E trac or equinox 800

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 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

Steve I completely concur with this, and this has become my litmus test methodology as well. This is exactly the type of "duel" that I performed on many different sites between my Makro / Nokta machines that conclusively told me for MY sites that the Mak/Nok machines were superior to my aging F75 LTD/LTD2. TomCA would almost always spank me at our relic sites with his Exp2 when I was using my F75, which he's always point out, and even after trying a few different types of detectors he was still typically doing better. It wasn't until the red Racer got into my hands that the tables turned. The finds speak for themselves, after trying this at a multitude of different types of sites, the results were always the same (for me, YMMV), my target counts significantly increased, both for deep silver as well as masked conductors in general. At one particular civil war era Union Army camp I first detected it with the F75, then went over the same ground with my red Racer. The Racer doubled my period target count, and that was AFTER the F75, that was an eye opener. Even TomCA raised an eyebrow after I started using the Mak/Nok machines at our sites.

I was really hoping that Tom would've kept the EQ800 he originally had, but the high price they were getting when they initially came out won, and it was quickly sold off. I still believe that if he'd pick one up, and use it for six months, that he would really like it, but he continues to look for this "silver bullet" test. No worries, keep using the Explorer, it works great for him, but the continuous "dueling" challenges are starting to feel like picking at a scab that won't heal.

Bayard Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I strongly prefer the Etrac to my Equinox.

Then I'm curious how you respond to the counter-point, that your preference: *Merely* means you haven't had enough/hours practice on the Nox ? Ie.: That whatever differences you are sensing (which drive your preferences), are not based on actual ability of the machines in question. But instead are only based on your "lack of years of effort" ? How do you respond to that ?

Tom_in_CA Wrote:

>
> Then I'm curious how you respond to the counter-p
> oint, that your preference: *Merely* means you ha
> ven't had enough/hours practice on the Nox ? Ie.:
> That whatever differences you are sensing (which
> drive your preferences), are not based on actual a
> bility of the machines in question. But instead
> are only based on your "lack of years of effort" ?
> How do you respond to that ?

I've owned an Equinox since February 2018. After a thaw in the weather, I was out swinging it on February 27th of that year, and have used it regularly ever since. I own all three coils for it, on extra upper and lower rods for quick changes.

I've set the tones and tone break to mimic my Etrac. My Equinox is set up for finding deep silver coins.

I've found deep silver coins with it in both Illinois and Florida. I've used it on every silver-coin-producing site that I have pounded with the Etrac in the past. On some trashy sites, it made some great additional finds. On other sites, it didn't find anything beyond what the Etrac found.

I'm a competent Equinox user, understanding both the capabilities and limitations of the machine. The Etrac is a precision instrument, superior to the Equinox in every way except unmasking and finding surface targets. On most of my sites, the difference in unmasking is only worth a few extra finds. In the limited time I have available for detecting, I believe that my finds are maximized by primarily relying on the Etrac and using the Equinox for cleanup work.

I had mentioned that it would be nice to have both a Nox (multi-IQ) and FBS machine....Etrac / Explorer. FBS performance is neck and neck for experienced users of each model. Never had a CTX so cant comment. The Nox solved the weakness of the FBS by its great umasking abillity. At the cost of ID accuracy. Sometimes one has to cherry pick (Etrac), especially if you have one shot at a location and limited on time or perhaps your in a delicate location that you can't do a lot of digging ...."footprints". There isnt a perfect machine.....Nokta is trying really hard....LOL. Use the proper machine to fit the site conditions and you will have more good finds.Happy hunting everyone.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/12/2019 01:37AM by Arkansas.

Tom_in_CA Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Good conversation Steve. I would totally go to
> the step # 2, that you describe . Namely : Learn
> ing a machine for oneself , to make the final deci
> sion on whether to switch. However, as we both
> agree, this step #2 arrives AFTER the guy s
> ees step #1: Himself getting spanked by skilled-u
> sers of that other machine.

Tom, I think this is where we differ. Step 1, for me, doesn't HAVE to require myself getting "spanked" by someone, to initiate my interest. Sure, if I have a buddy that consistently out-hunts me, with his unit, I stand up and take notice. Like you, that's how I moved over to Minelab/FBS in the first place. But, there's another "step 1" for me, that suffices at times. ASSUMING that I think, based on the design of a unit, that it MIGHT be one that I would have some interest in for my type of hunting, then I am willing to consider an "alternative" Step 1. This "alternative" is -- if there are folks on the forums who I trust, who I've come to respect over the years, and who have gained a good deal of experience on this machine that is piquing my curiosity, and if THEY are telling me that THEY are having success in similar conditions as mine, hunting targets that I hunt, what I can begin to conclude is that the success they are having on these specific targets, is indicative that the unit in question is a "top-tier" unit, and THAT IS ENOUGH for me, to consider buying said unit. That specific type of testimony, validated by a similar testimony from others that I trust, is enough of a "Step 1" for me, to get me to seriously consider committing to mastering this particular unit, and then doing my OWN "duel" as I described before (i.e. me vs. me, over time, using my "go-to" machine, and this "new" machine). So, no, I don't REQUIRE someone ELSE to "beat" me, in person (though it is persuasive when that happens, in a case where we had been comparing/flagging targets). This other "Step 1" that I have outlined, is equally effective/persuasive, for me.

