New Equinox update has arrived!!

Tom_in_CA Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Reading the various forum chit-chat on this softwa
> re upgrade is a bit revealing in one regard, as it
> pertains to the Nox vs the prior generation FBS .
> The "buzz" about this upgrade is that this upgrade
> is going to improve iron ID, eh ? To help allevi
> ate all the getting fooled by iron, eh ? So this
> is a tacit acknowledgement that this had been a we
> akness therefore. Right ?
>
> My buddy and I got back for a bit more turf testin
> g on Nox vs Exp. a week ago (this time each of us
> with 11" coils). And we noticed that ... in our
> quest for insane deep high conductor whispers, tha
> t he was tending to get fooled @ 3x more often (de
> ep "chicken bone" rusty nail blobs) versus me. Na
> turally, he could have raised his mental criteria
> of what to choose or pass. But ... since the tes
> t was for deep hidden silver, we were each graspin
> g for whispers.
>
> Bottom line is, we determined that the Nox seems t
> o be more prone to allowing you to get fooled by
> iron (if angling for whispers). And now, with al
> l the talk of this upgrade 2.0 to improve the issu
> e, seems to just confirm that ... yes .... this ha
> d been a weakness of the Nox. Eh ?


When you and I relic hunt, I don't think I dig any more iron then you do. On the Equinox hunting for targets on the fringe takes time to master, until then, like on any other detector, you dig iron.

How's that Explorer2 software upgrade coming along?

Tom_in_CA Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> dewcon4414 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > .... or you don’t thin
> > k the Nox is worth the cash.
>
> I want with a PASSION to be shown that it's worth the cash. I mean ... duh ... who WOULDN'T want a better mouse trap ?

Just buy one (again), put the appropriate amount of time and effort into learning it, and see for yourself. I think that's the only way you'll see the light, the endless pestering and challenging of everyone all the time on the forums is not going to quench your curiosity.

To be honest, I'm quite happy for you to continue to poo poo the Equinox, I feel it gives me a nice advantage when I'm relic hunting with you

Tom D, the 600 F2 settings have fewer adjustments, only 0-3. With the 600 would an F2 setting of "1" or "2" be the most appropriate to approximate the 800 F2 setting of "4". Thanks.

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

> When I was running the CTX and E-Trac, ......

Wish I could bump into a skilled Nox user like you, at some of the turf sites I have slated to test them on here.

And when I read testimonials like yours, who have had PERSONAL experience on the earlier generations (CTX and Etrac), and PERSONALLY up their game when switching to the Nox, I get curious.

However, I can't tell from your post what type hunt locations you are talking about. If it's ghost-townsy places, where seeing through/around iron is the order of the day, then I grant that the Nox is probably superior. Or if you were talking about micro-jewelry on the beach, then sure. So can you shed light on your type locations ? If it is for junky turf, where a person's goal is to skip surface coins and low conductors (and not "strip-mine"), and chase only deeper high conductors, then it's posts like yours that make me want to see for myself.

dewcon4414 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I wouldnt say this is an out of the box machine

Re.: "adapting" and "out of the box", etc... : Yes I am very familiar with this pushback line-of-reasoning : The moment any duel/test might show that Nox fell behind in any department, the faithful will just say: "That person wasn't proficient enough". "That person needs more practice." "That person had the wrong settings" etc... That is why I wish I could find someone who TRULY IS proficient, to duel with. But alas, I bet if the Nox finished second, then gauranteed: Others who see the video, and read the results will .... drumroll ... say that the user-in-question wasn't experienced enough. Doh ! :/

As for the rest of your post : I have no doubt it's superior for jewelry and low conductors. The Explorer has always been known to be good on high conductors. And will NOT get earring studs or fine chains, etc.... Thus, sure, the Nox will hit harder on nickels, for instance. But this is not the type hunting I want to test the Nox on. My only curiosity is: Can it out-hunt an Exp. II in deep-turf-strategy for deep copper/silver high conductors.

As for the bottle cap issue: You guys might try playing with your swing speed over suspected caps. Sometimes they show tell-tale difference when varying the speed to momentarily faster clip. A coin vs a bottle cap might have different characteristic changes, when varying swing speed. This has been true of various yesteryear machines. So it might be worth a try on the Nox.

