Minelab Equinox owners - Question

That REALLY puts things into perspective.
And if that foil-thin silver coin....was gold.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,., you would acquire ID readings of 1, 2.... or even as high as 3.

Yes Tom, and hopefully some day i will dig a nice hammered gold, the Nox is the right tool for it.

NASA-Tom Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> That REALLY puts things into perspective.
> And if that foil-thin silver coin....was gold.,.,.
> ,.,.,.,.,.,.,., you would acquire ID readings of 1
> , 2.... or even as high as 3.

NASA-Tom wrote

> Bryan...…. I've been saving your question for last
> ...… as it is the most complex...… and difficult t
> o convey in words. Soooo..... let's try this:
> In electronics..... devices that transmit fre
> quencies...… or...... use microprocessor clock-spe
> ed timing.,.,.,.,.,.,.,., there is always a 'CENTE
> R FREQ' or 'CENTER SPEED'...…… sometimes referred
> to as: 'resonance'. The pinnacle definition (in th
> is case)…. is called: 'Electronic Quiescence'. (((
> Max-Q..... or...… Max-Que))). Where a device opera
> tes at 'peak performance'. Tuned at its best/maxim
> um.
> On the EQX 800 platform...… you have Target Recove
> ry Response speed choices of 1-8. The EQX 800 plat
> form is at Electronic Quiescence....with a TRR of
> '3'. It is 'maximum-tuned' at speed '3'. Any devia
> tion above/below '3'..... and you start to get: ou
> t-of-electronic-tune. Now...…. with this EQX platf
> orm..... you can choose a Recovery Speed of '8'...
> .. and it works/sounds great!...… but.,.,.,.,., in
> reality...….. you are not achieving any enhanced/g
> reater adjacent target separation characteristics.
> ,.,.,.,.,.,., you are merely 'clipping' the audio
> length. In some applications..... it may be helpfu
> l to the human ear...… as far as human audible int
> elligibility; yet, enhancement of adjacent target
> separation is not physically possible. . . . . . .
> . due to the following physics principle:
> The large coil (11" DD) on the EQX will envelop a
> certain 'fixed' ElectroMagnetic (EM) footprint. Th
> is 'fixed' physics footprint cannot be altered/dev
> iated. Laws of physics. Complete!
> Now...….. it is up to the electronics..... from th
> e 'feed' it gets from the coil...….. to 'deal' wit
> h what it is given. The electronics can not alter
> the EM field enveloped by the coil. It is... what
> it is. And: Speed '3'...… is quiescence/resonance.
> Now...…………… with THAT stated: Medium (or higher) m
> ineralization …… may work better (with less chatte
> r) with faster speeds..... for a different (second
> ary) rationale of clock-speed timing attribute(s).
> In less than Medium mineralization dirt...…… a set
> ting of '3' is "CENTER"...…… yet, a setting of '2'
> or '4' is hardly/barely out-of-tune...… and can sh
> ow tremendous performance attributes. (((As can be
> seen/witnessed by McCrory'sjewelry2 resultant))).
> Remember...…. greater depth/performance can be gai
> ned with lower TRR settings: in Medium (or lower)
> mineralization. Better performance can be 'realize
> d'..... with higher TRR settings...in Medium (or h
> igher) mineralization..... due to the ascertainmen
> t of stability/less ground-chatter/feedback.
>
> For the record...… a TRR of 1 can present greater
> depths in areas with sparse targets and low minera
> lization. BUT...… the drawback is: the audio does
> indeed sound elongated/smeared...… hard on/for the
> human ear.

Tom, if the ideal TRR is 3 (maximum tuned) for the Nox 800, then would a TRR of 1.5 be the equivalent for the Nox 600?

A suggestion for a future firmware upgrade would be the inclusion of half increments as regards TRR, especially for Nox 600 users.

- Michael



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 09/03/2019 06:02PM by DiggaMke.

Michael...…. yes, that is correct. And this is why the 800 has more adjustability (yes; at a increased price.... for the additional options).

NASA-Tom Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Michael...…. yes, that is correct. And this is why
> the 800 has more adjustability (yes; at a increase
> d price.... for the additional options).