> Ie.: Step #1 , THEN Step #2. So f
> ar, 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 t
> hat 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 relyin
> g merely on testimonials:

Remember, I am not saying "rely on testimonials" to determine -- rashly and blindly -- which machine is "better" for you, and your targets, at your sites. I am saying "rely on testimonials" (from folks who you trust and have earned your respect) to help you determine whether a machine might be worth the effort to put your OWN time and effort into learning it, so that you can have your OWN duel, with YOURSELF. THAT is what I am saying these testimonials can do. There is a distinct difference there. Sort of a "trust, but verify" type of thing. Don't straw-man it into being "Steve says to just rely on others' testimonials to make the decision as to what machine you should choose to make your "go-to" machine."

Let's use a golf club example. Say I buy a new driver, driver B, that perhaps has a larger "sweet spot," that my prior driver, driver A, and thus permits more consistently long drives. Meanwhile, you are currently a user of driver A -- that same driver I USED to use, before switching to driver B. So, let's say that you saw "driver B" in a golf shop, and were somewhat intrigued by it, and are trying to decide whether you should get one to "test" it. In this scenario, which is the better reason for you to consider buying driver B -- that you challenge me to a long-drive contest, and I "spank" you, or we have a discussion about driver B, and I relate to you that I've done a good bit of testing, and I've found that driver B allows me an average of 20 yards more distance. What matters, in my mind, is LESS about whether I "spank" you, in the long-drive contest. What SHOULD matter MORE, in my opinion, is that I am finding a 20-yard improvement in MY drives, compared to my old driver (the one that you use). Whether I spank you, or you spank me, in that long-drive contest, is to me less "relevant" than the results of the "me vs. me" testing, that showed that driver B allows me 20 more yards of distance. Thus, there's reason to believe it MIGHT allow YOU additional distance, too. It does NOT guarantee it; you may find you still like your older driver better. But, it DEFINITELY proves that, at least for some people, driver B can permit better performance.


>So too do you see othe
> r voices, like Harold and detectingMO, who are not
> coming to that conclusion. So in other words:
> The testimonials, while interesting, can be confli
> cting.

Conflicting testimonials do not mean a lot, to me. Here's why. The question at hand is, can the Equinox successfully, effectively (i.e. on par with FBS) find deep silver, while not requiring "strip-mining," In other words, can one dig similar targets, with a similar trash-to-treasure ratio, with an EQX, as one can with an EX2. Right? So, if several folks with plenty of expertise/experience, and who are trustworthy, say that YES, they are finding an equal, or even greater, number of deep silver coins amongst trash, WITHOUT increasing their trash digs, with the Equinox, as compared to FBS, then THAT IS ALL THAT SHOULD MATTER. WHY? Because THOSE folks just proved that the machine is CAPABLE of matching or exceeding FBS (once properly learned). If NO ONE has found the EQX capable of equaling or besting the EX2, then THAT ALSO means something. But, if even a FEW have managed to best the EX2, that MEANS something. It suggests something, about the capability of the EQX.

Consider the others, in this thread, whom you mentioned, and who have chimed in. They feel that the Equinox was inferior FOR THEM. Who can argue with that? Did they not give it enough time to master the EQX? Maybe. Is it their soil? Maybe. Do they simply not "click" with the unit? Maybe. Did they have a bias, a "mental block" where they really never gave it a fair shake against their "tried and trusted" unit? Maybe. Did they get a bad unit? Maybe. Does their brain "sync" better with the tones, or the nuances, of their FBS unit, as compared to the EQX? Maybe. It DOESN'T MATTER to me. I'm not taking a poll of "how many people like FBS better, and how many like the EQX better," and then summing the totals. That's not what I do, to determine if I should try a new machine. What I am doing INSTEAD, is listening to people, whom I trust, who HAVE demonstrated that THEY are having equal or better results, on deep coins, in trashy parks, without increasing their trash digs. Because IF those folks DO exist, then THAT PROVES THAT THE MACHINE IS CAPABLE of besting FBS. And isn't that the REAL question? Isn't that what you are TRYING to figure out? CAN the EQX best your EX2? Obviously, it won't best FBS for EVERYONE who tries it, but if there are some who can coax better performance from the EQX than FBS, that proves to me that the machine IS TECHNOLOGICALLY CAPABLE of achieving the depth, separation, etc. to "run with" FBS. Having folks who "disagree," and prefer FBS, does NOT "disprove" the results of those who have tested and found the EQX to be CAPABLE of besting FBS.
>
> And for that matter, let's be honest .... there ar
> e glowing testimonials for just about ANY machine
> (Ace 250, etc....).

