. Maybe the algorithms don't have that
> capability at all. PERHAPS, instead, the other ex
> planation, is that by doing those repeated little
> sweeps (the "Minelab wiggle,") you are sub-cons
> ciously moving the coil to become more centered ov
> er the target, as YOU interpret the machine's
> audio, and thus you are sub-consciously "helping"
> the machine to get the best ID; in other words, ma
> ybe your BRAIN is the "algorithm," in this case; m
> aybe the initial high tone "deteriorates" on a nai
> l, because instead of hearing a false off the tip,
> the "Minelab wiggle" helps you to kind of sub-cons
> ciously, gradually "hone in" on the center of the
> target, and thus -- when centered properly over th
> e nail -- the machine more correctly sees and IDs
> it as iron.
>
> I'm not sure which of these is true -- but EITHER
> WAY, I do NOT think the explanation to Beyonder's
> observation is a "tracking out" thing, as has been
> suggested...
>
> Steve


Awesome thoughts as usual Steve,I hope all is well down there! I agree wholeheartedly that the machine eventually deciding that the target is BAD is a GOOD thing. Furthermore,every target that sounded good on the initial hit and then degraded with subsequent sweeps that I dug turned out to be exactly CRAP. The EQ might play differently but the CTX and the Explorer are very good at one thing when it comes to coins in turf,and that is TELLING THE TRUTH,no matter what the truth is...

steveg Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> ChrisMD Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > ncwayne Wrote:
> > ------------------------------------------------
> --
> > -----
> > > Hey Chris,
> > >
> > > Aren't you nearly perfectly describing how aut
> o
> > gr
> > > ound balance works? You're swinging over the t
> ar
> > ge
> > > t so much that the machine interprets it as gr
> ou
> > nd
> > > effect and adjusts it out, which leads to clip
> pi
> > ng
> > > of the target signal (and theoretically if not
> a
> > ct
> > > ually up to the total elimination of the targe
> t
> > si
> > > gnal).
> > > Wayne
> >
> > Yeah, I only threw it out there in case someone
> wa
> > s reading that wasn’t experienced enough to reco
> gn
> > ize what was happening with the auto ground bala
> nc
> > e. I saw the same question come up all the time
> on
> > the 3030 forum on Findmall, so I guess it’s not
> to
> > o common knowledge/understanding.
>
> OK, guys, I'm confused.
>
> Unless my understanding is completely off, you CAN
> 'T "track out" a target, if you ran the "auto" gro
> und balance procedure, because that "auto" procedu
> re sets a FIXED ground balance, on the Equinox. T
> he only way I know of that a target could be "trac
> ked out," is if you were running "tracking ground
> balance" -- which again, unless my understanding i
> s totally wrong, is entirely different from runnin
> g the "auto ground balance procedure" on the Equin
> ox. So, for Beyonder, who I think said he ran the
> "auto" procedure (which MEANS he is running a fixe
> d ground balance, per my understanding), there's n
> o way what he describes is due to ground balance "
> tracking out" the target.
>
> Like Beyonder, I HAVE had the Equinox sort of even
> tually begin to "dislike" a target that initially
> high-toned, after repeated, continuous sweeps of t
> he target. And I run auto ground balance (fixed g
> round balance). And so, my interpretation was tha
> t that had NOTHING, of course, to do with "trackin
> g out" the target, but instead, my feel for this i
> s that by doing those continuous, repeated, short
> sweeps over the target, you are giving the ID a
> lgorithms in the machine more "snapshots" of the t
> arget so as to more accurately determine the targe
> t's make-up. And so, if you get a high-tone t
> hat starts to "deteriorate" with repeated sweeps (
> and you are running a FIXED ground balance, such a
> s I understand is what is set, with the auto proce
> dure), then the reason the target is deteriorating
> is because the ID algorithm is "clueing in" ove
> r time that it's an iron target. Meanwhile, i
> f you do the same "repeated sweeping" of a high-to
> ning target, and it continues to sound good
> , then my experience says it's more likely to be a
> "good" target. Again, my guess is because you all
> owed the machine enough "snapshots," to make a mor
> e accurate ID. YES, the same thing happens on FBS
> , and to me, it's a GOOD thing. To me, it's the m
> achine doing what it's supposed to do -- i.e. "acc
> urately figuring out" what it thinks the target mo
> st likely is. Isn't this the whole reason that ev
> eryone uses the "Minelab wiggle?" To "tease out"
> as much target information as can be gleaned, so a
> s to allow the machine to communicate that informa
> tion to our ears as accurately as possible?
>
> One more thing I will say. This whole "snapshots"
> thing is just a guess, on my part. Perhaps the al
> gorithms do NOT "build up" information over time,
> so as to be able to spit out continuously-more-acc
> urate info. Maybe the algorithms don't have that
> capability at all. PERHAPS, instead, the other ex
> planation, is that by doing those repeated little
> sweeps (the "Minelab wiggle,") you are sub-cons
> ciously moving the coil to become more centered ov
> er the target, as YOU interpret the machine's
> audio, and thus you are sub-consciously "helping"
> the machine to get the best ID; in other words, ma
> ybe your BRAIN is the "algorithm," in this case; m
> aybe the initial high tone "deteriorates" on a nai
> l, because instead of hearing a false off the tip,
> the "Minelab wiggle" helps you to kind of sub-cons
> ciously, gradually "hone in" on the center of the
> target, and thus -- when centered properly over th
> e nail -- the machine more correctly sees and IDs
> it as iron.
>
> I'm not sure which of these is true -- but EITHER
> WAY, I do NOT think the explanation to Beyonder's
> observation is a "tracking out" thing, as has been
> suggested...
>
> Steve