Tom... thanks for clarifying.
Here we thought the increased price of the Nox 800 was mainly for the bluetooth headphones, extra two frequencies, gold mode and WM08 module and not an out of tune detector, which has a TRR of 1 that is unusable for the majority of us. That makes the EQ600 and EQ800 completely different machines - more like the EQ600 is the Xterra 705 and the EQ800 is the Safari. Wish they would have said that. *sigh*

NASA-Tom Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Michael...…. yes, that is correct. And this is why
> the 800 has more adjustability (yes; at a increase
> d price.... for the additional options).

Tom... thanks for clarifying.
Here we thought the increased price of the Nox 800 was mainly for the bluetooth headphones, extra two frequencies, gold mode and WM08 module and not an out of tune detector, which has a TRR of 1 that is unusable for the majority of us. That makes the EQ600 and EQ800 completely different machines - more like the EQ600 is the Xterra 705 and the EQ800 is the Safari. Wish they would have said that.
*sigh*

Mike...……….. The EQX 800 Target Recovery Response setting of '1'....is also too slow....and nearly unusable in most applications.,.,.,.,.,.,., just like the EQX 600. This does not make either detector 'out-of-tune'. If you are Cache hunting in large open fields..... a TRR of '1' is ideal for this. The 600 simply does not have the extra minute'/finite tuning adjustments of the 800. Yes...…. one of the primary reasons why the 800 is more expensive is.... all of the additional ancillary options. (Rhetorical).

Tom... What would be awesome from Minelab is to make available a firmware upgrade to EQ600 owners at extra cost and done at a Minelab service centre, which would add the the extra settings found in the EQ800 (Recovery Speed and Iron Bias) and call it the Equinox 600 PLUS Package, similar to what performance car companies offer to those who want the race version added. Hmmm... Do you think you can pull some strings? Nudge, nudge, wink, wink... lol

There are greater (and more time-consuming) projects on our plate right now.

NASA-Tom Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> There are greater (and more time-consuming) projects on our plate right now.

Please do tell, any and all clues appreciated...... will vanquish quickly

Here is a question for everyone. Do you prefer the original release software or the upgrade? I personally had better luck with the original and had a lot of falsing with the updated version and the tones were not as good.

I updated mine as soon as the update was available. I've had no issues that made me want to revert to the original version.

I upgraded mine and it works fine. Coins on edge sound off better, the pinpointing has always been spot on for me, and I haven't experienced any of the other issues some others brought up with the exception of the silent pinpointing, which is such a minor issue, it's almost a non-issue in my book.

Cal_cobra Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I upgraded mine and it works fine. Coins on edge
> sound off better, the pinpointing has always been
> spot on for me, and I haven't experienced any of t
> he other issues some others brought up with the ex
> ception of the silent pinpointing, which is such a
> minor issue, it's almost a non-issue in my book.


My comments, in my case, would be exactly the same as Cal_cobra's remarks, FWIW.

Steve

CCadrin…… Your 'fix'...… may resolve this coming week.

Well I’d like to see them fix some of the water chatter without having the power or sensitivity seriously reduced

OK had a friend that wanted to sell his CTX for a Equinox. So I traded him one of mine. I have 3. So now I'm asking for a good program to use on the CTX so that I can do a Equinox vs CTX in all these old parks I have been hunting. I want a good program for finding silver and other old coins. Tom D. or anyone care to share with me a program that I can use to go over a spot so that my friends and I can see if both detectors can hit these coin targets. The ground is low to mild mineralizied soil in my area. Need a program that is deep on the CTX and has a some what fast recovery speed. I have always used combined. Was thinking of trying 50 tones. Was thinking 50 tones on both detectors. What do you think? Thanks

Sooooo..... Tom new machine or we looking at an update? Now there would be quite a surprise.