Cal_cobra Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

>
>
> When you and I relic hunt, I don't think I dig any
> more iron then you do.


On the contrary. Don't you recall the recent hunt we did (the location where I got the reale under the low hanging tree). You were indeed digging various iron items, while I dug zero iron. Remember ? But yes, in other locations we hunt, where there are *so* many targets to choose from that .... sure .... you don't dig much iron. Because then sure: We get picky in choosing among the array of targets . But when we're in desperation mode (like Greg, TRYING HARD to get deep silver/copper in the junky turf) then it seems as if the Nox tends to start getting fooled at a higher ratio.

Cal_cobra Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Tom_in_CA Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------

>
> Just buy one (again), put the appropriate amount o
> f time and effort into learning it, and see for yo
> urself.

It will never work. To put one to the test, and proclaim: "I found it lacking". Even if I tried a year, someone is sure to say I should have tried 2 yrs. If I try 2 yrs, they'll say you need 3 yrs. etc... etc... into infinity. And no matter HOW I set it, someone is sure to say that "you should have tried xyz setting, etc...". Therefore, why not "cut to the chase" and bring in someone who ALREADY claims they can personally spank an Explorer ?



> I think that's the only way you'll see th
> e light, the endless pestering and challenging of
> everyone all the time on the forums is not going t
> o quench your curiosity.


How can you say curiosity will never be quenched with duel results ? You know full well that how I came to Minelab in the first place. Right ?

And no, Not "poo-poo-ing" the Nox. I want SO BADLY to get my b*tt kicked ! Here's why : Because when you and I get into ghost townsy iron riddled sites, it's a "given" that the Explorer is more prone to masking. Right ? (compared to other machines you've brought to our sites over the years). I have to reach for my Bandido in those cases. Right ? So when I read all this hype about how the Nox will match or exceed the Explorer in turf too, then ... gee ... that sounds like the cat's meow, eh ? No more having to grab different machines for different jobs, right ?

>
> To be honest, I'm quite happy for you to continue
> to poo poo the Equinox, I feel it gives me a nice
> advantage when I'm relic hunting with you

Haha, well .... that has yet to be seen. Can you cite any place, so far, where you've had the "advantage" over the Exp. II, in our results ? The ONLY place you MIGHT TRY to allude to, was the one recent spot where my Exp. II got shut down by some sort of extraneous/external interference going on at *just* that location and time. On other treks to that location, I .... like you that night .... never lacked for signals to choose from. Thus that would be something extraneous going on that night. So besides that, what hunt are you referring to where your Nox gave the advantage ? And do you care to meet up with me and show me this "advantage" at the turf zones I want to test at ? Only 45 minute drive for you chump. How about it ?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/26/2019 07:28PM by Tom_in_CA.

Tom...I think we all get you don’t like the Nox.... but don’t be a hater because it works for some of us. Let’s not forget....like the Sov that a lot of us like...it’s discontinued. I certainly won’t dis an Explorer I’ve had a lot of time on them...great machine sad to see it go. I’ll also say as the Nox stands ...it’s not the best water machine I’ve used. Things could be improved. I like my Xcal and MDT.... but for the price on the Nox is pretty impressive. Personally I think that warranty says a great deal. It’s really quite the multi use machine Tom. Dang wish I had that smart screen lol.

Tom_in_CA Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Cabin Fever Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> > When I was running the CTX and E-Trac, ......
>
> Wish I could bump into a skilled Nox user like you
> , at some of the turf sites I have slated to test
> them on here.
>
> And when I read testimonials like yours, who have
> had PERSONAL experience on the earlier generations
> (CTX and Etrac), and PERSONALLY up their game when
> switching to the Nox, I get curious.
>
> However, I can't tell from your post what type hun
> t locations you are talking about. If it's ghost-
> townsy places, where seeing through/around iron is
> the order of the day, then I grant that the Nox is
> probably superior. Or if you were talking about m
> icro-jewelry on the beach, then sure. So can y
> ou shed light on your type locations ? If it is f
> or junky turf, where a person's goal is to skip su
> rface coins and low conductors (and not "strip-min
> e"), and chase only deeper high conductors, then i
> t's posts like yours that make me want to see for
> myself.


Tom I almost exclusively hunt City Parks for old coins. I have no interest in clad and very little in
Jewelry although I’m happy to find it when I do accidentally run into it.