Exceptional post Steve. Kudos.

tnsharpshooter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> steveg Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > ChrisMD Wrote:
> > ------------------------------------------------
> --
> > -----
> > > ncwayne Wrote:
> > > ----------------------------------------------
> --
> > --
> > > -----
> > > > Hey Chris,
> > > >
> > > > Aren't you nearly perfectly describing how a
> ut
> > o
> > > gr
> > > > ound balance works? You're swinging over the
> t
> > ar
> > > ge
> > > > t so much that the machine interprets it as
> gr
> > ou
> > > nd
> > > > effect and adjusts it out, which leads to cl
> ip
> > pi
> > > ng
> > > > of the target signal (and theoretically if n
> ot
> > a
> > > ct
> > > > ually up to the total elimination of the tar
> ge
> > t
> > > si
> > > > gnal).
> > > > Wayne
> > >
> > > Yeah, I only threw it out there in case someon
> e
> > wa
> > > s reading that wasn’t experienced enough to re
> co
> > gn
> > > ize what was happening with the auto ground ba
> la
> > nc
> > > e. I saw the same question come up all the tim
> e
> > on
> > > the 3030 forum on Findmall, so I guess it’s no
> t
> > to
> > > o common knowledge/understanding.
> >
> > OK, guys, I'm confused.
> >
> > Unless my understanding is completely off, you C
> AN
> > 'T "track out" a target, if you ran the "auto" g
> ro
> > und balance procedure, because that "auto" proce
> du
> > re sets a FIXED ground balance, on the Equinox.
> T
> > he only way I know of that a target could be "tr
> ac
> > ked out," is if you were running "tracking groun
> d
> > balance" -- which again, unless my understanding
> i
> > s totally wrong, is entirely different from runn
> in
> > g the "auto ground balance procedure" on the Equ
> in
> > ox. So, for Beyonder, who I think said he ran t
> he
> > "auto" procedure (which MEANS he is running a fi
> xe
> > d ground balance, per my understanding), there's
> n
> > o way what he describes is due to ground balance
> "
> > tracking out" the target.
> >
> > Like Beyonder, I HAVE had the Equinox sort of ev
> en
> > tually begin to "dislike" a target that initiall
> y
> > high-toned, after repeated, continuous sweeps of
> t
> > he target. And I run auto ground balance (fixed
> g
> > round balance). And so, my interpretation was t
> ha
> > t that had NOTHING, of course, to do with "track
> in
> > g out" the target, but instead, my feel for this
> i
> > s that by doing those continuous, repeated, shor
> t
> > sweeps over the target, you are giving the ID
> a
> > lgorithms in the machine more "snapshots" of the
> t
> > arget so as to more accurately determine the tar
> ge
> > t's make-up. And so, if you get a high-tone
> t
> > hat starts to "deteriorate" with repeated sweeps
> (
> > and you are running a FIXED ground balance, such
> a
> > s I understand is what is set, with the auto pro
> ce
> > dure), then the reason the target is deteriorati
> ng
> > is because the ID algorithm is "clueing in" o
> ve
> > r time that it's an iron target. Meanwhile,
> i
> > f you do the same "repeated sweeping" of a high-
> to
> > ning target, and it continues to sound go
> od
> > , then my experience says it's more likely to be
> a
> > "good" target. Again, my guess is because you a
> ll
> > owed the machine enough "snapshots," to make a m
> or
> > e accurate ID. YES, the same thing happens on F
> BS
> > , and to me, it's a GOOD thing. To me, it's the
> m
> > achine doing what it's supposed to do -- i.e. "a
> cc
> > urately figuring out" what it thinks the target
> mo
> > st likely is. Isn't this the whole reason that
> ev
> > eryone uses the "Minelab wiggle?" To "tease out
> "
> > as much target information as can be gleaned, so
> a
> > s to allow the machine to communicate that infor
> ma
> > tion to our ears as accurately as possible?
> >
> > One more thing I will say. This whole "snapshot
> s"
> > thing is just a guess, on my part. Perhaps the
> al
> > gorithms do NOT "build up" information over time
> ,
> > so as to be able to spit out continuously-more-a
> cc
> > urate info. Maybe the algorithms don't have tha
> t
> > capability at all. PERHAPS, instead, the other
> ex
> > planation, is that by doing those repeated littl
> e
> > sweeps (the "Minelab wiggle,") you are sub-co
> ns
> > ciously moving the coil to become more centered
> ov
> > er the target, as YOU interpret the machine'
> s
> > audio, and thus you are sub-consciously "helping
> "
> > the machine to get the best ID; in other words,
> ma
> > ybe your BRAIN is the "algorithm," in this case;
> m
> > aybe the initial high tone "deteriorates" on a n
> ai
> > l, because instead of hearing a false off the ti
> p,
> > the "Minelab wiggle" helps you to kind of sub-co
> ns
> > ciously, gradually "hone in" on the center of th
> e
> > target, and thus -- when centered properly over
> th
> > e nail -- the machine more correctly sees and ID
> s
> > it as iron.
> >
> > I'm not sure which of these is true -- but EITHE
> R
> > WAY, I do NOT think the explanation to Beyonder'
> s
> > observation is a "tracking out" thing, as has be
> en
> > suggested...
> >
> > Steve
>
>
> Exceptional post Steve. Kudos

+1. Exceptional post!

