Minelab Equinox owners - Question

Tom d. what amazed them the most was they said just like I have witnessed there has been iron in the hole that all these silvers and other old coins are being pulled out of. They like most were trying to disc out the iron instead of opening the detector up to hear the iron that was mixed in with the non ferrous target. The F2-0 has been working great for me and everyone that has tried it. It's really changed they way I run my Equinox and has truly rewarded me with some great finds.

This new software. It's ALL in the audio education! Medium learning-curve >>>> High rewards.

Could you enlighten me with Tom D's suggested program using F2-0. I can't find it. I own a Nox 800. Thanks

Field 1, Sensitivity 23-25, 50 tone, Recovery 3, upgrade detector for iron bias Fe and F2, work your way down to F2 0.

Rick: What are the settings for the 600?

"A Bird in the hand, is worth two in the bush"

I don't know what the settings convert to for the Equinox 600. I'm sure someone will do the conversion.

Tom D. If you see anything I need to change please let me know. Thanks My Equinox 800 settings for Silver and other high conductors. If you have the 600 just adjust what you can. Okay everyone the settings I have been using are a combination of settings suggested by 2 experts with the Equinox. Tom Dankowiski and Neal Jones. I have combined them into 1 program. This program can be used on iron and trashy sites and clean sites. First off I think these settings will work in Park 1, Beach 1 and maybe in Field 1. I have only used Park 1. This program is designed to weigh in on the lower frequencies to hit on silver and other high conductors better. My soil is mild where I live. If you have high mineralized soil you may need to adjust your settings some. So start out setting to 50 TONES - then long press and put tone 1 to 1. Accept reject √/x - long press- the one with the line underneath put to 1. RECOVERY SPEED - put to 2 to 4 for searching but change according to your detecting. I like 2 and 3. IRON BIAS - F2-0 to F2-2 but up to you and what you can personally handle. For me F2-0 is where the magic is. I can really tell a non ferrous target from a ferrous target. Plus high conductor coins on edge sound off higher. You also get better unmasking using F2-0. VOLUME -- set to 25 then long press put tone 1 on 1. THRESHOLD -- set to 1 as a guide but personal and whatever number gives you a quiet background tone. SENSITIVITY -23-25. Run as high as you can handle. Really helps pull the targets out of the iron and trash. No need to GB in low to mild dirt. Leave on 0. In high mineralized dirt I would GB. Make sure you NOISE CANCEL and use ALL METAL. This program works great in trashy and iron sites. This program was designed to open up the Equinox so you can hear everything to help you hear targets beside iron better. If you use a high F2 bias setting you will miss targets beside iron and on edge

It's been asked a few times again...….so...…...it's worth the repeat:
On the EQX 600...… a Target Recovery Response setting of '1'...… is equivalent to EQX 800 TRR of '2'. (And this is what I primarily use).
This data is also found in the Owners Manual download...… on the Minelab site. . . . . . which undergoes periodic (sometimes unannounced) updates.

NASA-Tom Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It's been asked a few times again...….so...…...it'
> s worth the repeat:
> On the EQX 600...… a Target Recovery Response sett
> ing of '1'...… is equivalent to EQX 800 TRR of '2'
> . (And this is what I primarily use).
> This data is also found in the Owners Manual downl
> oad...… on the Minelab site. . . . . . which under
> goes periodic (sometimes unannounced) updates.

Tom... has this equivalent of TRR 1 (EQX 600) = TRR 2 (EQX 800) been the same on firmware 1.50 and 1.75 or is it only on version 2.0.
Minelab only has the updated manual, so one cannot check previous manuals prior to updates.

Mike

As everyone knows I have been loving the Tom D. settings on the Equinox. I have been finding a lot of great finds in spots I have pounded over the years. Yesterday I decided to take my CTX 3030 for a hunt and after about a hour or two of not finding much of anything I was sure missing my Equinox. I used to love using the CTX 3030. I thought I would never use a better detector for coin hunting. Since I started using the Equinox and really took the time to learn it and with the help of experts like Tom D. that showed me how to get the most out of the Equinox I no longer feel the CTX 3030 is the best choice for me when hunting trashy and iron sites. Until Minelab come out with a better coin detector the Equinox 800 will be my detector of choice.