I’m a selective hunter and going after deep old coins is my thing.
I do occasionally hunt old homes and curb strips but it’s the old parks that are my favorite, even though they are getting seriously depleted..
I also do a little nugget hunting when I get the chance.

Bryan

ghound Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I'm not brand loyal either, i use what works best
> in my soil and at the moment it's ML.
> And don't get me started on 4x4's, we all know Lan
> d Rover is best by far!

Land Rover, poor man's G-wagon, lol....Jeep, poorer man's Land Rover

dewcon4414 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Tom...I think we all get you don’t like the Nox...
> . but don’t be a hater because it works for some o
> f us. Let’s not forget....like the Sov that a lot
> of us like...it’s discontinued. I certainly won’
> t dis an Explorer I’ve had a lot of time on them..
> .great machine sad to see it go. I’ll also say a
> s the Nox stands ...it’s not the best water machin
> e I’ve used. Things could be improved. I like my
> Xcal and MDT.... but for the price on the Nox is p
> retty impressive. Personally I think that warrant
> y says a great deal. It’s really quite the multi
> use machine Tom. Dang wish I had that smart scre
> en lol.

Tom, just like Captain Fi with his SE, no need to change at all. even if you did a comparo with someone so good with the EQ he id'ed slightly better than you, so what? you're Explorer does well for you. seem's you're just trolling with this update business. Personally I tried my damn'est with the SE when I had one but was a very mediocre user even with a few 'helper' emails with Fi but no use. Wasn't till I got an Etrac that a machine clicked. Very easy to use and did very well with it. Now when EQ came out I got one, took it to my sites that dried up using Etrac then Ctx and damn I found quite a few I missed, really impressive but now I'm back to dried up and waiting for the EQ 1000+ follow up. Cheers

dewcon4414 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Tom...I think we all get you don’t like the Nox...
>

I get that it sounds that way. But that's not it at all. I'm "neutral" on the Nox. Ie.: if someone says "show me", then that doesn't mean "they don't like it". The mere fact they say "show me" INDICATES their neutrality. I want so badly to believe it will spank the Explorer in deep turf strategy. That's not "disliking" it.

canslawhero Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> ..... even if you did a comparo with some
> one so good with the EQ he id'ed slightly better t
> han you, so what?

"So what " ? "SO WHAT "? I'd change in a heart beat ! That's what's so "what". Because in that case: My explorer would no longer be doing "well for me".



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/26/2019 11:15PM by Tom_in_CA.

Tom_in_CA Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> canslawhero Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > ..... even if you did a comparo with some
> > one so good with the EQ he id'ed slightly better
> t
> > han you, so what?
>
> "So what " ? "SO WHAT "? I'd chan
> ge in a heart beat ! That's what's so "what". ::
> o Because in that case: My explorer woul
> d no longer be doing "well for me".


Tom------You just want to fuss & argue!-----Wasn't you one that I (and others) welcomed to this forum not all that long ago???

Tom.... I’m one of the biggest show me guys out here... I’m from MO lol. But.... u maybe a little more on the other side than you think buddy. I appreciate a good argument.....but sometimes you find out no one can evaluate a machine like yourself....if you put int the time. I’ve always been one who never sales a machine until it pays for its self. That seems to be enough time for me to evaluate.

[www.youtube.com]

Tom_in_CA Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Cal_cobra Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Tom_in_CA Wrote:
> > ------------------------------------------------
> --
>
> >
> > Just buy one (again), put the appropriate amount of time and effort into learning it, and see for yourself.
>
> It will never work. To put one to the test, and proclaim: "I found it lacking". Even if I tried a year, someone is sure to say I should have tried 2 yrs. If I try 2 yrs, they'll say you need 3 yrs. etc... etc... into infinity. And no matter HOW I set it, someone is sure to say that "you> should have tried xyz setting, etc...".


Here's the fallacy, you've already preconceived the notion that you'll find it lacking. With as much as you detect, and with as much free time as you have to put something like this to the test, a long term test, not a short term one where you talked yourself into selling it when the market was hot, but just start using it, I believe you'll take to it quite well. Is it going to be better then your Explorer 2, most likely, but even if it's simply equal to it in your testing, IMO that's still a win for you.