Now you are REALLY straw-manning it. I never said "if a machine has a user who gives it a glowing testimonial, that this machine should then become your go-to machine!" But, if YOU, Tom, told me that you bought an Ace 250, took a couple of years to really learn it, and have found that it achieves equal depth to you EX2 in your turf, AND that you are equaling, or even slightly exceeding, your old coin counts, while NOT increasing the amount of trash you are digging, compared to your EX2, then THAT SPECIFIC testimony would cause me to sit up, take notice, and try to corroborate -- i.e. find OTHER folks I trust who have had that same experience. I don't care if 50 people say "the Ace sucks." What matters is that if I trust YOU, and your methodology, and your intelligence, and YOU say that you've proven to yourself that the Ace hangs neck-and-neck with your EX2, than that means something to me.

OTHERWISE, however, 50 people (whom I don't know, haven't come to trust, and have no idea who they are or what they do or don't know) telling me that "the Ace rocks!" means absolutely nothing to me.

>So while testimonials are g
> ood 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 b
> e a deep oldie, that I would admit I would not hav
> e found on my own.

Again, the difference between you and I seems to be, I am willing to have TWO "Step #1's" that I allow to carry weight. SURE, the results of head-to-head testing, while flagging targets, and comparing machine responses, would be a sufficient "Step 1" for me (assuming I am a similarly skilled detectorist to you). But I ALSO allow my requirements for a "Step #1" to be satisfied by the testimony, of folks I trust, whose methodologies and experience I trust, and who are long-time users of MY preferred machine, if they tell me that their testing shows that this NEW machine equals or betters their previous "go-to" unit, in the same settings as I hunt, for the same targets I hunt...

Steve

It is implied that one cannot "cherry-pick" with an Equinox, but I am able to "cherry pick" quite well, with mine...again, very similar to how I was able to "cherry pick" with my Explorer, or my CTX...

Steve

Arkansas Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I had mentioned that it would be nice to have both
> a Nox (multi-IQ) and FBS machine....Etrac / Explor
> er. FBS performance is neck and neck for experienc
> ed users of each model. Never had a CTX so cant co
> mment. The Nox solved the weakness of the FBS by i
> ts great umasking abillity. At the cost of ID accu
> racy. Sometimes one has to cherry pick (Etrac), es
> pecially if you have one shot at a location and li
> mited on time or perhaps your in a delicate locati
> on that cant a lot of digging ...."footprints". Th
> ere isnt a perfect machine.....Nokta is trying rea
> lly hard. Use the proper machine to fit the site c
> onditions and you will have more good finds.Happy
> hunting everyone.

steveg Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> 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.

Totally agree, this is valuable, as a learning aid. We do this frequently when relic hunting and get an oddball or interesting signal to investigate.


> 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 Equino
> x 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" mind set. 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 t
> heir results...
>
> Just my opinions...
>
> Steve


Thank you, you've said exactly what I've been trying to say since day one!

Tom_in_CA Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> 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.

Geesh it's like watching a dog trying to catch his own tail

After two years I believe the Equinox has surpassed the flavor of the month.

Arkansas Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>.... At the cost of ID accuracy.

HHhhhmmmm

steveg Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> ...Tom, I think this is where we diffe
> r. Step 1, for me, doesn't HAVE to require myself
> getting "spanked" by someone, to initiate ...

Steve, thankyou for the detailed reply .

The fastest way to reply to everything you're saying, is this : It is EXACTLY what you have written, which causes my interest to be piqued. And it is exactly what you've written, which causes me to want to look into the machine. And it is exactly what you've written, which causes me to think "someone ought to be able to kick my B#tt with that", if it's as pronounced as-they-say. And it is exactly what you've written, which causes me to want to say: "Let's see it".

But no, I can not progress to step # 2, until I've seen it personally . Because I know all-too-well, that ... if I can't arrive at the "stuff Steve & others have written" (ie.: that it's the cat's-meow Exp. killer in turf), then : That means nothing at all. That only means I wasn't doing it right. Eh ? So the respected testimonials, to me, simply mean : I would love to meet up with someone who can show me that (ie.: kick my b*tt), and then .... yes, I'd turn over heaven and earth THEN to figure out how they did it.

Here's what I mean: See this quote from you : " Did they not give it enough time to master the EQX? Maybe."

See ? That's exactly what the push-back would be, for anyone who didn't come away with the Exp-killer results: It's never that the Exp. wasn't killed. It's only that they didn't give it enough time. But don't you see that this push-back can be never-ending ? If it's a year, then they should have gone 2 years. If they did it 2 yrs, then they should have gone 4 yr. If they did it 4 yrs, then they should have given it 8 yrs . And so on till infinity. There can NEVER be any conclusion. No machines can EVER be pitted against each other. See ?

