E trac or equinox 800

Gonna get one or other. All advice appreciated. Thanks

Equinox is a no brainer. It has all the performance of the E-Trac without the weight.

Plenty of info out there. Target ID is the only thing that the E Trac has the advantage on in my opinion. The Equinox will find targets the E Trac never will.

why will the not find more than the e trac?????

Sonny...….. it's because of the way we've got the phase-shift-ID coupled with the iron-ID (working together/in-harmony......a better form of check-and-balance)...……...and...………. now the rapid clock-speed working in concert with simultaneous multi-frequency. (There's a few other reasons......also).

NASA-Tom,

Is it possible for you to elaborate a bit on your first sentence above? This "working together/in harmony" thing is something I'd like to hear a bit more about, if you are able...

Thanks,

Steve

sonny(IN) Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> why will the not find more than the e trac?????


Assuming here you meant "nox" instead of "not"..
If you have an isolated high conductive target in mild soil, the EQX has no advantage. Which one will detect the target deepest would be a coin flip if not completely equal.

Where the EQX outperforms is when the ground matrix gets more mineralized and/or when you get more and more junk targets mixed with that high conductor.

Add in the facts of weight differences and total ergonomics, then the EQX stomps the E-Trac.

The E-Trac has one advantage of its visual ID for dealing with iron falsing , but I dont consider that single point to outweigh all the other negatives

======================================================

You can see my videos here: [www.youtube.com]
My blog is here: [thesilverfiend.com]

======================================================

sonny(IN) Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> why will the not find more than the e trac?????

I have been side-by-side , using my Exp II (which is like the Etrac) alongside a Nox. And .... given our objectives (silver and copper in junky turf), the Nox was not out-performing the older-school machine. This was despite multiple comparisons over flagged "known" targets, with ample time to play with scores of settings. In fact, it got so bad at a certain point, that the fellow would admit "I wouldn't dig it". Meaning, yes he can hear something, but it can't be differentiated from the scores of objects all around, that would certainly be cruddy shallow zinc or whatever.

That particular test zone was prone to EMI that only appeared to affect the Nox at certain hours of the day (when the city "woke up"). So we plan to continue our tests at other areas where his machine won't have the EMI handicap.

But the only point is : It's not 100% that that the Nox spanks the old school in all conceivable objectives, locations, etc.... I have yet not-to-keep-up with my buddies who use the Nox. Barring of course micro-jewelry (which the Etrac/Exp doesn't do), or nuggets (which the Etrac/Exp doesn't do), or iron-see-through ghost-townsy places (which is a weakness of the Exp/Etrac). But for turf (cherry picking at deeper depths), the Etrac/Exp. are hard to beat.

So the answer is: It depends. But I do not agree that the Nox spanks the Exp. in all conditions/circumstances.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/09/2019 05:39PM by Tom_in_CA.

for coin shooting they arent even close. trash or no trash. etrac by a wide margin. if you just want a beep on non-ferrus. the nox is better. nox is definitely a relic machine IMO.

high trash setting with heavy disc on etrac is one of the best detecting things out there.

3 freq pin point on v3i is another one of those amazing detector options.

You might want to get the Nox if you never owned one just to see what all the fuss is about. But Coin shooting Etrac everything else Nox sounds like good advice.

detectingMO Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> for coin shooting they arent even close. trash or
> no trash. etrac by a wide margin. ....


Harold,ILL. Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> ...... But Coin shooting Etrac everything else Nox ....


Harold & detecting-MO : This is also the conclusion I've come to.

Still will put the 2 through future comparisons. But for now .... from what I've seen : In park-turf cherry picking situations, the Exp/Etrac have not been matched.

Interesting thread, eqx vs excal now.
I've heard you get more trash with eqx.

youdig Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Interesting thread, eqx vs excal now.
> I've heard you get more trash with eqx.