Otherwise, if the only way to satisfy your desire of pitting one against the other, perhaps you should challenge NASA-Tom to an Explorer 2 vs EQ800 duel. I don't know of anyone that knows the Equinox better, except Steve H (another option if you can get him to come out and play).

If you can spank one of those two Equinox experts with your Explorer 2, then we will all sell our Equinoxes and rush onto fleabay to start looking for Explorer 2's

Ok so the new iron bias settings will knock out the odd iron that gets through the old bias.. but at what cost in seperation?

Cal_cobra Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

>
>
> you've already preconceived th
> e notion that you'll find it lacking.

No. I want SO BAD (and I keep repeating this) to find out the EXACT OPPOSITE . How much more NON preconceived can that be ?

And I don't get this : The entire concept of finding a proficient user to test with, is for the EXPRESS PURPOSE of alleviating any such "preconceived notion" possibility . Ie.: that someone ... yes.... if someone had a "preconceived notion" that MIGHT INDEED allow his testing to simply subconsciously confirm what his biases were. Eh ? Thus the very reason I don't want to test it on my own. Do you see now ? So that I get a million miles away from "preconceived notion" allegation (which I deny) or "lack of practice", etc... that could be a culprit.

But let me guess, this is fussing and arguing ? Gee, last I checked : This was a forum dedicated to tech. comparison. Heaven forbid someone wants to do just that ?

Cal_cobra Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I don't know of anyone that knows the Equinox
> better, except Steve H

Remember we discussed this in our sit-down meeting with him. And he said he does very very little turf hunting. If at all. So that would not be reliable testing. Because everyone involved would justifiably say that this just wasn't their type-hunting . Steve is mostly about nuggets, if I recall.

Tom,

I think the reason people are saying your "mind is already made up," is because there have been several long-time, seasoned detectorists here who WERE FBS users, and are NOW Equinox users, who have told you that they feel that they do as well, if not better, with the Equinox, than they did with FBS, hence their switching of machines. And yet you completely ignore that "testimony."

You seem to think the "end all" is to have someone "duel" with you. Aside from the inherent difficulties of someone that I described above (former FBS user, current EQX user) flying out to California, to have a "competition," that is STILL not the "end all" test. If I were you, that is NOT the test I would want to use, to base my decision upon. Because after all, that wouldn't necessarily prove which MACHINE handles the task better; what you MIGHT prove, unknowingly, is which PERSON is the better detectorist. Say I came out there, and whipped you...does that mean YOU should buy an Equinox, because we've just proven that it's a "better machine?" OF COURSE NOT. It is POSSIBLE that this is the case, but on the other hand, it is equally possible that we MAY have simply proven that I'm a better DETECTORIST than you (while I may in fact have been using an INFERIOR machine, but "made up the difference" with my skill level, vs. yours). OR, vice versa -- YOU may be using an "inferior" machine, but if you are simply a better detectorist than I, you may whoop me in a "duel," and yet we STILL don't know which machine is "better."

The ONLY way to determine that question DECISIVELY, is for YOU to decide to have an open enough mind, to get -- and test...THOROUGHLY...an Equinox for yourself. Because an Equinox is ONLY a better machine for Tom_in_CA, if Tom_in_CA -- using an Equinox -- can consistently "better" Tom_in_CA using his Explorer II. Steveg using HIS Equinox -- whether or not he "betters" Tom_in_CA with his Explorer, has NOT proven which machine is a better machine, necessarily. BUT -- when steveg, or Cabin Fever, or others, tell you that they found that the Equinox does a better job FOR THEM, as a deep turf coin hunter, than FBS did FOR THEM, then THAT is much closer to an "apples-to-apples" comparison, and it is these comparisons that, in my personal opinion, are the ones you should be paying attention to...NOT issuing some challenge for a "duel." Again, if TOM with an Equinox can beat TOM with FBS, that tells you something; if TOM with an Explorer beats Steve or Bryan or Brian or anyone else with an Equinox, you STILL haven't definitively answered the question you claim to want the answer to.