Any machine can be used to cherry pick. The point is, if you have more than one model, choose the best for the job. For me it is whatever I own that has the most accurate ID at depth. If you have just one metal detector try slowing down, adjusting the settings or using a different coil to see if that helps with ID accuracy. Some other models offer the use of a concentric coil....this will help in a high bottle cap area. Perhaps some seasoned Nox users can offer some tips or settings to help with cherry picking. Thanks

Tom_in_CA Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> steveg Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > ...Tom, I think this is where we differ. Step 1, for me, doesn't HAVE to require myself getting "spanked" by someone, to initiate ...
>
> Steve, thankyou for the detailed reply .
>
> The fastest way to reply to everything you're saying, is this : It is EXACTLY what you have written, which causes my interest to be piqued. And it is exactly what you've written, which causes me to want to look into the machine. And it is exactly
> what you've written, which causes me to think "someone ought to be able to kick my B#tt with that",if it's as pronounced as-they-say. And it is exactly what you've written, which causes me to want to say: "Let's see it".
>
> But no, I can not progress to step # 2, until I've seen it personally . Because I know all-too-well, that ... if I can't arrive at the "stuff Steve & others have written" (ie.: that it's the cat's -meow Exp. killer in turf), then : That means nothing at all. That only means I wasn't doing it right. Eh ? So the respected testimonials, to me, simply mean : I would love to meet up with someone who can show me that (ie.: kick my b*tt), and then .... yes, I'd turn over heaven and earth THEN to figure out how they did it.
>
> Here's what I mean: See this quote from you : " Did they not give it enough time to master the EQX? Maybe."
>
> See ? That's exactly what the push-back would be, for anyone who didn't come away with the Exp-killer results: It's never that the Exp. wasn't killed. It's only that they didn't give it enough time .

> But don't you see that this push-back can be never-ending ?

> If it's a year, then they should have gone 2 years. If they did it 2 yrs, then they should have gone 4 yr. If they did it 4 yrs, then they should have given it 8 yrs . And so
> on till infinity. There can NEVER be any conclusion. No machines can EVER be pitted against each other. See ?

Honestly the only thing I see as never ending is your constant challenging of the Equinox It's reminiscent of the treasurenet LRL forums

...why not give it a rest until you run into someone with Steve's level of expertise and experience turf hunting if that's what you think you need to convince yourself?

You know I hate turf hunting, Greg's not a turf hunter either, so we're obviously not the right people for your challenge. Take Steveg up on his offer to accept your challenge so we can move on.....I'm sure between here and Oklahoma (correct me if I'm wrong Steve), there has to be ample parkland with deep and plentiful silver to chase?

IMO, something that will rarely if ever is seen, would be a double-blind detector test (neither the tester or testee knows what/where the target is) performed on in-place test-bed targets with various people testing the same model detector they pretend to know and let them adjust it as much as they like to try and acquire the target. That's a real contest. I don't care that different soils, target types, target separation, coils, masking, and a thousand other variables that differ and cannot be controlled for at the same time. For example, a dozen people tried and failed to acquire a silver coin at 14" but one detector managed it in one particular setting. Great, that data point means something based on the standards employed. Another day and another place, likely different results, but that data point can be extrapolated to your situation (rightly or wrongly).

If a new detector pulls coins out of a hunted out sight, what does that indicate? It obviously wasn't hunted out, so stop saying that phrase. Too many unknown variables in the field to make claims of "hunted-out." The better results with a new detector may be soil-related, EMI-related, the expectation of the person, dumb luck, and could have little to do with the new machine's capabilities. I know the Ace 250 is better than the 3030 because I've tested them together -- but the 3030 excels in other areas that the 250 fails at -- so many conditional variables to take into account. The best, I think, the choice is to eliminate as many variables as possible. In the end, the determination of the "best" is a subjective extrapolation of limited data points from poorly executed tests, which probably does not justify the confidence level people have in their detector. You'd have no way of knowing if you have the right machine or the best settings without creating a rigorously controlled test (which is hard to do so it is almost never done). Seem that, if a so-called trustworthy "experienced" detectorist says the machine is "better," then the herd stampedes in that direction, until the next new thing heads them off in another direction. They might be right, they might be wrong, there is no absolute ground truth, limited ability to do due diliginece, just heaps of shifting sand and flying hooves, so caveat emptor.

For whatever it's worth...

I hunt on & off with a couple of silver slayers. Tom knows who they are here in So Cal. One uses an Etrac and the other an Explorer SE.
I have hundreds of hours on my Nox 600 and recently added the 800. I cut my teeth on the Safari so I'm familiar with the FBS similarities re tones, depth, etc. I've found a lot of silver with the Safari.
This past Sunday, we worked a couple of pounded L.A. parks. And as usual, I struggled to keep up with their individual coin counts. I'm talking deep coins. These guys are good at bringing up the deep high conductors from among the iron & trash. My ears simply do not have the training yet to be at their level of metal detecting. We worked side-by-side on small barren patches of dirt and at the end of the day, I had 8 wheats, 1 rosie and 2 silver rings. They EACH had 30 + wheats, 6 silver coins, a couple of rings and small jewelry items. I could not locate the deeper coins and I'm hunting at max settings on sens, volume, rec speed 4, zero IB, zero disc, 50 tones, F2-0...you know the drill.
These 2 know their detectors extremely well. They have many years on these machines and they have mastered them. Completely tuned in as the old cliche goes..."they have become one with their machine" Unmasking, trash, iron, etc, makes no difference from what I can tell...they hear targets that I don't. They just simply know how to get around this stuff by many years of experience on their machines.
Honestly, I can't say that between these 3 machines, one is better over the other. Thus far, the Nox has not out-performed my Safari (they are about equal) and for sure it's abilities to out-perform the Etrac or Explorer, I've have yet to witness.
Due to the weight of the FBS machines, I was forced to swing the Nox. At this point in time, I'm fairly tuned into it and I will stay with it. I can only expand on my knowledge with this machine and through time, educating my ears to what its tones are saying...then maybe, someday, I'll be just as proficient as these 2 silver slayers.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/12/2019 04:08AM by Happa54.