This question isn't really on par. It's sort of comparing apples to oranges. The excal and Sov are sort of in classes all-their-own. The sounds are totally unique on the Excal/Sov. Some people have grown to love those sounds. Other people find the long audio "tail" to be quite annoying. Contrast to the Nox vs Exp/Etrac, and the sounds are similar. Lineage (ie.: evolution) are in the same lineup, etc.....

I personally don't care for the Excal and Sov. sounds. I forced myself to get used to it, back in the day (mid to late 1990s), when that was the only waterproof discriminator on the market. But nowadays there's many water proof discriminators to choose from (CTX, Nox, etc....), so I've long-since left the Excal. But other people love it.

If it's strictly a question of depth on coins on the wet salt, I'd say that the Excal and sov are hard to beat. I recall getting nearly a foot on dimes, with my excal, in disc. mode, with standard coil. (Granted, that was whispers). However, if it comes down to micro-jewelry (eg.: earring studs, etc...), then the Nox will win hands down.

Steve...…… I am unable to elaborate. And...………….. with BBS, FBS and M-IQ all going about 12" on a dime in mild soil...…….. makes it even more murky to understand the attributes of M-IQ. However; I am allowed to share 'depth vs effective depth' is where some of the advancements commence. "How" the EQX handles a high conductor (like a silver dime)…….. next to a nail (((or in close proximity to other non-ferrous targets))) is where advancements have been made. Especially now..... with MUU-2 (with F2 option/Mode).



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/12/2019 12:49AM by NASA-Tom.

Tom_in_CA Wrote:
------------------------------------------------
> But for now .... from what I've seen : In park-turf cherry picking situations, the Exp/Etrac have not been matched.


While that hasnt been my experience, lets say that it is true. It doesnt matter FOR ME because I cant swing an E-Trac for an hour before my arm and shoulder are screaming. I can (and do) swing the EQX for 8 - 10 hours and never feel the slightest bit of pain or fatigue. I suffered through the crap ergonomics of E-Trac when it was new because it so much better than everything else I had ever touched. Now that its no longer "king of the park", I'm using something just as capable that is a joy to use

======================================================

You can see my videos here: [www.youtube.com]
My blog is here: [thesilverfiend.com]

======================================================

If you are strictly a turf hunter, deep silver detectorist. I’d go with any of the Minelab E-trac/Explorer series. However, Some have mastered the Equinox for park hunting and are doing extremely well finding deep silver. I myself, prefer an Explorer for parks.

If you are a relic hunter, hands down the Equinox. I’m seeing advantages with using an Equinox for inland relic hunting, works for me.

Everyone connects with a certain detector for different types of hunting. Use what works for you.

Paul

detectingMO Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> for coin shooting they arent even close. trash or
> no trash. etrac by a wide margin.

I could not disagree more, with this statement.

The E-Trac is a SUPER machine. The EQX is, as well. I've used FBS and Multi-IQ both -- extensively; I am a deep coin hunter, primarily. From that perspective -- a deep coin hunter who has substantial experience on both types of machines -- I disagree with the above-quoted statement wholeheartedly.

Steve



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/10/2019 11:25PM by steveg.

steveg Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> detectingMO Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > for coin shooting they arent even close. trash
> or
> > no trash. etrac by a wide margin.
>
> I could not disagree more, with this statement.
>
> The E-Trac is a SUPER machine. The EQX is, as wel
> l. I've used FBS, and Multi-IQ both -- extensivel
> y. I am a deep coin hunter, primarily. From that
> perspective -- a deep coin hunter who has substant
> ial experience on both machines, I disagree with t
> he above-quoted statement wholeheartedly.
>
> Steve

I would love to meet up with you for a turf duel & comparing flagged signals.

NASA-Tom Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Steve...…… I am unable to elaborate.

NASA-Tom,

Understood. I figured, when I asked, that I was asking you to delve too far into "secrets..."