Think of it from a scientific testing perspective. Detecting "skill" is one variable. The "ability" of a machine is another variable. IF YOU WISH to test the "ability of the machine" variable, you need to hold the "skill" variable as a "constant," and then do you testing, and THEN evaluate your results. However, by using TWO detectorists, you are NOT holding the "skill" variable constant, and thus it is invalid to reach any conclusion about the "ability of the machine" variable, in such a test. Your "research," if done this way, would never pass the peer review process. You need to hold the SKILL variable constant, and the only way to do THAT -- is for YOU to be the one testing both machines -- after, of course, you have reached a reasonably equal level of proficiency with both machines. THAT is how you would hold the "skill" variable constant, so as to properly test the "ability of the machine" variable.

Steve

Careful Steve.
You might make too much sense.
I told Tom just recently to buy another EQX and test away.

Why is Ex II even being talked about in this thread anyway?

Same ole same ole.

Tom_in_CA Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Cal_cobra Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > I don't know of anyone that knows the Equinox better, except Steve H
>
> Remember we discussed this in our sit-down meeting with him. And he said he does very very little turf hunting. If at all. So that would not be reliable testing. Because everyone involved would justifiably say that this just wasn't their type-hunting . Steve is mostly about nuggets, if I recall.

He's mostly after gold in any form BUT he did extensive testing in the old Reno parks, so he knows full well how to deep turf detect. Those are tough parks to detect, ultra high mineralization which precludes most all detectors (CTX included) from getting ANYTHING coin wise past 6" (sans perhaps a half or such).

Seems that would be the perfect place for a shoot-out next time we pass through.

steveg Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Tom,
>
> I think the reason people are saying your "mind is
> already made up," is because there have been sever
> al long-time, seasoned detectorists here who WERE
> FBS users, and are NOW Equinox users, who have tol
> d you that they feel that they do as well,
> if not better, with the Equinox, than they
> did with FBS, hence their switching of machines.
> And yet you completely ignore that "testimony."

No. I do not "completely ignore" that testimony. Those testimonies are the EXACT reason I want to put it through the paces. Thus: not at all ignored.

But ... Is "testimony" really always the end-all proof that something is necessarily so ? Because if testimonies are the bullet proof test, then: There's "testimony" that dowsing rods work . And probably "testimony" out there, somewhere, that an Ace 250 spanks an Explorer or Nox. Yet .... despite such testimony, you'd have to "see it for yourself" before you'd conclude that Ace 250 spanks a Nox or that dowsing worked Right ? Thus: testimonies are great, but ... not an end-all in themselves. Don't get "lost in the examples". I'm just pointing out that "testimony" is subject to testing.


>
> You seem to think the "end all" is to have someone
> "duel" with you. Aside from the inherent difficul
> ties of someone that I described above (former FBS
> user, current EQX user) flying out to California,
> to have a "competition," that is STILL not the "en
> d all" test. If I were you, that is NOT the test I
> would want to use, to base my decision upon.

Unless , of course , the test did indeed show that the nox meets or exceeds the exp II in deep-turf-test. Then of course, it would be a valid end all test. Right ?

No of course no one's flying to CA . Someone from Sacramento (who has 1500 hrs. on the Nox ) is tentatively going to try to meet. He too is equally curious. But as of yet, haven't got our schedules to match. The buddy of mine who's closer has studied all the various suggested settings. And is preparing to meet and try a myriad of settings (so that "lack of proper settings" is a non-issue). But as of yet, he and I got distracted to hit an old-town demo. going on, instead so far.

> Beca
> use after all, that wouldn't necessarily prove whi
> ch MACHINE handles the task better; what you MIGHT
> prove, unknowingly, is which PERSON is the better
> detectorist.


If each person is an acknowledged top-notch hunter in this niche-type hunt strategy, then that should remove this factor. Otherwise .... then let's face it: No one can EVER conduct experiments on machines. Because all-such-tests go out the window. We merely need to say "shucks, I guess the other guy wasn't a good detectorist." It's never the machines being compared. It can always be chalked up to the user. See ? When would any tests ever show anything useful ? In fact, a bunch of the testimonials come from THE EXACT OUTCOME of seeing their buddies spank them with a competing machine. They did not chalk it up to merely saying "gee my buddy is just a good hunter , and it has nothing to do with the machine". On the contrary they were completely open to thinking "Gee, that's a better machine". It happens all the time. But notice this ball does not get rolling unless it is shown, in the first place, that there are differences in outcome.

I don't disagree that in various tests, that differences-in-skill level come into play. And that is exactly why I want to close-that-gap, and have a proficient user, who knows the correct settings, knows the sounds, etc....