Learn to setup the Etrac correctly it will go through a carpet of iron and detect the coin. You tube it. Best ID machine and tones of adjustability. Probably the best coin detector out there.

Happa54 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> For whatever it's worth...
>
> I hunt on & off with a couple of silver slayers. T
> om knows who they are here in So Cal. One uses an
> Etrac and the other an Explorer SE.
> I have hundreds of hours on my Nox 600 and recentl
> y added the 800. I cut my teeth on the Safari so I
> 'm familiar with the FBS similarities re tones, de
> pth, etc. I've found a lot of silver with the Safa
> ri.
> This past Sunday, we worked a couple of pounded L.
> A. parks. And as usual, I struggled to keep up wit
> h their individual coin counts. I'm talking deep c
> oins. These guys are good at bringing up the deep
> high conductors from among the iron & trash. My ea
> rs simply do not have the training yet to be at th
> eir level of metal detecting. We worked side-by-si
> de on small barren patches of dirt and at the end
> of the day, I had 8 wheats, 1 rosie and 2 silver r
> ings. They EACH had 30 + wheats, 6 silver coins, a
> couple of rings and small jewelry items. I could n
> ot locate the deeper coins and I'm hunting at max
> settings on sens, volume, rec speed 4, zero IB, ze
> ro disc, 50 tones, F2-0...you know the drill.
> These 2 know their detectors extremely well. They
> have many years on these machines and they have ma
> stered them. Completely tuned in as the old cliche
> goes..."they have become one with their machine" U
> nmasking, trash, iron, etc, makes no difference fr
> om what I can tell...they hear targets that I don'
> t. They just simply know how to get around this st
> uff by many years of experience on their machines.
> Honestly, I can't say that between these 3 machine
> s, one is better over the other.

Good post Happa-54. Yes I know the people you are referring to. And , they, like me , would jump at a switch if results-could-be-shown-to-them.

Regarding the part of your post I put in bold italics above : Do you think there is ever a point-in-time when/where the results you are observing, could be due to machine differences ? Or do the results always/only/ever mean : It is simply that your ears are not trained ? Curious why that is ? Why can't someone come to the conclusion that maybe some machines excel in certain situations ?



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 11/12/2019 05:32AM by Tom_in_CA.

FBS machines absolutely, positively excel in turf-type hunting situations, when the objective is "deep coins." There, I said it. And it wasn't even difficult for me to do so. Fact is, if you do a search on my username, and look at my posts going back 7-8 years, you will see me reiterating this point REPEATEDLY. Debating naysayers, on this very point, in fact. I have long said that IF deep coin hunting is your SOLE objective, in a hammered, public park-type environ, FBS is at the very top of the heap.

But, I have had to revise that statement in the past 20 months. Because now, my Equinox also excels in turf-type hunting situations, when the objective is "deep coins." Why can't YOU come to THAT conclusion?! (That's rhetorical...no need to answer it).

But I WILL ask you one question...one that is NOT rhetorical. Why do you seem unwilling to acknowledge that "experience" and "expertise" is a "trump card," in terms of detecting -- and that this "trump card" applies, even in a "compare signals" scenario?

Example. I am hunting with a friend, who is rather new to the Equinox. I hit a deep target that -- while of course not generating "proper" or "air-test" type VDI numbers, and offering a rather "subtle" audio presentation -- I have learned, through experience, is the type of signal that can be indicative of being a very deep coin. SO, I call my buddy over. I ask him to give a listen. He works the target, circles the target, changes a few settings...and I ask him "would you dig that?" He says "I HEAR it, but no, I would not dig that...it does not sound like a good target, to me." So, I proceed to dig the target, and it's a 10" deep Merc. We repeat this same scenario a couple more times during the day, as we continue to hunt. At the end of the day, I have a handful of wheats, two silver dimes, a silver quarter, and a V nickel. He has two wheats. What do we conclude? I just "spanked" him. My machine must be a better machine than his, at deep turf-type coin hunting...right? Except...we are using the same machine. Same settings.

Experience matters. Knowing your machine matters. Knowing the nuances of an "iffy" or "fringe-depth" target, as it presents itself on YOUR MACHINE, matters.

Why do you seem to discount this?

Steve

steveg Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
...
>
> Why do you seem to discount this?
>
>

Steve, good discussion. And since this question is not rhetorical, here's the answer :

I do not discount experience and skill, as being part of the equation in all of this discussion.

And once "experience and skill" are factored into it (ie.: each machine-user is top-of-his-game), THEN : We should start to be able to look at field test results. Right ? Eg.: 1) flagged signal "call" comparisons, 2) end-tallies, over many hunts (to erase for random bad-hair-day results, etc...). Right ?