> And...…………..
> with BBS, FBS and M-IQ all going about 12" on a di
> me in mild soil...…….. makes it even more murky to
> understand the attributes of M-IQ. However; I am a
> llowed to share 'depth vs useable depth' is where
> some of the advancements commence. "How" the EQX h
> andles a high conductor (like a silver dime)…….. n
> ext to a nail (((or in close proximity to other no
> n-ferrous targets))) is where advancements have be
> en made. Especially now..... with MUU-2 (with F2 o
> ption/Mode).


And this is the toughest thing, for me anyway, to master -- learning the differences, tonally/audibly, of a high conductor next to a nail, VERSUS simply a nail "falsing." But, this has been discussed lots of times before; it seems to be something that can only be learned through sustained repetition, as the nuances seem to be VERY subtle, to me.

As I have said here before, my first objective when switching to F2 "0" was to figure out how NOT to dig more nails (i.e. how NOT to be "fooled" into thinking that high-tone "iron-falsing chirps" were suggestive that a coin/nail combination target was present). I think I have accomplished this objective fairly well. I am now to the point of not being "fooled" into digging more nails, running F2 "0", than I was before (with and FE "2" setting). In other words, I have learned fairly well to use the information presented to me by the machine to set my "mental discriminator" just high enough, so as to not dig excessive iron. NOW, however, I have to learn the much more difficult thing, which is, of course, to "back off" on that mental discriminator, just enough, and on just the right targets, so as to better learn to "unmask," in those scenarios where the high tones heard in conjunction with the iron tones are indicative of a coin/nail co-location, instead of the high tones being merely "falsing."

Steve

Tom,

I know. And I'd love to, as well. Perhaps we'll have a chance to do so, someday. Matter of fact, if I were certain that an appropriate "testing ground" could be secured (which, to me, means one where those deep coin targets NOT ONLY exist, BUT are plentiful enough so as to present enough "dig" opportunities to each user, to allow a "proper" test to occur), I just might be thinking seriously as to how to make it happen.

By the way, to clarify...when I said that I "wholeheartedly disagree," I hope it is obvious as to what I meant. Which is to say -- I am not saying that I believe the OPPOSITE of what was stated (i.e. I would not say "Equinox by a wide margin" as a blanket statement). I was saying instead that in my opinion, in the hands of an experienced user, NEITHER machine has a decided, non-contestable advantage (at least, not in a relatively trash-free setting; I think the advantage DOES lean a bit more toward toward the EQX in the trash). Said another way, I would not have disagreed if what had been stated was "E-Trac by a hair," (nor, likewise, would I have objected if the statement were "Equinox by a hair"). But, it has NOT been my experience, that the statement "FBS, and it's not even close -- trash, or no trash" is even REMOTELY representative of the two platforms.

Steve

Tom_in_CA Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> steveg Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > detectingMO Wrote:
> > ------------------------------------------------
> --
> > -----
> > > for coin shooting they arent even close. tras
> h
> > or
> > > no trash. etrac by a wide margin.
> >
> > I could not disagree more, with this statement.
> >
> > The E-Trac is a SUPER machine. The EQX is, as w
> el
> > l. I've used FBS, and Multi-IQ both -- extensiv
> el
> > y. I am a deep coin hunter, primarily. From th
> at
> > perspective -- a deep coin hunter who has substa
> nt
> > ial experience on both machines, I disagree with
> t
> > he above-quoted statement wholeheartedly.
> >
> > Steve
>
> I would love to meet up with you for a turf duel &
> comparing flagged signals.

The Nox will detect (unmask) more non-ferrous targets than the Etrac.....including a ton more non-ferrous trash. If you are willing to dig it all, you will by default, find more good targets. The Etrac or Explorer, on the other hand, has more accurate ID (especially at depth) and so better cherry picker. It would be ideal to own both the Nox and Etrac, this should cover most situations.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/11/2019 07:35AM by Arkansas.

steveg Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> detectingMO Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > for coin shooting they arent even close. trash or no trash. etrac by a wide margin.
>
> I could not disagree more, with this statement.
>
> The E-Trac is a SUPER machine. The EQX is, as well. I've used FBS and Multi-IQ both -- extensively; I am a deep coin hunter, primarily. From that perspective -- a deep coin hunter who has substantial experience on both types of machines -- I disagree with the above-quoted statement wholeheartedly
> .
>
> Steve

The OP asked about the Etrac, not the Exp2, which is different in many ways, tonally, operationally, etc. Definitely a deep silver hunter, no question about it, but it's not the same thing, else there would be no need for two different models and names.