> Say I came out there, and whi
> pped you...does that mean YOU should buy an Equino
> x, because we've just proven that it's a "better m
> achine?" OF COURSE NOT. It is POSSIBLE that this
> is the case, but on the other hand, it is equally
> possible that we MAY have simply proven that I'm a
> better DETECTORIST than you

That gap can be closed with ease by test protocols IMHO. For example, when I switched from Whites to Minelab in 2001-ish because of buddy tests : I could, instead, have simply concluded : "Gee that guy is simply a better detectorist". Eh ? And could have denied that the results had anything to do with the machines. Right ? BUT ON THE CONTRARY : No matter what I did with my controls, there was no mistaking that he was bringing in the clear signals, with "room to spare". And showing me signals that I had to admit, I wouldn't have heard on my own, had they not been pointed out . See ?

Thus testing CAN prove machines. And CAN alleviate the possibility that it's just operator experience.

> (while I may in fact h
> ave been using an INFERIOR machine, but "made up t
> he difference" with my skill level, vs. yours). O
> R, vice versa -- YOU may be using an "inferior" ma
> chine, but if you are simply a better detectorist
> than I, you may whoop me in a "duel," and yet we S
> TILL don't know which machine is "better."

Why wouldn't this possibility work , if a Ford Pinto were being compared to a Corvette ? If the Corvette won the race, no one would think for a moment "Gee, I guess he was just a better driver " ? I understand what you're trying to say . But just saying: The problem is surmountable, when the two persons go to great pains to try all different settings, such that NO AMOUNT OF YEARS OF EXPERIENCE will change the results.

>
> The ONLY way to determine that question DECISIVELY
> , is for YOU to decide to have an open enough mind
> , to get -- and test...THOROUGHLY...an Equinox for
> yourself.

I could. But why is everyone so resistant to accomplish the same thing, with someone who has ALREADY knocked himself silly learning all the nuances ? And besides, if I tried for a year on my own, and found that my explorer did better, that would likewise prove nothing. It might merely prove I was "doing it wrong", or that I "need 2 years", etc.... So why not cut to the chase and do it with persons who ALREADY have a system down of spanking explorers in this type test ?

> However, by using TWO detectorists, yo
> u are NOT holding the "skill" variable constant,


Unfortunately, this would also apply to a single person, jumping back and forth, trying it on his own. The truth that you are citing here, would equally apply to a singular person as well. It would work like this : The "skill level" when the person was using machine #1, was proficient. Yet when he went to cross-test it with machine #2, his skill level on that other machine was poor. Therefore: The variable is not "constant" even with a single user . See ?

Yet, oddly, those that have the testimonies would not attribute their results to their "skill level" on each machine. Instead, they would quickly conclude "Wow, this other machine is better" . How do we know they simply weren't skilled on one of the two machines ?

Don't get me wrong, I get what you are saying. But from the testimonials I read: That once we have safeguards in place (ie.: settings, proficiency of user, rules for flagging, etc...) then .... this should result in what the testimonies are saying. And I want so much for that to be the case !

Why is it, that when someone regales us with a story of how his buddy whooped him, to the point he couldn't deny it was chalked up to user skill. So he switches over to get a Nox like his buddy. That buddy-system test is a valid unquestioned testimony end-all. Right ? But wait, why wasn't it just user skill ? Why does that test show the Nox to be superior ? It seems like there's a double standard going on here. Everyone agrees "that's a valid test and testimonial". Yet if the possibility that the test went another direction, then all of the sudden : Buddy system testing is stupid. I don't get it.

Cal_cobra Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

>
> Seems that would be the perfect place for a shoot-
> out next time we pass through.

As I recall, we discussed that possibility with him. Or having him meet us in Sacramento to have a go at it. And he said right-off-the-bat , that I would no doubt spank him. Because he is not keen on turf. I don't disagree that he's one I'd like to hunt with. I know he's had some write-ups on turf, and that he's a renowned respected voice. But he didn't think that would be a fair test, since that's not his primary know-how .