Dean

When I said auto ground balance, I meant tracking balance. I usually refer to the former as ground grab, seems weird to call it auto ground tracking since I've only owned one detector that didn't ground grab, and that was a Tesoro. I will start using the language from the manual for clarities sake though, thanks for pointing it out.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/20/2018 01:26PM by ChrisMD.

steveg Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> ChrisMD Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > ncwayne Wrote:
> > ------------------------------------------------
> --
> > -----
> > > Hey Chris,
> > >
> > > Aren't you nearly perfectly describing how aut
> o
> > gr
> > > ound balance works? You're swinging over the t
> ar
> > ge
> > > t so much that the machine interprets it as gr
> ou
> > nd
> > > effect and adjusts it out, which leads to clip
> pi
> > ng
> > > of the target signal (and theoretically if not
> a
> > ct
> > > ually up to the total elimination of the targe
> t
> > si
> > > gnal).
> > > Wayne
> >
> > Yeah, I only threw it out there in case someone
> wa
> > s reading that wasn’t experienced enough to reco
> gn
> > ize what was happening with the auto ground bala
> nc
> > e. I saw the same question come up all the time
> on
> > the 3030 forum on Findmall, so I guess it’s not
> to
> > o common knowledge/understanding.
>
> OK, guys, I'm confused.
>
> Unless my understanding is completely off, you CAN
> 'T "track out" a target, if you ran the "auto" gro
> und balance procedure, because that "auto" procedu
> re sets a FIXED ground balance, on the Equinox. T
> he only way I know of that a target could be "trac
> ked out," is if you were running "tracking ground
> balance" -- which again, unless my understanding i
> s totally wrong, is entirely different from runnin
> g the "auto ground balance procedure" on the Equin
> ox. So, for Beyonder, who I think said he ran the
> "auto" procedure (which MEANS he is running a fixe
> d ground balance, per my understanding), there's n
> o way what he describes is due to ground balance "
> tracking out" the target.
>
> Like Beyonder, I HAVE had the Equinox sort of even
> tually begin to "dislike" a target that initially
> high-toned, after repeated, continuous sweeps of t
> he target. And I run auto ground balance (fixed g
> round balance). And so, my interpretation was tha
> t that had NOTHING, of course, to do with "trackin
> g out" the target, but instead, my feel for this i
> s that by doing those continuous, repeated, short
> sweeps over the target, you are giving the ID a
> lgorithms in the machine more "snapshots" of the t
> arget so as to more accurately determine the targe
> t's make-up. And so, if you get a high-tone t
> hat starts to "deteriorate" with repeated sweeps (
> and you are running a FIXED ground balance, such a
> s I understand is what is set, with the auto proce
> dure), then the reason the target is deteriorating
> is because the ID algorithm is "clueing in" ove
> r time that it's an iron target. Meanwhile, i
> f you do the same "repeated sweeping" of a high-to
> ning target, and it continues to sound good
> , then my experience says it's more likely to be a
> "good" target. Again, my guess is because you all
> owed the machine enough "snapshots," to make a mor
> e accurate ID. YES, the same thing happens on FBS
> , and to me, it's a GOOD thing. To me, it's the m
> achine doing what it's supposed to do -- i.e. "acc
> urately figuring out" what it thinks the target mo
> st likely is. Isn't this the whole reason that ev
> eryone uses the "Minelab wiggle?" To "tease out"
> as much target information as can be gleaned, so a
> s to allow the machine to communicate that informa
> tion to our ears as accurately as possible?
>
> One more thing I will say. This whole "snapshots"
> thing is just a guess, on my part. Perhaps the al
> gorithms do NOT "build up" information over time,
> so as to be able to spit out continuously-more-acc
> urate info. Maybe the algorithms don't have that
> capability at all. PERHAPS, instead, the other ex
> planation, is that by doing those repeated little
> sweeps (the "Minelab wiggle,") you are sub-cons
> ciously moving the coil to become more centered ov
> er the target, as YOU interpret the machine's
> audio, and thus you are sub-consciously "helping"
> the machine to get the best ID; in other words, ma
> ybe your BRAIN is the "algorithm," in this case; m
> aybe the initial high tone "deteriorates" on a nai
> l, because instead of hearing a false off the tip,
> the "Minelab wiggle" helps you to kind of sub-cons
> ciously, gradually "hone in" on the center of the
> target, and thus -- when centered properly over th
> e nail -- the machine more correctly sees and IDs
> it as iron.
>
> I'm not sure which of these is true -- but EITHER
> WAY, I do NOT think the explanation to Beyonder's
> observation is a "tracking out" thing, as has been
> suggested...
>
> Steve


I'm not swinging the Nox yet, still using the T2. I don't believe this issue is just a Minelab one, I have the same issue with the T2. My test garden is about 6 years old. In one part of it I have a nickel, wheat penny, .58 cal. Mini ball, and an eagle cuff button, all buried at 10". When first swinging over these targets I get a good signal, some better than others but all dig-able. But, if I continue to swing the coil over the targets in an effort to clean up the signal the sound starts degrading to a one way hit, a clip, one way high tone one way iron tone, or all iron tone.And at times these will have no vid. Now I will say this. It does not behave this way every time I'm in the test garden but it does quite often. In the field when I experience this situation and start over analyzing a target I know I'm looking for a reason not to dig it so I can hurry up and find a signal more worthy of digging. But in my test garden I'd dig those signals all day long because I know what's gonna be in the bottom of the hole. It's kinda like bass fishing with a plastic worm. Has soon as you feel a little nibble and a slight tug it's time to set the hook fast. Sure, you might be setting it in a stump or slinging a little bream to the tree tops but you might have a wall mounter at the end of the line.