Tom D. You told us there is a 12% advantage in using a 6 inch coil vs 11 inch coil for unmasking targets on the Equinox. My question is do you know what the percentage is between the 6 inch coil vs standard coil on the CTX for unmasking targets? I did take the CTX to one of my parks and hunted a spot that me and my friends had pounded with the equinox. This spot had given up 6 silvers, 25 wheats and 2 IH's. With the CTX I found 2 wheats. No silver. The spot was about 50 ft. by 100 ft. Hit it for like 6 hours using the CTX. Could have easily missed those wheats in a area that size with either detector. So based on my findings the Equinox didn't miss much. If I went for a hunt I would feel comfortable using either detector knowing I wasn't missing much using either detector. I run both using a slow swing speed.

No...….. I do not have enough resolute data for the 6" coil on the CTX..... vs the stock coil.

ghound (and other European hunters)…… your foil-thin silver hammereds….. almost exactly emulate our United States 3-Cent Nickels...… as a 3-Cent Nickel ID's as a 7 on the EQX. This brings me to a critical (unit performance) thought. Something I need to teach/train...…. and be very clear on: Field Mode-2 is very specifically designed for your paper-thin gold & silver hammered coins. The Prospecting Modes may work even (slightly) better. BUT/HOWEVER. This is: ""IN THEORY""..... and: "on a test-bench". Therefore; It may (falsely) appear to be perfectly logical to exclusively use these Modes for this specific/exact intent. When you introduce dirt into the equation..... all bets are off. And especially...…. the higher the mineralization...… the more the (higher operating frequencies) Field Mode-2..... (((and especially the Prospecting Modes))) …….. signal strength....,,,,,,...... will be attenuated.
In other words: Field Mode-2 is THE most logical; yet, in reality: Park Mode-1 may end up being the winner..... due to TOO much signal-strength attenuation with Field Mode-2.
BEWARE! Hunt Intelligently.

NASA-Tom Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> ghound (and other European hunters)…… your foil-th
> in silver hammereds….. almost exactly emulate our
> United States 3-Cent Nickels...… as a 3-Cent Nicke
> l ID's as a 7 on the EQX. This brings me to a crit
> ical (unit performance) thought. Something I need
> to teach/train...…. and be very clear on: Field Mo
> de-2 is very specifically designed for your paper-
> thin gold & silver hammered coins. The Prospecting
> Modes may work even (slightly) better. BUT/HOWEVER
> . This is: ""IN THEORY""..... and: "on a test-benc
> h". Therefore; It may (falsely) appear to be perfe
> ctly logical to exclusively use these Modes for th
> is specific/exact intent. When you introduce dirt
> into the equation..... all bets are off. And espec
> ially...…. the higher the mineralization...… the m
> ore the (higher operating frequencies) Field Mode-
> 2..... (((and especially the Prospecting Modes)))
> …….. signal strength....,,,,,,...... will be atte
> nuated.
> In other words: Field Mode-2 is THE most logical;
> yet, in reality: Park Mode-1 may end up being the
> winner..... due to TOO much signal-strength attenu
> ation with Field Mode-2.
> BEWARE! Hunt Intelligently.


Tom... does the same (attenuation) apply to the Beach modes on wet sand? I use Beach 1 (utilizing the higher weighted frequencies for fine gold) on wet sand without falsing, but my buddy uses Beach 2 and he seems to punch deeper and always seems to hit better on 18ct gold rings, but then again he uses the EQ800 while I use the EQ600.
But besides the difference in machines and if the Sensitivity and Recovery Speeds are equal, could this (punching deeper and hitting hard on 18ct gold rings) be attributed to the different frequency weighting of Beach 1 and Beach 2 and/or the attenuation of signal strength of Beach 1 in wet sand?

- Mike



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/10/2019 04:23AM by DiggaMke.

Most of the soil I'm area would be 7+ bars on a Deus, 99% of the time I use field 2 with the horseshoe on but with the first 2 or 3 segments notched out as it mostly seems to be minerals(?) that it registers, and that is machine gun like to the ears, but it still allows me to hear the iron nail size items.
I prefer field 2 as it hits better on the thin silver on edge and I moved the audio gap to the max between iron tone and the first non iron tone, seems to work well.