That said, I think Steve hit the nail on the head, extensive use of both = a fair comparison. TomCA continues trying to get people that are primarily relic hunters to participate in his turf hunting duel with his 20 years of turf hunting experience on the Exp2, and thus far that has been a fail. I know he'll challenge me on this, and poo poo the EMI issue on the San Francisco site he keeps trying to challenge the Equinox to as an "excuse", which so far has only proven that the Exp2 seems to handle EMI better then the EQ800. I can say that in relic environments, be it a demo scrape or old relic hunting site the Exp2 has not bested the Equinox.

Perhaps a more fair test would be to give an Equinox user an Exp2, and the Exp2 user an Equinox and then let them duel it out



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/11/2019 07:20AM by Cal_cobra.

Arkansas Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The Nox will detect (unmask) more non-ferrous targ
> ets than the Etrac.....including a ton more non-fe
> rrous trash. If you are willing to dig it all, you
> will by default, find more good targets. ...

Arkansas, this is an interesting perspective. For this conversation where 2 machines are being compared, this basically equates to : The more junk you dig, the less likely you are to miss something. Right ? Thus meaning that the machine which results in more-junk-dug, is the better option. Lest you risk missing something. Have I understood you correctly ?

Then my observations are :

a) A user of an Etrac/Exp can accomplish the same thing (ie.: more junk) by simply lowering his disc settings criteria (whether via mentally, or by his settings).

b) It is true that a person willing to "strip-mine" will indeed find something that the person who is "cherry picking" will miss. But there's another factor involved, that .... by the end of the day .... favors the person who was being selective : Time. There is only so many targets a person can dig in a day.

For example, I've had this discussion with someone, when it came to junky turf : Their strategy was to practically "dig all" . Ie.: "lest you miss a gold ring or nickel". And don't pass shallow clad "lest you miss an old coin that happened to be shallow", etc.... In other words, they thought they could have the "best of both worlds", by entering a strip-mine method. But at the end of the day, as we each looked at our targets, it was predictable : Them : 2 wheaties and an apron full of clad, junk, and ... woohooo a single orange-crud V-nickel. Me: a dozen or 15 wheaties, a few silver dimes, and very few clad or junk.

Now ... yes ....I understand that my strategy missed the V-nickel. Granted. But if the question-to-start with had been : "Which tactic produced more old coins ? " I think you can see that sometimes there is not the option of "best of both worlds". And even to whatever extent I chose the other person's strip-mine strategy, I could equally have done the same with my Exp. II, by simply digging all the other targets, rather than being picky. Ie.: there's nothing to stop an Exp II user from likewise lowering his criteria.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/11/2019 01:55PM by Tom_in_CA.

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

>
> The OP asked about the Etrac, not the Exp2, which
> is different in many ways, tonally, operationally,
> etc. Definitely a deep silver hunter, no question
> about it, but it's not the same thing, else there
> would be no need for two different models and name
> s.

The Etrac and Exp 2 are not that far apart tonally. They are very similar. The Etrac suffered some criticism because silver dimes and copper pennies were harder to differentiate (thus some people preferred staying with the Exp 2). But other than that, the tones were about the same. The depth was about the same. The abilities were about the same, etc.... It was just whistles and bells changes. And I'm sure you know that MD manufacturers routinely roll out new models that are not-that-much-different than their predecessors. Yes, sometimes something "completely new". But other times .... just whistles and bells packaging.