steveg Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> ChrisMD Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > ncwayne Wrote:
> > ------------------------------------------------
> --
> > -----
> > > Hey Chris,
> > >
> > > Aren't you nearly perfectly describing how aut
> o
> > gr
> > > ound balance works? You're swinging over the t
> ar
> > ge
> > > t so much that the machine interprets it as gr
> ou
> > nd
> > > effect and adjusts it out, which leads to clip
> pi
> > ng
> > > of the target signal (and theoretically if not
> a
> > ct
> > > ually up to the total elimination of the targe
> t
> > si
> > > gnal).
> > > Wayne
> >
> > Yeah, I only threw it out there in case someone
> wa
> > s reading that wasn’t experienced enough to reco
> gn
> > ize what was happening with the auto ground bala
> nc
> > e. I saw the same question come up all the time
> on
> > the 3030 forum on Findmall, so I guess it’s not
> to
> > o common knowledge/understanding.
>
> OK, guys, I'm confused.
>
> Unless my understanding is completely off, you CAN
> 'T "track out" a target, if you ran the "auto" gro
> und balance procedure, because that "auto" procedu
> re sets a FIXED ground balance, on the Equinox. T
> he only way I know of that a target could be "trac
> ked out," is if you were running "tracking ground
> balance" -- which again, unless my understanding i
> s totally wrong, is entirely different from runnin
> g the "auto ground balance procedure" on the Equin
> ox. So, for Beyonder, who I think said he ran the
> "auto" procedure (which MEANS he is running a fixe
> d ground balance, per my understanding), there's n
> o way what he describes is due to ground balance "
> tracking out" the target.
>
> Like Beyonder, I HAVE had the Equinox sort of even
> tually begin to "dislike" a target that initially
> high-toned, after repeated, continuous sweeps of t
> he target. And I run auto ground balance (fixed g
> round balance). And so, my interpretation was tha
> t that had NOTHING, of course, to do with "trackin
> g out" the target, but instead, my feel for this i
> s that by doing those continuous, repeated, short
> sweeps over the target, you are giving the ID a
> lgorithms in the machine more "snapshots" of the t
> arget so as to more accurately determine the targe
> t's make-up. And so, if you get a high-tone t
> hat starts to "deteriorate" with repeated sweeps (
> and you are running a FIXED ground balance, such a
> s I understand is what is set, with the auto proce
> dure), then the reason the target is deteriorating
> is because the ID algorithm is "clueing in" ove
> r time that it's an iron target. Meanwhile, i
> f you do the same "repeated sweeping" of a high-to
> ning target, and it continues to sound good
> , then my experience says it's more likely to be a
> "good" target. Again, my guess is because you all
> owed the machine enough "snapshots," to make a mor
> e accurate ID. YES, the same thing happens on FBS
> , and to me, it's a GOOD thing. To me, it's the m
> achine doing what it's supposed to do -- i.e. "acc
> urately figuring out" what it thinks the target mo
> st likely is. Isn't this the whole reason that ev
> eryone uses the "Minelab wiggle?" To "tease out"
> as much target information as can be gleaned, so a
> s to allow the machine to communicate that informa
> tion to our ears as accurately as possible?
>
> One more thing I will say. This whole "snapshots"
> thing is just a guess, on my part. Perhaps the al
> gorithms do NOT "build up" information over time,
> so as to be able to spit out continuously-more-acc
> urate info. Maybe the algorithms don't have that
> capability at all. PERHAPS, instead, the other ex
> planation, is that by doing those repeated little
> sweeps (the "Minelab wiggle,") you are sub-cons
> ciously moving the coil to become more centered ov
> er the target, as YOU interpret the machine's
> audio, and thus you are sub-consciously "helping"
> the machine to get the best ID; in other words, ma
> ybe your BRAIN is the "algorithm," in this case; m
> aybe the initial high tone "deteriorates" on a nai
> l, because instead of hearing a false off the tip,
> the "Minelab wiggle" helps you to kind of sub-cons
> ciously, gradually "hone in" on the center of the
> target, and thus -- when centered properly over th
> e nail -- the machine more correctly sees and IDs
> it as iron.
>
> I'm not sure which of these is true -- but EITHER
> WAY, I do NOT think the explanation to Beyonder's
> observation is a "tracking out" thing, as has been
> suggested...
>
> Steve

Exactly Exactly Exactly! Tracking out with auto track? No way. You can manipulate the tracking using manual to partially mask a target though.

I guess what most missed was, I DUG the targets that were both clipped and sound good one way and both types turned out to be iron nails. I am saying instead of being nulled out, the iron lingers when the old version would remove it near entirely.

ChrisMD --

I figured you MUST have been referring to "tracking" ground balance, and I totally agree that the terminology on the Equinox surrounding ground balance is a bit confusing. But, since Beyonder balanced with "auto" balance, and yet there was still discussion on about the machine "tracking things out," it started to get confusing!