Mike...…. I don't recall what MUU-1 (or the original software) TRR or FE equivalent numbers are.

McCJ2.... I was (nearly) being crucified about 18 months ago...…. when I stated that the EQX was the trump-card...… even over the CTX-3030.
Where the EQX pinnacles the best..... is in moderately high aluminum trash areas..... whilst hunting for coins. It'll bury the CTX...… and many other units.

When credit is due. The EQX has forced me to 'redesign' portions of my test-garden. I performed such...……. incrementally. Here/now.... I will only focus on one aspect. Prior to receipt of proto EQX...… I had a Nickel at 12". After receipt of EQX...… I immediately had to pull the 12" Nickel.... and insert/install a 13" Nickel. Still...…. this was a easy target for the EQX. Later...…. I pulled the 13" deep Nickel...……….and installed a 14" deep Nickel.,.,.,.,.,.,., knowing this would now leave all other detectors off the map. The EQX could still detect the 14" deep NIckel……. and with reasonable "Nickel" ID..... with 'some' up-averaging ID bounce. Since all other detectors were 'left behind'..... when I pulled the 13" Nickel. , . , . , . , . , . , it now made no difference what I did with the excessively deep Nickel. Soooooooooooo ……………… as of about 6-Months ago...……. I pulled the 14" Nickel out of my test-garden...….. and installed a 15" deep Nickel. Finally...………………………. limits have been reached. The EQX DOES detect the 15" deep Nickel...……. DOES ID it as non-ferrous...……… and DOES ID it in the 'medium-conductor' ID scale/range. When I push the Nickel to 15.2"...… the EQX still detects it...….. but consistently as 'iron'. I've never seen this kind of performance on a Nickel.... in my life...…. with inland low-mineral dirt.
In the real World...……….. inland dirt is so contaminated...….. that I'm lucky to (once in a while)……. detect a 12" deep Nickel.
I only wish I could have this performance on the beach!

One other test performed:
The EQX (just barely) detects a 10" deep Type-1 U.S. $1-Dollar gold coin...… as non-ferrous. It also (mostly) 'sounds' like a coin. NOT a tiny little audio 'blip'...….. but...….. rather...…. a normal audio length. (((Keep in mind...… a US $1 gold coin...… is VERY small))).
If only to get this same (inland) performance...… in the wet-salt.... with the EQX!

NASA-Tom Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> When credit is due. The EQX has forced me to 'rede
> sign' portions of my test-garden. I performed such
> ...……. incrementally. Here/now.... I will only foc
> us on one aspect. Prior to receipt of proto EQX...
> … I had a Nickel at 12". After receipt of EQX...…
> I immediately had to pull the 12" Nickel.... and i
> nsert/install a 13" Nickel. Still...…. this was a
> easy target for the EQX. Later...…. I pulled the 1
> 3" deep Nickel...……….and installed a 14" deep Nick
> el.,.,.,.,.,.,., knowing this would now leave all
> other detectors off the map. The EQX could still d
> etect the 14" deep NIckel……. and with reasonable "
> Nickel" ID..... with 'some' up-averaging ID bounce
> . Since all other detectors were 'left behind'....
> . when I pulled the 13" Nickel. , . , . , . , . ,
> . , it now made no difference what I did with the
> excessively deep Nickel. Soooooooooooo ……………… as o
> f about 6-Months ago...……. I pulled the 14" Nickel
> out of my test-garden...….. and installed a 15" de
> ep Nickel. Finally...………………………. limits have been r
> eached. The EQX DOES detect the 15" deep Nickel...
> ……. DOES ID it as non-ferrous...……… and DOES ID it
> in the 'medium-conductor' ID scale/range. When I p
> ush the Nickel to 15.2"...… the EQX still detects
> it...….. but consistently as 'iron'. I've never se
> en this kind of performance on a Nickel.... in my
> life...…. with inland low-mineral dirt.
> In the real World...……….. inland dirt is so contam
> inated...….. that I'm lucky to (once in a while)……
> . detect a 12" deep Nickel.
> I only wish I could have this performance on the b
> each!
>
> One other test performed:
> The EQX (just barely) detects a 10" deep Type-1 U.
> S. $1-Dollar gold coin...… as non-ferrous. It also
> (mostly) 'sounds' like a coin. NOT a tiny little a
> udio 'blip'...….. but...….. rather...…. a normal a
> udio length. (((Keep in mind...… a US $1 gold coin
> ...… is VERY small))).
> If only to get this same (inland) performance...…
> in the wet-salt.... with the EQX!