For example, based on what I'm reading, you would be someone who has attained to that level. Thus .... if you and I were to compare flagged signals, make "calls" over flagged signals, in an area devoid of any outside influences (EMI), then ..... it seems that the results should tell us something. Right ? If I got my butt kicked, I'd take notice. If you got your butt kicked, you'd take notice, etc... Right ?

Tom,

Two answers.

First, I consider myself a decent detectorist. But, you -- I think -- are a good bit more skilled than I. Hand me my old Explorer (or CTX or Equinox), and turn us both loose in a park, I expect you will have a good many more "goodies" in your pouch, at the end of the hunt. Consistently.

Second, while I feel there are many others who are simply more skilled/experienced than I, I do believe that I'm experienced ENOUGH, that yes, on flagged signals in particular, I think we could do a decent comparison between the two machines. I do believe that, as you said, "the results should tell us something." But, on flagged signals, my guess would be that NEITHER of us would receive a "spanking." It would be much more "subtle." The two machines are similar enough with respect to ability, that either one would give dig-me signals, I believe, on a vast majority of flagged targets...


BUT, where we differ is, I do NOT believe that one hunter "at the top of his game" necessarily equals another hunter "at the top of HIS game."

Example. There's a friend that lives about an hour from me, who I used to occasionally hunt with. And this guy, simply, has a "6th sense" when it comes to pulling non-ferrous targets out of iron. I mean, it's almost like he has some ESP ability, or something. To me, it's like watching a Payton Manning, or Mario Lemieux, or Michael Jordan at work. I mean, just amazing (to me). Several years ago, we had access to this old 1850s fort site, and there's a spot we called "button hill" there. Loaded with square nails, but a large number of buttons, and other good non-ferrous targets, as well, including Seated coins. We'd hunt through that spot, and I'd dig square nail after square nail, and occasionally I'd find a non-ferrous target on one of my digs. He, on the other hand, would hunt through the nails, ignoring most of the high-toning/falses, and then he'd hit one, and say "ok, come listen to this; there's a non-ferrous target in there with that nail." So, I'd go over and listen. Sure, I could hear the nail. Sure, I could hear high-toning. But I would say to him "yes, I hear a mixed signal there, but it doesn't sound different to me than about 100 other signals I have listened to in the past hour." So, he'd dig it, and sure enough, coin. I would just sit there, and shake my head, and ask myself "how did he do that?" Was it the machine? NO. He was running an AT Pro, I was running a Gold Bug Pro. Every time we'd hunt, his pouch would have more keepers than mine, ESPECIALLY coins (I got to where I could sometimes pick out the mid tones, from amongst the high-tone square-nail falsing, so we'd be a bit more equal on the bullets and buttons, but he'd SPANK me, on the coins, every time). What I BELIEVE it was, was that at the time, I had about 4 years of detecting experience. He had about 30 years worth; AND, he spent many hours of that 30 years hunting that very same square-nail-filled fort site; I essentially NEVER hunt in square nails, as there are almost none here in the part of Oklahoma I live in.

IT WOULD NOT MATTER, if I was "at the top of my game." He was simply a better hunter than I, and he instinctively knew what subtleties and nuances to listen for, whereas my ears weren't attuned to hearing the nuance. He could have been using a Bounty Hunter Tracker IV, I am convinced, and give him a week or so to get used to it, and he'd probably STILL have spanked me! It was NOT the machine. It was HIM.

So, NO. I don't agree with you that two guys "at the top of their game" equals a "level playing field" in terms of calling iffy/deep/masked targets. Let's face it -- we are both going to hear/dig the 6" dimes. It's those FRINGE targets that you are able to find with your Explorer (because you are so in tune with it), that make you such a good hunter, and it is those FRINGE targets that are the VERY TARGETS where "experience matters." It is not always necessarily the "level playing field," the way you suggest that should be...

Steve



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/12/2019 03:18PM by steveg.

I found a pretty deep silver that Craig from showmetreasure.com and Bill_S checked with their machines. Craigs Nox found it fine but the numbers were jumpy 24-32.
Here is my version of the dig - [youtu.be]
Here is Craigs version of the same target with the Nox - [www.youtube.com]

Kenny
[www.youtube.com]

khouse Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I found a pretty deep silver that Craig from showm
> etreasure.com and Bill_S checked with their machin
> es. Craigs Nox found it fine but the numbers were
> jumpy 24-32.
> Here is my version of the dig - [youtu.be]
> PkvWSESPng?t=481
> Here is Craigs version of the same target with the
> Nox - [www.youtube.com];
> t=1s


That's a good comparison video Kenny! That's a tell tale deep coin signal that I would dig all day long on the EQX. A Minelab wiggle over that target may have settled the TID down, it works well on the EQX.

Question: Why was Craig running Beach2 in a park? I thought Beach2 runs in reduced power mode to mitigate black sand? I used beach mode at a heavy alkali relic hunting site to get the EQX to run smoother, it wasn't happy in field or park mode.

It's true the TID is better on the Etrac, I believe the Etrac retailed for something like $1599 when it was new. IMO the EQX is more of a tone machine than TID, particularly when running 50 tones. I go by the tones, but will certainly check the meter as a secondary data point.