Beyonder -

I totally hear you. You have noticed a "personality" change, in the ever-important (for a dirt digger) nuance of trying to find ways to discern "iron mimicking a deep coin" behavior from "deep coin" behavior...that ever difficult "nuance" to learn. One thought -- you learned a way to discern some of the "masquerading iron" with the old version of software, and it seems you have already begun to see a different behavior with the new version. Wonder if this is a case where we just need to put hours on the machine (like we did at first), to learn these NEW nuances (I think Cal_cobra mentioned this as well, either here, or on another forum). Point being, many of us "got used to" the language, and it took awhile. Now that it's changed a bit, it may be premature to say "it's worse." There were a lot of folks who were struggling with digging iron early on when the Equinox was released; those of us who persevered found that there were some clues, some "intelligence" in the audio, that time eventually revealed. Likewise, maybe it will take a little time to learn the "new dialect" of the new build?

Of course, the question arises "is it WORTH it to spend that time, or should we just go back to the other version?" To me, early indications are it might be worth it to persevere with the new version, as I noticed what I thought were some positives in the new version, that might make it worth it, in the end...

Steve



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/21/2018 01:54AM by steveg.

IDX, yep, all is well here in Oklahoma! Hope the same for you up there in beautiful Wisconsin!

Thanks everyone, for the kind words, by the way...

Steve



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/21/2018 04:04PM by steveg.

Well..... for me, i really dont give a hoot if there is a depth meter, large silver on edge needed to be fixed thou. But again for me here in Fl i rarely see large silver it doesnt seem to do it on rings. That problem sounds like filters.... or IB. I say that because on the Sov we used to do the WIGGLE to bring targets in better...... and most of us used Iron Mask on. Kind of causes it to act like tracking by constantly seeing the soil and slow filters out the good target ... IF its doing it on good targets OR like some say it starts to see the target isnt a good one. The machine will definately see iron deeper than a worthy target. If you have an Xcal thats deeper in PP than disc..... you will notice when hunting in PP .... a great deal of the time when you dig those NOT being read they are iron.

To me its all about the gold. My machine seems to be a bit cleaner on gold with the new program..... and air testing hits most gold at about the same depth but not hitting as well on those small open gold earrings maybe a concern as possibly loosing even more sensitivity to small gold. Hate to do it but looks like i need to do some testing IN the salt water as well..... i really want to see how it compares on gold to the Xcal in PP but that has to be done in the water. That means both programs...... ugh.

Do you believe in the halo effect? I do. So all those tests, whether in ground or out, do not demonstrate the true capabilities of the machine(or any machine for that matter). When that guy posted all those ridiculous videos of invisible coins on edge, I knew it would head for a world of BS as the average joe bought into it and basically "forced" ML to send out a sub-par update.

IMO, all they did was change a few algorithms, loosen high conductor filters and tightened lower conductor filters. Then adjusted the TID. Since they did all that, they had to adjust the depth meter as well. Doesn't anyone find it unusual you can go back to the old version? There is a reason for this. That reason is, even ML knew that the bogus coin on edge videos would cause a fervor of posts clamoring for an update. So they produced one...quickly, which works, however, it also made the iron range more sensitive AND increased falsing.

I will give it a try to see if it is something I can get used to. However, the original software was a magic wand(just taking a cheap shot here LOL).

steveg Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> ChrisMD --
>
> I figured you MUST have been referring to "trackin
> g" ground balance, and I totally agree that the te
> rminology on the Equinox surrounding ground balanc
> e is a bit confusing. But, since Beyonder
> balanced with "auto" balance, and yet there was [i
> ]still[/i] discussion on about the machine "tracki
> ng things out," it started to get confusing!
>
> Beyonder -
>
> I totally hear you. You have noticed a "personali
> ty" change, in the ever-important (for a dirt digg
> er) nuance of trying to find ways to discern "iron
> mimicking a deep coin" behavior from "deep coin" b
> ehavior...that ever difficult "nuance" to learn.
> One thought -- you learned a way to discern some o
> f the "masquerading iron" with the old version of
> software, and it seems you have already begun to s
> ee a different behavior with the new version. Won
> der if this is a case where we just need to put ho
> urs on the machine (like we did at first), to lear
> n these NEW nuances (I think Cal_cobra mentioned t
> his as well, either here, or on another forum). P
> oint being, many of us "got used to" the language,
> and it took awhile. Now that it's changed a bit,
> it may be premature to say "it's worse." There we
> re a lot of folks who were struggling with digging
> iron early on when the Equinox was released; those
> of us who persevered found that there were some cl
> ues, some "intelligence" in the audio, that time e
> ventually revealed. Likewise, maybe it will take
> a little time to learn the "new dialect" of the ne
> w build?
>
> Of course, the question arises "is it WORTH it to
> spend that time, or should we just go back to the
> other version?" To me, early indications are it m
> ight be worth it to persevere with the new version
> , as I noticed what I thought were some positives
> in the new version, that might make it worth it, i
> n the end...
>
> Steve

Steve,
As usual, you have stated it very well..." Is it worth it to spend the time, or should we just go back to the older version?" Of course, it's a personal decision. If a guy doesn't have much time on the machine definitely go with the new version. If, in the other hand, you have bonded with the original version and are successful with it you may not want to do the update. This is evidence of how much the update changed the machine. Like you, I believe it changed it for the better. I just haven't decided if I want to learn the new language.