Interesting, yet not surprising. It definitely likes US $1 gold coins, and it's not too shabby on deep silver either.

More EQX data sharing.

I wanted to 'split-hairs' today. I have 3/8" diameter PVC...… that I have differing cut lengths of: 10.0", 10.2", 10.3" and 10.4" (and other lengths). It's perfect (in diameter) for U.S. Type 1, 2 & 3 $1.00 gold coin testing...….burying the coin in Florida dirt. Today...…. I used only a Type-1 (smaller diameter; yet, fatter coin). Results:

10.0" = Very weak; yet, discernable detection...… with mostly 'medium-conductivity' ID's.
10.2" = Absolute threshold detection...…. with a higher splatter of ID's...…. still (mostly) non-ferrous. But: Substantial UP-AVERAGING ID'S! (Mid-to-high teen's).
10.3" = Intermittent detection. When EQX detects the coin...….. and IF it gives a non-ferrous ID...….the ID's are DOWN-AVERAGING!! ID's are around 7's 8's.....sometimes ID of 10. About 1/3 of the ID's ….. are iron ID's.
10.4" = Only 1/3 of the sweeps ...would detect the coin...…..and purely as 'iron'. The other 2/3's of the sweeps...would result in no detection at all.

I wanted to test other units on this U.S. $1 gold coin; yet, buried at 10.0" ….to generate a standardized base-reference. When I was ready to test another unit...…. my neighbor turned 'on' a portable compressor. The AC compressor was about 270-feet from me. A fairly large jump in EMI entered the equation. I instantly switched back to the EQX. EMI was fairly bad on the EQX...… causing a Sens drop to '21'...….and then a Auto Noise Cancel performed. You could still (barely) hear some mild EMI. The 10" deep coin.....became undetectable. I instantly switched over to a 7" PVC stick...…. and STILL...…. zero detection of the $1 gold coin.
All tests were performed in Park Mode-1.
When I encountered EMI......and after testing Park Mode-1 with this certain set of EMI.,.,.,.,.,.,.,. I decided to test Field Mode-1, Beach Mode-1 and Beach Mode-2. . . . . . . . . only to learn: EMI was a bit worse in these Modes.

My hunch is the 'intelligent' aspect of the EQX involves analysing the target in three, maybe two ( or 4 in beach mode), different ways simultaneously, and applying some 'best response wins' decision-making as to what the 'ID verdict' is. Choosing between, say, Park1 and Park2 chooses your preferred dominant frequency bias, but it's still always checking in multiple ways.

So when you get a target that's right on the detection limit, the 'ID verdict' may well switch from one analysis to another, depending on which gives best results. Your up-averaging / down-averaging tests are likely showing this behaviour.

I surmise that is correct. And performed through algorithms. And...…. different soil mineralization will play a roll in up-averaging/down-averaging/zero-detection.