NASA-Tom Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> ghound (and other European hunters)…… your foil-th
> in silver hammereds….. almost exactly emulate our
> United States 3-Cent Nickels...… as a 3-Cent Nicke
> l ID's as a 7 on the EQX. This brings me to a crit
> ical (unit performance) thought. Something I need
> to teach/train...…. and be very clear on: Field Mo
> de-2 is very specifically designed for your paper-
> thin gold & silver hammered coins. The Prospecting
> Modes may work even (slightly) better. BUT/HOWEVER
> . This is: ""IN THEORY""..... and: "on a test-benc
> h". Therefore; It may (falsely) appear to be perfe
> ctly logical to exclusively use these Modes for th
> is specific/exact intent. When you introduce dirt
> into the equation..... all bets are off. And espec
> ially...…. the higher the mineralization...… the m
> ore the (higher operating frequencies) Field Mode-
> 2..... (((and especially the Prospecting Modes)))
> …….. signal strength....,,,,,,...... will be atte
> nuated.
> In other words: Field Mode-2 is THE most logical;
> yet, in reality: Park Mode-1 may end up being the
> winner..... due to TOO much signal-strength attenu
> ation with Field Mode-2.
> BEWARE! Hunt Intelligently.

Mike...… this is a (unsuspecting) loaded question!
1st = Beach Mode-2 is a lower grouping of frequencies …… as compared to Beach Mode-1. THIS ALONE...…… can make it better for detecting the higher conductive gold jewelry..... like annular 18Kt (and higher Kt) rings. And...….. yes. This lower group of frequencies....are slightly less-likely to be attenuated.,.,.,.,.,. as compared to Beach Mode-1's slightly higher (grouping of) frequencies.
2nd = Beach Mode-2 also transmits at a much lower power level, which (primarily) aims at reducing wet-salt blowback/feedback. This makes the unit much more stable IN the saltwater (read = submerged); yet, at the cost of not detecting small and tiny gold jewelry. This hardly affects annular targets. It also hardly affects attenuation characteristics.
3rd = Wet salt does affect attenuation of EM energy. The 'volume' of salt held-in-solution dictates the volume/magnitude of attenuation.
4th = Magnetic/black sand (in concert with wet salt) is what REALLY induces EM energy attenuation. . . . . . . ALL frequencies (especially the higher freq's).

This 'should' answer your question Mike. The answer is a bit more complex.... than meets the eye. There is also a multiplicity of other inhibiting factors; yet, I restricted my answers to the primary culprits.

To date...….. only the Tarsacci architect is specifically engineered for black sand in concert with wet salt. It is the trump-card in this type of environment...…. even over many PI's.
1). Single and Multi frequency detectors ElectroMagnetic energy is attenuated by wet salt. The EM energy is further attenuated by black sand.
2). The ElectroMagnetic energy from the Tarsacci is enhanced by the wet-salt (not inhibited). Black sand does indeed inhibit/attenuate the EM energy of the Tarsacci; yet, to a much lessor extent.

Technology is changing. (We are 'trying')!

Tom....
Thank you so much for the very detailed and satisfactorily reply. It makes sense and ties into what I was thinking. I apologize for putting you on the spot.
This wet salt blowback - if I use Beach 1, is there a cut-off sensitivity before blowback is achieved or perhaps a guideline, especially regards coil size, or has sensitivity nothing to do with it as it is an internal-controlled power thing, like in Beach 2? If it is a sensitivity controlled thing, can one test for wet salt blowback, perhaps something like ground noise as a sign?
Thanks again.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 09/10/2019 03:28PM by DiggaMke.