Dean

bado1 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> steveg Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > ChrisMD --
> >
> > I figured you MUST have been referring to "track
> in
> > g" ground balance, and I totally agree that the
> te
> > rminology on the Equinox surrounding ground bala
> nc
> > e is a bit confusing. But, since Beyonde
> r
> > balanced with "auto" balance, and yet there was
> [i
> > ]still[/i] discussion on about the machine "trac
> ki
> > ng things out," it started to get confusing!
> >
> > Beyonder -
> >
> > I totally hear you. You have noticed a "persona
> li
> > ty" change, in the ever-important (for a dirt di
> gg
> > er) nuance of trying to find ways to discern "ir
> on
> > mimicking a deep coin" behavior from "deep coin"
> b
> > ehavior...that ever difficult "nuance" to learn.
> > One thought -- you learned a way to discern some
> o
> > f the "masquerading iron" with the old version o
> f
> > software, and it seems you have already begun to
> s
> > ee a different behavior with the new version. W
> on
> > der if this is a case where we just need to put
> ho
> > urs on the machine (like we did at first), to le
> ar
> > n these NEW nuances (I think Cal_cobra mentioned
> t
> > his as well, either here, or on another forum).
> P
> > oint being, many of us "got used to" the languag
> e,
> > and it took awhile. Now that it's changed a bit
> ,
> > it may be premature to say "it's worse." There
> we
> > re a lot of folks who were struggling with diggi
> ng
> > iron early on when the Equinox was released; tho
> se
> > of us who persevered found that there were some
> cl
> > ues, some "intelligence" in the audio, that time
> e
> > ventually revealed. Likewise, maybe it will tak
> e
> > a little time to learn the "new dialect" of the
> ne
> > w build?
> >
> > Of course, the question arises "is it WORTH it t
> o
> > spend that time, or should we just go back to th
> e
> > other version?" To me, early indications are it
> m
> > ight be worth it to persevere with the new versi
> on
> > , as I noticed what I thought were some positive
> s
> > in the new version, that might make it worth it,
> i
> > n the end...
> >
> > Steve
>
> Steve,
> As usual, you have stated it very well..." Is it w
> orth it to spend the time, or should we just go ba
> ck to the older version?" Of course, it's a person
> al decision. If a guy doesn't have much time on th
> e machine definitely go with the new version. If,
> in the other hand, you have bonded with the origin
> al version and are successful with it you may not
> want to do the update. This is evidence of how muc
> h the update changed the machine. Like you, I bel
> ieve it changed it for the better. I just haven't
> decided if I want to learn the new language.
>
> Dean


Well-----I haven't "mastered" the old version---so the new version is a no brainer for me!

Cake or pie..... users choice. Information is priceless...... but it doesnt always change ones mind. My concern is...... they pointed out the obvious fixes..... depth meter and such, im hoping its not a slide of hand by not telling us what kind of gremlins are in the first version needing addressed. If ML tells those with issues using the old program that are having to factory reset a lot..... use the new program i guess we will know. Good point about those filters..... hopefully they didnt adjust the algorithms. Anyone check the manual GB digits? Just curious those changed on the beach 1 and 2. Before there were about 10 digits different.

Its good for Tom D, these companies are seeking him out, but these disclosure statements sure put a damper on us getting information on new machines and the test results. I highly doubt Tom would provide trade secrets.....more likely hed explain just how a certain function might best be used. He would also give a down and dirty on the good and bad apparently thats what they dont want.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/21/2018 01:56PM by dewcon4414.

bado1 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>I bel ieve it changed it for the better. I just haven't
> decided if I want to learn the new language.
>
> Dean


Dean -- completely understood. Like you said, it's a decision each will have to make; it's just good that Minelab gave us a way to revert back if we so desire. Good thinking, on their part...

Steve

Del,

LOL! It won't take you long, though...

Steve

D&P-OR Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> bado1 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > steveg Wrote:
> > ------------------------------------------------
> --
> > -----
> > > ChrisMD --
> > >
> > > I figured you MUST have been referring to "tra
> ck
> > in
> > > g" ground balance, and I totally agree that th
> e
> > te
> > > rminology on the Equinox surrounding ground ba
> la
> > nc
> > > e is a bit confusing. But, since Beyon
> de
> > r
> > > balanced with "auto" balance, and yet there wa
> s
> > [i
> > > ]still[/i] discussion on about the machine "tr
> ac
> > ki
> > > ng things out," it started to get confusing!
> > >
> > > Beyonder -
> > >
> > > I totally hear you. You have noticed a "perso
> na
> > li
> > > ty" change, in the ever-important (for a dirt
> di
> > gg
> > > er) nuance of trying to find ways to discern "
> ir
> > on
> > > mimicking a deep coin" behavior from "deep coi
> n"
> > b
> > > ehavior...that ever difficult "nuance" to lear
> n.
> > > One thought -- you learned a way to discern so
> me
> > o
> > > f the "masquerading iron" with the old version
> o
> > f
> > > software, and it seems you have already begun
> to
> > s
> > > ee a different behavior with the new version.
> W
> > on
> > > der if this is a case where we just need to pu
> t
> > ho
> > > urs on the machine (like we did at first), to
> le
> > ar
> > > n these NEW nuances (I think Cal_cobra mention
> ed
> > t
> > > his as well, either here, or on another forum)
> .
> > P
> > > oint being, many of us "got used to" the langu
> ag
> > e,
> > > and it took awhile. Now that it's changed a b
> it
> > ,
> > > it may be premature to say "it's worse." Ther
> e
> > we
> > > re a lot of folks who were struggling with dig
> gi
> > ng
> > > iron early on when the Equinox was released; t
> ho
> > se
> > > of us who persevered found that there were som
> e
> > cl
> > > ues, some "intelligence" in the audio, that ti
> me
> > e
> > > ventually revealed. Likewise, maybe it will t
> ak
> > e
> > > a little time to learn the "new dialect" of th
> e
> > ne
> > > w build?
> > >
> > > Of course, the question arises "is it WORTH it
> t
> > o
> > > spend that time, or should we just go back to
> th
> > e
> > > other version?" To me, early indications are
> it
> > m
> > > ight be worth it to persevere with the new ver
> si
> > on
> > > , as I noticed what I thought were some positi
> ve
> > s
> > > in the new version, that might make it worth i
> t,
> > i
> > > n the end...
> > >
> > > Steve
> >
> > Steve,
> > As usual, you have stated it very well..." Is it
> w
> > orth it to spend the time, or should we just go
> ba
> > ck to the older version?" Of course, it's a pers
> on
> > al decision. If a guy doesn't have much time on
> th
> > e machine definitely go with the new version. If
> ,
> > in the other hand, you have bonded with the orig
> in
> > al version and are successful with it you may no
> t
> > want to do the update. This is evidence of how m
> uc
> > h the update changed the machine. Like you, I b
> el
> > ieve it changed it for the better. I just haven'
> t
> > decided if I want to learn the new language.
> >
> > Dean
>
>
> Well-----I haven't "mastered" the old version---so
> the new version is a no brainer for me!