…………...Continued...…….. from different thread:

Jackpine.
Forefront: ALL detectors (modern-day....or otherwise) are a failure in iron. When you are detecting around iron........ good non-ferrous targets will go 'masked'...….over 99% of the time...... due to iron. So...…….as humans...……..we 'focus' on the 1%. Then we 'focus' on: ""Which"" detector does better in iron...… WITHIN THE BODY OF THIS 1%. Splitting hairs within this 1%...…… is nearly an exercise in futility.
Example: Say ….. you have a carpet of nails at 4" deep. Say...… there is a carpet of coins at 5" deep. The carpet of nails (iron) will act as a faraday-cage to all those coins...…. subsequently; none of the coins can/will be detected. Total failure.
The World of dirt....is 3-Dimensional. In most cases...… there's nails (in-the-mix) all at various/random depths. There's also non-ferrous targets at random/various depths in-the-mix with the nails. A ferrous item has tremendous electromagnetic radiating properties that is FAR more powerful than a same-size, same-shape non-ferrous item; subsequently, the ferrous items electromagnetic signal strength is far more overpowering …. over a fairly close proximity non-ferrous target. When electromagnetic energy is used to 'light-up' non-electromagnetic (non-ferrous) target...… in close proximity to a electromagnetic ferrous item.,.,.,.,.,., which item do you think will 'win'.
I still feel current-day detection methodology (and mindset)..... is "wrong angle-of-approach".
Within the body of the 1%...…. XP with their GMP and Deus is still the trump-card in carpets of nails.

Also: on a 2-dimensional (2D) plane...… presents one set of physics rules. On a 3-dimensional axis (X-Y-Z coordinate axis)….. imposes additional rules to the playing field.

Tom...….. your original question: The EQX' coil...… due to the laws of physics...…. will envelop a certain electromagnetic footprint. When the electromagnetic field is saturated with iron...… the 'speed' (Target Recovery Response-TRR) is merely/nearly a moot point..... and can only work with whatever the coil feeds the control unit. Changing TRR speeds is merely an aid to the human ear // human brain. That being said...….. there is an optimal electronic quiescence 'speed' (((max-Q = 'que'))) with the EQX platform. It is around 3 or 4. It is THIS setting (3 or 4).... that will present the 'max-Q' for best performance in carpets of nails. Keep in mind; some mineralization may cause the operator to ascertain better overall stability on the EQX platform...…. with different speed settings...….. especially if the unit is improperly Ground Balanced.

Thanks for this terrific additional info, NASA-Tom and Pimento.

It is amazing to ponder that in heavy iron-polluted areas, we are missing up to 99% of the "good" targets with current technology. I have read this many, many times here, and so I "accept" it, but to really think about...wow.

Steve

Serious question: For those of you that live on F2 '0' with the EQX...….. and have become astute with its attributes/handicaps: ARE YOU INTERESTED...………...WOULD YOU BE WILLING...……. to go deeper with F2. Say F2 "-1" (negative-one)?

NASA-Tom .... I know it's your merit ... that we have an Equinox adjustable regulator of short-signal silencer -Iron Bias ... Thank you for that ..

What is the advantage of setting Iron bias F2 to -1 ?,

And if a low negative value, with these Iron bias F2 ,.. Equinox settings can be made without compromising detection stability ...?



Edited 5 time(s). Last edit at 04/13/2020 02:30PM by EL NINO.

Tom fe2 0 is pretty easy to run once you have used the detector for a while .How much harder would fe-1 be percent wise. sube

Yes Tom, F2 zero has been great for myself, I'm ready for more!

What would be the pros/cons of implementing F2 /-1 ?

I've gotten pretty used to F2/0, although it seems to do best in iron infested areas (by design). I believe in areas where iron is minimal, it's somewhat of a determent to run F2/0, IMHO.

Tom-Yes I'm ready to go to the next level with the Equinox. Been running 100% of the time at F2-0 almost since the time it came out now. Took a little while for me to understand it's language, but now I won't run anything else.....unless I'm using the 6" coil.