>
> That said, I think Steve hit the nail on the head,
> extensive use of both = a fair comparison.
> TomCA continues trying to get people that are prim
> arily relic hunters to participate in his turf hun
> ting duel with his 20 years of turf hunting experi
> ence on the Exp2, and thus far that has been a fai
> l.


I believe that any experience ratio differences can be compensated and factored in, once you realize that we're not just "counting end results of who-got-the-most-oldies". We are, in fact, trying over flagged signals. Such that each person has ample time to try a myriad of settings over "known spots". And then can honestly ask himself : "Can I tell that apart from the squeeks and squawks elsewhere here ?" In other words, such that no-amount-of added time trying various settings, and no amount of additional years of practice, is going to change those outcomes.

Also, how can 2 people EVER compare machines ? If ever one machine *appeared* to be hauling in more goodies, the other person/machine simply announces : "Oh, you must have more experience than me". Do you see how that fall-back (sincere as it may be) becomes bullet-proof to shoot down any effort to compare machines ? It's NEVER that one machine doesn't have an edge in some department. It will always be chalked up to "gee I guess I need more practice years".

Not trying to downplay experience. But just trying to say : At SOME point, people DO make decisions on machines, based on viewable results (ie.: testing), and that at some point they do not chalk it up to "need more decades of practice".

> I know he'll challenge me on this, and poo poo
> the EMI issue on the San Francisco site he keeps t
> rying to challenge the Equinox to as an "excuse",
> which so far has only proven that the Exp2 seems t
> o handle EMI better then the EQ800.

Huh ? No, I totally get it. Don't you recall that's why we continued tests at the Oakland spot next ? Yes I totally agree that if a certain geographic area of EMI affects only 1 model/brand, then yes, that's an unfair comparisons. Because so-too have my Exp. II found itself odd-ball site-shutdowns. This is why Greg and I were/are trying to figure out when this factor comes into play. So that if it's ... say .... 6am when the city is waking up, then we only review comparisons and tallies from before 6am, for instance. But yes, you are right : Perhaps that SF zone should not be even talked about. And which is why , as I said, we are trying other areas too, where he feels like outside interference isn't giving his Nox a handicap.

> I can say tha
> t in relic environments, be it a demo scrape or ol
> d relic hunting site the Exp2 has not bested the E
> quinox.

Seems to be about a draw so far. Sometimes I spank, sometimes you spank. All in all, about 50/50. But I know that I would not be able to compete in a carpet bed of nails. I'm sure the Nox would have settings to allow you to see through better. And then I'd be reaching for my Bandido. So for sake of discussion (since some demolition and ghost-town sites are indeed iron beds), that what you are saying is the case. Yet, for purposes of the current discussion, it was only for deep-coin hunting in junky turf. Hence wasn't about demo's, relicky sites, etc.....



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/11/2019 02:17PM by Tom_in_CA.

Tom,

The one thing I still say, above all, is that the BEST test, the more "telling" test, as opposed to a head-to-head duel between two detectorists, is having the duel with YOURSELF. When you KNOW the site you are hunting, you KNOW what the site tends to produce, on average, on a given hunt, and you hunt the site using two different machines over the course of several different hunts, THIS is the "best" test, IMO. If one machine produces more "good finds" FOR YOU, than another machine, then you know which one is the better machine FOR YOU. And I can say that my silver/old coin digs have increased a bit, while my JUNK digs have NOT increased, since switching to the Equinox. For me, that is really the only "duel" I need, to determine which machine is better. And for whatever reason, that is the ONE duel, that you refuse to enter into...

Steve

steveg Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Tom,
>
> The one thing I still say, above all, is that the
> BEST test, the more "telling" test, as opposed to
> a head-to-head duel between two detectorists, is h
> aving the duel with YOURSELF.

Actually, no. Because if a person only-ever compares machines on-his-own (heaven forbid he buddies up with friends ? ), then there will forever be the nagging question : "Maybe I'm not setting it right ? " "Maybe I'm not interpreting the sounds right ?", etc....