dewcon4414 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

>
> Its good for Tom D, these companies are seeking hi
> m out, but these disclosure statements sure put a
> damper on us getting information on new machines a
> nd the test results. I highly doubt Tom would pr
> ovide trade secrets.....more likely hed explain ju
> st how a certain function might best be used. He
> would also give a down and dirty on the good and b
> ad apparently thats what they dont want.


Dew,

I totally agree with you...HIGHLY frustrating that NASA-Tom is entirely muzzled, on everything "EQX."

Steve

I see Im not the only one with a dislike of the update.

[www.treasurenet.com]

Beyonder-Pa Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I see Im not the only one with a dislike of the up
> date.
>
> [www.treasurenet.com]
> ox-800-update-no-good.html

Something has to be going on with some machines. I have probably abou 40-50 hours since the update and mine is running just as solid as before. I just got done a beach hunt where everything nailed in their right spot, super tight, even spot he deeper targets down 7-11”. I pulled just under 60 targets in 3 hours without skipping a beat. Dirt has been the same. If there is an issue with the update I haven’t experienced it yet. Maybe although mine said it updated it actually didn’t and I’m running the original firmware, as I can’t tell a bit of difference from before and now. The problem is there’s nowhere in the menus to check.

[metaldetectingforum.com]

Just throwing this out there,because it CAN be a real SOB about everywhere I hunt,which is generally within city limits. If people(this is with ANY machine BTW) experience great performance(60 targets in a few hours...clean hits...depth not a problem within reason...) and then go back and experience CRAP (very few targets...all very tentative signals....depth not good...) it very could be EMI essentially “de-tuning” the machine. Don’t ask me the details,all I see is the resultant bad hunt at times...actually more times than not! Even if the machine is stable at normal sensitivity levels,there STILL could be EMI affecting performance in a big way. Sometimes it has very little to do with the “core machine” but more so with what it’s trying to process.
Just my observations from the field,I have absolutely no proof other than word of mouth reporting.

IDXMonster Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Just throwing this out there,because it CAN be a r
> eal SOB about everywhere I hunt,which is generally
> within city limits. If people(this is with ANY mac
> hine BTW) experience great performance(60 targets
> in a few hours...clean hits...depth not a problem
> within reason...) and then go back and experience
> CRAP (very few targets...all very tentative signal
> s....depth not good...) it very could be EMI essen
> tially “de-tuning” the machine. Don’t ask me the d
> etails,all I see is the resultant bad hunt at time
> s...actually more times than not! Even if the mach
> ine is stable at normal sensitivity levels,there S
> TILL could be EMI affecting performance in a big w
> ay. Sometimes it has very little to do with the “c
> ore machine” but more so with what it’s trying to
> process.
> Just my observations from the field,I have absolut
> ely no proof other than word of mouth reporting.

Normally that could be the case. The spot I am hunting, I have been there so often the whole area knows me. I know how several machines react. I have been there with the Nox several times at different times of days, times of the year. and I update and all of the sudden, deep iron sounds like coins in fact, very stable? Seems like the factor that changed anything was the update.

Beyonder-Pa Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> IDXMonster Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Just throwing this out there,because it CAN be a
> r
> > eal SOB about everywhere I hunt,which is general
> ly
> > within city limits. If people(this is with ANY m
> ac
> > hine BTW) experience great performance(60 target
> s
> > in a few hours...clean hits...depth not a proble
> m
> > within reason...) and then go back and experienc
> e
> > CRAP (very few targets...all very tentative sign
> al
> > s....depth not good...) it very could be EMI ess
> en
> > tially “de-tuning” the machine. Don’t ask me the
> d
> > etails,all I see is the resultant bad hunt at ti
> me
> > s...actually more times than not! Even if the ma
> ch
> > ine is stable at normal sensitivity levels,there
> S
> > TILL could be EMI affecting performance in a big
> w
> > ay. Sometimes it has very little to do with the
> “c
> > ore machine” but more so with what it’s trying t
> o
> > process.
> > Just my observations from the field,I have absol
> ut
> > ely no proof other than word of mouth reporting.
>
> Normally that could be the case. The spot I am hun
> ting, I have been there so often the whole area kn
> ows me. I know how several machines react. I have
> been there with the Nox several times at different
> times of days, times of the year. and I update and
> all of the sudden, deep iron sounds like coins in
> fact, very stable? Seems like the factor that chan
> ged anything was the update.