Tom,

I had a point-by-point response I was working on, but changed my mind. Maybe I can make a point more simply. You seem to be saying that Steve H. is someone you would like to have this duel with. And let's pretend for a moment that instead of Steve saying that "you would no doubt spank him," that he instead took you up on the offer, met you in Sacramento, and then you with your EXII spanked him and his EQX. What did you learn about the Equinox? Not a whole lot, since you are a better turf hunter than he is (by his own admission). BUT -- here is a different piece of data. After thorough testing of the Equinox, Steve SOLD his FBS machine...specifically because he felt the EQX was a better unit. So -- Steve with EQX in turf won't beat Tom with FBS in turf, but... Steve with EQX in turf beats Steve with FBS in turf. Which one of those two scenarios probably tells you more about the capability of the Equinox (as opposed to the capability of the detectorists)?

Steve



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/27/2019 07:10AM by steveg.

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

Steveg : Thanx for taking the time to analyze.

> You seem to be saying that Steve H. is
> someone you would like to have this duel with. An
> d let's pretend for a moment that instead of Steve
> saying that "you would no doubt spank him," that h
> e instead took you up on the offer, met you in Sac
> ramento, and then you with your EXII spanked him a
> nd his EQX. What did you learn about the Equinox?
> Not a whole lot, since you are a better turf hu
> nter than he is (by his own admission).

You're right : I too would have therefore said that it's not conclusive. I would admit that it could be user inexperience. But :

What if Steve H (as an acknowledged respected voice in the industry), despite his lack of turf prowess, were to say : "Based on what I saw, knowing exactly where to swing, and having full-control of every conceivable setting thereafter, and having-sampled-it-to-kingdom-come, that : I have to admit that no-amount-of-additional practice was going to change anything. " ? That would be one way to have an "aha moment". And such a comment, coming from an industry leader, well-versed in the potential settings, would add more to the discussion . Versus if it had been anyone else.

But you're right: It's riddled with "outs".


> BUT -
> - here is a different piece of data. After thorou
> gh testing of the Equinox, Steve SOLD his FBS mach
> ine...specifically because he felt the EQX was a b
> etter unit. So -- Steve with EQX in turf won't be
> at Tom with FBS in turf, but... Steve with
> EQX in turf beats Steve with FBS in turf. Which o
> ne of those two scenarios probably tells you more
> about the capability of the Equinox (as opposed to
> the capability of the detectorists)?
>

Wait ! Don't you see the contradiction in what you just wrote ?? For purposes of mutual admission, in the "what if" scenario, we both acknowledged that perhaps "Steve H" wasn't proficient in turf . HOWEVER : Notice that if Steve H. concludes something beneficial about machine swaps for turf, then: It is an automatic reflection that : The machine-ability must be at play in the outcome ? Are you seeing the contradiction ? Perhaps , an a non-turf-prowess, he simply wasn't experienced enough (in the respective niches) to have said anything conclusive ?? Yet .... by your standards, one statement is an end-all, while the other isn't ?

For that matter, we are BOTH guilty of the same thing : Perfectly willing to entertain testimony, from a NON QUALIFIED person. I say this with much reservation, since, as we both know, he's a voice-to-be-reckoned with.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/27/2019 06:27PM by Tom_in_CA.

I have to say this is one of the more ridiculous discussions I have ever seen As far as turf proficiency I have countless hours cross checking various brands and models in turf conditions and have detected turf for going on 50 years. I simply am not one to toot my own horn and frankly don’t care if people think I am any good at detecting or not. I am certain there are very many great detectorists on this forum, and am not so arrogant as to insist I am better than any of them. I am good enough to suit myself, nothing more.

I also really don’t care if anyone thinks the Equinox is any good or not. I do my own detector testing to decide for myself what I want to use. I sure as heck don’t need anyone to prove to me if any detector works well or not. I am the only person qualified to do that. So the bottom line is Tom if you are not inclined or don’t care enough to decide for yourself what detector works best for you, I’m not the guy to look to for proving or convincing you of anything.

If any of that comes across as grumpy I sure don’t feel that way at all. I’m more amused than anything. I’m out detecting and life is great! Best of luck to all you guys, happy hunting!!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/27/2019 03:04PM by Steve Herschbach.

The one thing I want to know.....is the update working well for people out there?

I can only speak for myself and my experiences with the Nox. Comparing it to the ctx 3030, etrac, f75, v3i, racer 2, impact, and deus, it found coins they all missed. The machine with it's original software loadout is very good at finding coins that were missed by other machines.

"It's only when we lost everything, that we are free to do anything"