For example: Back when the Explorers first came out (1999 to 2000-ish), a fellow in my area got one of the first XS's to be seen around here. Because he'd read on forums that it was the "cat's meow". He was strictly using it on the beach, but encouraged me to borrow it, and put it through some paces in turf hunting . I took it out to a local school yard, that I was relatively certain I could angle for deep whisper wheaties and silver. But after an hour, I gave up. The flock of sick-geese-sounds was more than I could take. Everything sounded the same.

Then about a year or two later, I bumped into another CA hunter, who was routinely pulling silver from a certain park, in a certain city, that I knew for a fact was a difficult worked out park. I found out that he was using an Explorer (the Exp 2 by this time). We eventually hooked up for some side-by-side testings and flaggings. After 5 or 6 such flags, it was become PAINFULLY OBVIOUS that he was doing something that my current arsenal could not. No matter how much I fiddled with my Whites settings (decades of experience), I had to admit that his machine was getting oldies I wouldn't have noticed.

So I rushed out and bought an Exp 2. Took it to the same local school yard (as the one I'd tried the XS at a few years earlier), and .... again , found myself hating this Explorer. Yet THIS time I knew it was me doing something wrong. Since I'd seen, firsthand, the machine in the hands of an experienced user. So I begged the fellow for another meeting. We again met up in the agreed upon city, and this time, he flagged targets for me. Un-plugged his jack so I could hear what he was hearing. I watched the way he wiggled/swung his coil. I listened to what he was trying to isolate.

After 2 or 3 such sample wheaties/silver, the LIGHTS WENT ON.

Do you see then, how in some cases: A person on-his-own (comparing flagged targets between his existing and-a-new machine) is NOT conclusive ? Do you see how : If you have someone who is finding oldies, and claims to have mastered it, and claims it spanks his prior machines, then that's ALL THE MORE REASON to buddy up with THAT PERSON to compare ? Then you have 2 users, of 2 different machines, who are saying "my machine spanks". As opposed to a single user, who is NOT making such a claim , and has no experience, & is not qualified to be making concrete conclusions.

And as for hobbyist forum discussions, on the pro's & con's of various machines : The fastest way to get an opinion tossed out as irrelevant, is to say : I compared it to my existing arsenal, and found it lacking. Anyone else commenting would quickly say: "That's because you don't know how to use it correctly" and/or "need more practice". Yet the same can not be said of someone who is ALREADY "reeling in the oldies" and already "has results" and already "has experience".

Thus, no, the better method is to buddy up and compare results with persons who are already fluent on a machine.

How does the CTX 3030 compare with the Nox?

tabman

Tom,

I get what you are saying, I really do. And YES, there is value in "hunting with a buddy," and "comparing flagged targets." As a matter of fact, my FAVORITE guys to hunt with, are guys who enjoy it when one of us finds an "interesting" target (interesting meaning maybe it sounds like a definite, deep coin, or interesting because perhaps it's a challenging target that has some uncertainty to it, whatever), and then will call the other guy over to "compare signals." To me, it's PRICELESS to do this. Whether the two guys are using the same machine, different machines, whatever, it is SO educational to have BOTH guys listen to the un-dug target, discuss what they think the target is after a thorough interrogation (assuming both guys' machines can see/detect the target), and then watch the target get dug, and receive the ANSWER as to what was being heard. So I am NOT, in any way, discounting the idea of two guys, who are both good hunters, comparing their results on flagged targets.

AND -- yes, if you don't "know" a machine, you won't do as well with it, as you would your "go-to" unit. Obviously. But you MISSED MY POINT. I was not saying, pick up a machine, with no clue how to use it, and see if it "beats" your "go-to" unit. My point was, COMMIT to learning a machine fully. THEN, once you've learned it, compare it to your prior unit, find-wise! THAT is the part you don't seem to be willing to do.