Mike,

1st = When you turn 'on' the EQX...…. its transmit power is 'full-on'..... and 'fixed'. You can never change the transmit power. Changing the Sensitivity has nothing to do with transmit power. When you adjust Sensitivity 'up'...… you are merely lowering the baseline threshold unto which smaller/weaker signals can 'break squelch'.....(break through)...... and give you a audio report.
2nd = Beach Mode-2 is the only Mode that has a 'fixed' lower transmit power.
3rd = As far as wet salt blowback...….. this is more a function of the technology (or lack thereof) employed/utilized. When you adjust your Sensitivity (with the premise set forth above)….. you are merely lowering the baseline threshold.... to the point whereby ….. you are detuning/desensitizing and cutting out the blowback response. . . . . . . . . . . so you can have a 'stable running' unit. AT THE COST OF...…. losing a large amount of sensitivity/detection of (in particular) gold jewelry.
4th = When you Ground Balance to the wet salt...….. you are "compensating" (not 'fixing') for the 90-Deg phase-shift of the wet salt. This is to say: You are compensating for the 'effect'...… and not tackling the 'cause'. This approach/methodology also tunes-out most lost gold jewelry...…. as most gold jewelry is small in nature...… AND has nearly identical 90-Deg phase-shift (detriments) as 'wet-salt'. . . . . . . . . soooooooo…………… when you tune out wet-salt...……. you tune out (greater than 99% of the lost) gold jewelry.
5th = With a (1): properly Ground Balanced and (2): wet-salt compensated detector (via Sensitivity setting).,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,. you still have wet salt blowback. You merely have compensated and detuned the detector....to where the blowback is simply masked (no longer 'heard')….. yet; the blowback still remains in full effect. DUE TO THE METHODOLOGY TECHNOLOGY that nearly all current/modern-day metal detector platforms employ. (Only the Tarsacci employs different approach methodology).

Out of time!

Tom...
Thank you for sharing your wisdom. It is much appreciated! Wish I had joined this forum a long time ago.
The Tarsacci is my next machine - only thing is that our exchange rate in South Africa is a killer, especially should I have to send it back to the US in the unlikely event of a machine failure. But... the feedback from users is very promising and I could overlook those obstacles. I could be the first one here with one im a country where there are sometimes up to 8 Equinoxes on the beach at one time.

Mike ….. does your South Africa beach have some black sand? (Or somewhat gray)?

Tom... I live about 500m from the beach, but this one is just trashy and no black sand.

But one beach, about 2kms from me has black sand, which is usually covered with a topping of white sand and here I do wet sand hunting (not submerged). The EQX 15 inch coil struggles to punch through it, but the 11 inch does a better job.

Then about 5km from me there is another beach where I do submerge hunting (chest deep in troughs) and here in the trough, the EQX goes into overload and even can't detect a clad coin at one scoop dewp. It happened to my hunting buddy too and another hunter. The gold is usually is these troughs, so the guys got peeved off and one sold his EQX800 and rather takes his Garrett SeaHunter. These troughs expose the black sand. At the same beach on the shore there is a mixture of grey and thick orange sand, but covered by a foot of white sand, depending on the winds and tides - it differs in depth.

Then about another 800m there is a section which is white sand on bedrock, but highly iron-infested, but holds old gold rings.

Then in Durban, about 1500km from Cape Town, there is predominantly black sand and VLFs are useless and PIs rule there.

So, we do have a variety of hunting grounds on our beaches.

Mike



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 09/11/2019 02:47PM by DiggaMke.

NASA-Tom Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> If you are literally in carpets of nails...… use T
> arget Recovery Response '3'. Otherwise...…. put i
> t on '2' (set it and forget it). Even in fairly th
> ick nail-infested sites. Always run Sens as high a
> s EMI/conditions allow...…. even in carpets of nai
> ls. (Audio resolution/resolve is better). I never
> deviate from the incredible artificial intelligenc
> e of 50-Tones. Park-1 (or Beach-1). Volume on '25'
> .... and Iron Volume on '1'. Hit the horseshoe....
> . and Notch nothing! Listen to all of it. Don't be
> afraid to use the huge 11" coil..... even in carpe
> ts of nails. Iron Bias '0'. Use Noise Cancel frequ
> ently. EMI is the 'quiet' (unsuspecting) MAJOR per
> formance killer. Only stipulation: In bad dirt...…
> adjust as-necessary …. to compensate/mitigate this
> bad dirt.
> Then...…. (and only then) will you start to experi
> ence M-IQ.
> ((Target Recovery Response is still badly misunder
> stood by the GP; subsequently, misused/abused.))
> ((( Lessor settings...… and you have (chosen) to r
> evert back to BBS/FBS performance levels. )))


I am having difficulty understanding this: If the "resonant sweet spot" on the 800 is 3, why would you detune to recovery speed "2" for best / maximum performance?
Does the EQ800 perform better slightly detuned?