In that case I would agree,that result is very likely machine based. If you have THAT much time there with results within certain parameters and then a HUGE change happens...I would lean heavily toward the update as well. Too bad it wasn’t a POSITIVE change!

Beyonder-Pa Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

>
> Normally that could be the case. The spot I am hun
> ting, I have been there so often the whole area kn
> ows me. I know how several machines react. I have
> been there with the Nox several times at different
> times of days, times of the year. and I update and
> all of the sudden, deep iron sounds like coins in
> fact, very stable? Seems like the factor that chan
> ged anything was the update.

One other possibility, Beyonder, is soil moisture changes, but I am sure you already thought of that. I know for me, iron gives me MUCH more solid tones -- i.e. it tries much harder to "mimic" a deep coin -- when the soil is really wet, than it does when dry -- or even "damp."

Steve

ChrisMD Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> Maybe although mine
> said it updated it actually didn’t and I’m running
> the original firmware, as I can’t tell a bit of di
> fference from before and now. The problem is ther
> e’s nowhere in the menus to check.

Chris, I THINK, if I'm not mistaken, that if you plug your machine back into the computer, and launch the Minelab update software, the page that comes up that shows the version of software currently running on the machine...

Steve

You are right Steve..... ive done it a few time lol. Tom D often spoke about silent EMI..... thou in my case the machine is under water a good bit of time...... so can it be affected by EMI? Is it a possibility..... theres a bug in the upload? I know they had issues on some computers with the various programs. Is it possible ..... loading again would change something? Im not against either program just because most gold i tested had the same results.... except open earrings. Ive noticed an increased depth in beach 2 in the WET sand.... but not really much smoother in the water to me..... it still likes minerals. I noticed running in PP on the Xcal yesterday ..... i never realized i was hearing those same minerals.... they were just a weaker modulated sound..... where as on the Nox its like running the gain full....no modulation. Now i have to figure out..... does the new program running smoother and not picking up the open earrings mean......even less sensitive to small gold? Id still love to get the 1.4 version of the program..... even if it were chattier and they smoother it out for mass use..... it might have gotten me smaller gold. It does appear thou they can adjust each mode........ so ML, time to work more on the beach 2 mode. If they can do this and now we have a website for down loads .....seems to me the programs could be customized for advance users..... some may like the programs and some wont, but they have a choice. Id pay a reasonable amount for a custom SMALL gold change.

Let me pose something else...... could headphones especially their response play a part in what some get over others?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/22/2018 11:22AM by dewcon4414.

Has anyone played with....volume? You can set target volume by bin.... is it possible reducing the main volume will give more modulation? I say that because it seems to on the Xcal.

Alot of machines tracking or fixed ground balance will initially high tone a piece of deep iron..And Even when fixed is it doing this it is usually the filter recovery speeds..Once you find a high blip and start to concentrate the coil over target and get more methodical the reporting target gets into that filters sweet spot ...So in essence the Wiggle as you speak is the machine settling in on that one area of soil under the soil with target in it....where as when your walking the machine is settled in on well the ground on every sweep...If your abusing your sweep speed some thing's weal and or deep wont even make it into the report.


Super deep targets in auto tracking can be tracked out ..The machines will think think its a mineral and track into it thus removing it..

It takes a little more signal strength to make it through a Phase shifted disc circuit Vs an all metal mode...So dead on ground balance that carries over to Disc mode is paramount for the disc to even hear the weakest of signals.Thats why when I deep hunt I like a all metal mode threshold base mode so can hear the weakest of things that would never make it through the discs phase shifting

BBS in disc I have a feeling does not track the ground..it uses DSP to remove the ground from the report....Seems I read it multiplexes the signals and removes the ground signal leaving the metallic reports.It involved taking multi signal channels and then comparing them to a reference..In the back of my mind I've always believed a BBS was factory set set ground balance and then DSP took over the ground removal via not reporting or nulling....Yet a BBS ( Sovereign )is still deeper in All metal than disc mode so its still fooled like any disc circuit on the super deepies..

Here's something to ponder in thick iron when depth not main requirement..an X-Terra 705 does not false on iron nearly as bad in auto tracking as it does in locked...At least in my dirt...The EQ-8 seems to have this same attribute in my dirt..

Keith

“I don't care that they stole my idea . . I care that they don't have any of their own”
-Nikola Tesla

Tracking on the X-Terra is an iron bias so to speak. Very necessary for see through. I was sent a XT 30 to play with before the 70 arrived and comparing signals on undug targets the cheaper 30 blew the 70 out of the water for see through.... until I turned on tracking GB. Same thing with the Coinstrike, let it track and see some iron in the process then turn tracking off.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/28/2018 09:29AM by Jackpine.

While I can't say if it helps modulation or hurts it as I haven't tested it on the Nox, I personally run both headphone and selected bin volumes wide open adjusting with the main volume control. I do know that on the X-Terra 705 that does help with its weak response on fringe targets.

Many old timers do the opposite running the detector volume wide open and adjust with phones. Could be an analog vs digital thing. It does pay to check these things out.