You have my attention I am certainly ready in kicking IB down another notch - Jim


NASA-Tom Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
Serious question: For those of you that live on F2'0' with the EQX...….. and have become astute with its attributes/handicaps: ARE YOU INTERESTED...…… ...WOULD YOU BE WILLING...……. to go deeper with F2 Say F2 "-1" (negative-one)?

Tom- Great stuff sir! As a Florida beach hunter mainly using the 15" coil, does your TRR setting of 3-4 mainly apply to the stock coil, or would that also apply to the 15"?

I have been using F2 at 0 since the update, and have really grown to like it.. I would be interested in a negative setting!

Wow. Good thing I went BACK..... and reread the posts (answers)…….as...….some were edited multiple times. (((It is very rare that I ever go back and reread a post....also never knowing that it may have been edited))).

The entire premise of going to F2 "-1".... is to delve deeper into unmasking. As to be expected...… it comes with a cost. There will be even more falses; yet, there will be even more unmasking. As you have already learned from Minelab's 2nd upgrade ((MUU-2))..... which gave us F2...…..,,,,,,,,,...…….there was a learning-curve involved. BUT...…… what was "gleaned" was: the greater amount of falses….were even easier to audibly understand (than expected); subsequently, , , , , making additional unmasking come at a very low cost (low fatigue).
Will a new F2 (I'll just call it: F3) ….present the same type of cost? Quite a bit more 'falsing'; yet, substantially more unmasking??? We don't know this yet. I have yet to pick the exacting parameter(s) as to 'where' and 'how deep' F3 should go. Do we do 1/4 increments...… 1/2 increments...… or a full unit-of-1. Or.... is there some unsuspecting increment....that has yet to be discovered. As it stands; F2 '0' is really "pushing it" …. to begin with. Soooooooo…….. splitting more hairs...……(((assuming no other methodology is utilized ---stacked---))) …… may prove to be very difficult.

Using different coil sizes poses minimum difference(s).

NASA-Tom -- Very interesting. I, like the others, went almost straight to F2=0 once downloading MUU-2. At this point, after a bit of "getting used to it," I find it to be excellent, and easy to understand the "language nuance" -- to the extent that at this point I can think of no reason why I would want to ever set a "higher" iron bias. I really like the intelligence that I feel can be gleaned from the audio, using F2=0. I don't know what effect going even farther "down" might have, but I'd certainly be "game" for it, if you felt it to be an improvement.

Brian -- I'm curious; how do you find F2=0 to be a detriment, when working in LESS iron-polluted areas? I'd love to hear your thoughts; I've not felt as though I've noticed anything "negative" about running F2=0 in "cleaner" ground...

Steve

The pinpoint on the Nox is very powerful vs the disc modes, there must be more depth to be had!
I've been pondering the MDT8000, whose tones remind me of one of my fav detectors, the AKA Signum, which was one of the deepest detectors I've run on milled coins.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/17/2020 05:49PM by ghound.

steveg Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> NASA-Tom -- Very interesting. I, like the others,
> went almost straight to F2=0 once downloading MUU-
> 2. At this point, after a bit of "getting used to
> it," I find it to be excellent, and easy to unders
> tand the "language nuance" -- to the extent that a
> t this point I can think of no reason why I would
> want to ever set a "higher" iron bias. I really l
> ike the intelligence that I feel can be gleaned fr
> om the audio, using F2=0. I don't know what effec
> t going even farther "down" might have, but I'd ce
> rtainly be "game" for it, if you felt it to be an
> improvement.
>
> Brian -- I'm curious; how do you find F2=0 to be a
> detriment, when working in LESS iron-polluted area
> s? I'd love to hear your thoughts; I've not felt
> as though I've noticed anything "negative" about r
> unning F2=0 in "cleaner" ground...
>
> Steve

Steve I felt that in areas with less iron I was digging more iron (counter intuitive), yet in iron infested areas I was digging more conductors and less iron.

Somewhat or a paradox isn't it?