The poor CZ-70 didn't fare too well.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/12/2019 04:55PM by Cal_cobra.

I'm not well versed on the Nox. I think Craig and Bill said the ground was a little hot and maybe that's why Craig was running in beach mode? My etrac really couldn't care less about the ground matrix there.... I agree about it sounding like a good target on the Nox. I just got my coil over it first. I'm happy I did too!!
-------------------------------------------------------
> khouse Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > I found a pretty deep silver that Craig from sho
> wm
> > etreasure.com and Bill_S checked with their mach
> in
> > es. Craigs Nox found it fine but the numbers we
> re
> > jumpy 24-32.
> > Here is my version of the dig - [youtu.be]
> /h
> > PkvWSESPng?t=481
> > Here is Craigs version of the same target with t
> he
> > Nox - [www.youtube.com]
> w&
> > t=1s
>
>
> That's a good comparison video Kenny! That's a te
> ll tale deep coin signal that I would dig all day
> long on the EQX. A Minelab wiggle over that targe
> t may have settled the TID down, it works well on
> the EQX.
>
> Question: Why was Craig running Beach2 in a park?
> I thought Beach2 runs in reduced power mode to mit
> igate black sand? I used beach mode at a heavy al
> kali relic hunting site to get the EQX to run smoo
> ther, it wasn't happy in field or park mode.
>
> It's true the TID is better on the Etrac, I believ
> e the Etrac retailed for something like $1599 when
> it was new. IMO the EQX is more of a tone machin
> e than TID, particularly when running 50 tones. I
> go by the tones, but will certainly check the mete
> r as a secondary data point.
>
> The poor CZ-70 didn't fare too well.

Kenny
[www.youtube.com]

Cal_cobra Wrote:
------------------------------------------------.....
> That's a tell tale deep coin signal that I would dig all day long on the EQX.

Absolutely! Thats not even questionable. Put some nails around it where you have to start "teasing" the signal out and thinking whether its a good target or a false off the nearby iron. Thats where it starts getting "iffy"

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

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

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

Cal_cobra Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
IMO the EQX is more of a tone machin
> e than TID, particularly when running 50 tones. I
> go by the tones, but will certainly check the mete
> r as a secondary data point.
>


I haven't watched the videos yet, but I will. BUT -- BINGO, what Brian says here. I totally agree that the EQX is a "tones" machine. I think the TID is pretty good, but not outstanding (FBS is better); used in conjunction with the tones, though, the ID is plenty "good enough." But, like Brian said, it's a secondary, or "assisting" data point. The EQX is definitely a more "tone-based" machine IMO, whereas say the CTX offers MUCH more "visual" information.

TOTALLY agree with you, Brian.

Steve

steveg Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>.... shake my head,
> and ask myself "how did he do that?" Was it the m
> achine? NO. ...

I can understand that in some situations: Some people might come to the conclusion that it was experience-level , and not the machine. Especially if the two persons were using the same machine. But I can not understand how "skill" is the default explanation all the times. For example, my hunt partner Cal-Cobra has switched machines from his old days (F-75) and has indeed upped-his-game. And never for one-moment thought that skill level explained disparities. The moment he changed machines, his target count changed. Thus pointing to machine, and not skill level.

Tom,

I think it is definitely both. BOTH are important, and can be substantial difference-makers.

Way back in 2011, when I first switched from an F-70 to an Explorer, my "game" was "upped," big-time, in terms of hunting silver in parks. Almost immediately. NO DOUBT that can happen, when one switches to a "better" machine, or a machine they "click with," or whatever. SO, I agree.

But, my game was ALSO "upped much further," as I really LEARNED the Explorer, over the next several years. But, even after 7 years of using it, I would STILL expect to be "spanked" by YOU, as you have more than double the years of experience using the FBS platform, and probably at LEAST a ten-fold advantage, in terms of number of silver coins dug (they are FAR more scarce, in Oklahoma, than California, simply due to a population argument, and so you have taken an order-of-magnitude more "reps in batting practice" than I have, honing your experience/expertise).

Moral of the story...I have learned NOT to discount the difference (which I feel can be VERY substantial) between a HIGHLY experienced, EXPERT detectorist, and an average, or even above-average one. Again, reason being, the targets that are "left" in most of these parks, are BY DEFINITION the difficult, the "subtle," the "iffy," the "challenged," the "fringe-depth" ones. And it is on THESE VERY TARGETS where experience/expertise offers -- by far -- its greatest advantage. In other words, the benefit to be gained by employing expert skills is MOST pronounced, the MOST "amplified," on these very types of targets, NOT on the 6" deep dimes sitting flat, away from any trash/masking/EMI, which can be found by expert and "average" hunter, alike.