Now, I know you will say that you don't want to "waste your time" spending all that valuable time and effort learning a new machine IF, in the end, that machine is a "dud," and is nowhere near able to compete with your EX2. You will then have wasted a bunch of effort mastering something that -- even when mastered -- is inferior...so why did you even bother?

BUT -- that's where MY point comes in. If you trust ME, at all, and I tell you that I swung an Explorer for seven years, dug hundreds and hundreds of deep, old coins from "hunted out" old parks, and then I DID invest the time to learn the Equinox, and that I am now doing at least as well, if not a bit better, at finding deep, old coins, with my EQX vs. my old Explorer, then THAT should be giving you an important data point. Then, if others, who were also former FBS users, tell you that they too are using the Equinox in similar scenarios as you would -- deep turf coin hunting -- and, like me, are doing as well or better with the Equinox as compared to their prior success with FBS, then those should be ADDITIONAL data points. And then, if NASA-Tom tells you that, from an engineering and testing perspective, FBS and Multi-IQ both test basically equivalent in his dirt -- 12" on a dime, THAT should be giving you an additional, important data point. And to me, the summation of all those "data points" should be enough to give you the confidence to KNOW that if you invest the time to learn the Equinox YOURSELF, you would NOT be "wasting your time" on a "dud" machine. If you cannot -- at this point -- agree in your mind that the Equinox is CLEARLY not a dud, and that the MANY hunters who were prior FBS users but are now EQX users are equaling or out-doing THEMSELVES is evidence of that, then I have to question whether it is pride/arrogance that is the issue.

I applaud a "show me" attitude, a "skeptical" mindset. I really do. There is wisdom in that. But, I also know that there is wisdom in allowing the experiences of other "experts," to carry SOME weight, as well. In this case, the experiences of other detectorists I have respect for should be enough to at least SUGGEST to me which machines may be worthy of me committing my time and efforts to performing my OWN experimenting, to try and replicate their results...

Just my opinions...

Steve

steveg Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Tom,
>
> I get what you are saying, I really do. And YES,
> there is value in "hunting with a buddy," and "com
> paring flagged targets." As a matter of fact,

Good conversation Steve. I would totally go to the step # 2, that you describe . Namely : Learning a machine for oneself , to make the final decision on whether to switch. However, as we both agree, this step #2 arrives AFTER the guy sees step #1: Himself getting spanked by skilled-users of that other machine.

Ie.: Step #1 , THEN Step #2. So far, I have not seen step #1 done, to me personally. I've read testimonials (like yours and others), but haven't yet seen it done to me. Perhaps that might happen . Just as it did in the example I gave of my conversion over to ML's in the first place. But as of yet, have not seen such-a-feat accomplished in park hunting . And as for relying merely on testimonials: So too do you see other voices, like Harold and detectingMO, who are not coming to that conclusion. So in other words: The testimonials, while interesting, can be conflicting.

And for that matter, let's be honest .... there are glowing testimonials for just about ANY machine (Ace 250, etc....). So while testimonials are good to get the ball-started (ie.: pique curiosity), yet ..... Step #1, in my mind's eyes, is to have a skilled user show me stuff , that turns out to be a deep oldie, that I would admit I would not have found on my own.

I've dug 77 deep silver coins so far this year. I strongly prefer the Etrac to my Equinox. I don't bother using the Equinox except to 1) clean up a site for the last few masked coins that the Etrac can't find, 2) detect in the rain, or 3) detect when I'm too tired to swing the Etrac, or 4) detect on vacation when traveling by plane.

The Equinox has an inaccurate depth gauge. That alone is enough to make me prefer the Etrac. When the oldies are at 6 inches and deeper, I don't want to waste time on clad at 4 inches with inaccurate depth readings from the Equinox. The pinpoint function on the Equinox is also profoundly inferior.

I've made some great finds with the Equinox, sometimes as if by magic in areas that I have pounded with the Etrac. However, the Etrac is my primary machine, and the Equinox is a cleanup and specialty machine.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/11/2019 05:20PM by Bayard.