And this is why I feel that THE VERY BEST duel, to decide if the Equinox can "hang with" your EX2, is the duel of Tom vs. Tom. But, of course, to level out the "experience/expertise" advantage, FBS Tom needs to wait to have that duel with EQX Tom, until EQX Tom has mastered the Equinox. And that is NOT done, in a day, or perhaps a year even (in my opinion). You will dig silver immediately, with the EQX. But you most likely won't be able to hold your "duel," in a "fair" way (i.e. leveling the "experience" playing field), until you have dug at least many dozens of old coins with the Equinox...(but won't it be fun to dig all those oldies, while you are mastering the EQX?!) Besides, once you master the EQX, you'll be ready for the "flagship" Multi-IQ-based unit that I am sure Minelab must be working on, as we speak...

Steve

silverfiend Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Cal_cobra Wrote:
> ------------------------------------------------..
> ...
> > That's a tell tale deep coin signal that I would dig all day long on the EQX.
>
> Absolutely! Thats not even questionable. Put some nails around it where you have to start "teasing" the signal out and thinking whether its a good target or a false off the nearby iron. Thats where it starts getting "iffy"


Been there, done that.

I actually like hunting in sea of nail environments, as it scares off a lot of people and a lot of detectors do not fare well in those environments. I've found that my Multi Kruzer and Equinox do very well at picking out conductors in sea of nails environments if you use them correctly.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/12/2019 11:06PM by Cal_cobra.

steveg Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Tom,
>
> I think it is definitely both
> . BOTH are important, and can be substantial diff
> erence-makers.
>
>

Ok, and once there is a control-factor of eliminating "skill" as being the difference-maker in disparities (ie.: find two persons who are equal in the skill department), then that only leaves: The machine.

And again I remind you that : A person who is un-skilled at a certain machine is not qualified to make-a-determination as to whether or not a switch is merited. What I mean is: If a person tries a machine, and decides "It sucks", that could *merely* be that they didn't give it enough time to learn. Right ? Thus ... what is his opinion or conclusion worth ? Absolutely nothing. OR his decision that the machine sucks could mean "the machine sucks". He will never know.

The only way he will *truly* know, is if he sees point-blank that someone else is showing him flagged targets, watching that person's evaluations, and seeing them dig deep coins that he can honestly tell himself "I wouldn't have dug that".

I have no problem trying machines for myself. But I'm just aware that : If I determined that it's no better than my current arsenal, then that observation wouldn't be worth anything. So why not skip to the punch line, and meet those that have ALREADY DETERMINED that it spanks explorers, and say "show me ?" Why isn't that an option ? People make machine-swap decisions all-the-time when they see their b*tt getting kicked when out-with-their-buddies. Why can't that be an option for decision making here ? I don't get it.

Tom_in_CA Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> steveg Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> >.... shake my head,
> > and ask myself "how did he do that?" Was it the machine? NO. ...
>
> I can understand that in some situations: Some people might come to the conclusion that it was experience-level , and not the machine. Especially if the two persons were using the same machine. But I can not understand how "skill" is the default
> explanation all the times. For example, my hunt partner Cal-Cobra has switched machines from his old days (F-75) and has indeed upped-his-game.
> And never for one-moment thought that skill level explained disparities. The moment he changed machines, his target count changed. Thus pointing to machine, and not skill level.


I think it was a combination of using the better machine (for my dirt) and putting in the time to better understand the relic hunting game. So while I 100% agree that moving to the Makro/Nokta/Equinox has helped level the playing field when it comes to relic hunting between you and I, I would also like to think that all the time I spent in the field also contributed to increasing my skill level as well. Or put another way (and I believe Steve has tried a multitude of ways to articulate this point) that if you just gave an Exp2/EQX/MMK/DUES/ETC to a newbie, their not all of a sudden going to be on par with your level of experience just because they have a top of the line detector.

steveg Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Tom,
>
> I think it is definitely both. BOTH are important, and can be substantial difference-makers.
>

> Moral of the story...I have learned NOT to discount the difference (which I feel can be VERY substantial) between a HIGHLY experienced, EXPERT detectorist, and an average, or even above-average one.
> Again, reason being, the targets that are "left" in most of these parks, are BY DEFINITION the difficult, the "subtle," the "iffy," the "challenged," the "fringe-depth" ones. And it is on THESE VERY
> TARGETS where experience/expertise offers -- by far -- its greatest advantage. In other words, the benefit to be gained by employing expert skills is MOST pronounced, the MOST "amplified," on these very types of targets, NOT on the 6" d
> eep dimes sitting flat, away from any trash/masking/EMI, which can be found by expert and "average" hunter, alike.
>
> And this is why I feel that THE VERY BEST duel, to decide if the Equinox can "hang with" your EX2, is the duel of Tom vs. Tom. But, of course, to level out the "experience/expertise" advantage, FBS Tomneeds to wait to have that duel with EQX To
> m, until EQX Tom has mastered the Equinox. And that is NOT done, in a day, or perhaps a year even (in my opinion). You will dig silver immediately, with the EQX. But you most likely won't be able to hold your "duel," in a "fair" way (i.e. leveling
> the "experience" playing field), until you have dug at least many dozens of old coins with the Equinox...(but won't it be fun to dig all those oldies, while you are mastering the EQX?!) Besides, once you master the EQX, you'll be ready for the "flags
> hip" Multi-IQ-based unit that I am sure Minelab must be working on, as we speak...
>
> Steve

Completely agree.