E trac or equinox 800

Cal_cobra Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>....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.


Correct. That is why "newbie" (whether that be myself, or someone else) is out of the equation.

This is ESPECIALLY true when going by target counts alone. But to some degree can be accounted for, in flagged tests. Because in flagged wild target tests, the newbie can play with his settings ad-naseum. And then see what settings bring in the suspected target with the most pronounced signal. And then take those same settings to adjacent terra firma, to make sure that whatever settings it was, don't result in falsing elsewhere (eg.: making nail-falses sound good, etc...) .

When Greg and I compared , we were careful to take these things into account. Because as you know, simply being able to hear what is pointed out to you, is not the entire story. The rest of the story is: "Could I have discerned that signal from a myriad of junk that I'm wanting to pass ?"

Tom_in_CA Wrote:

> 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.


Man you're a tough nut to crack.... why not save everyone the aggravation of these endless debacles and just get one and put some serious effort into learning it? You have nothing to loose?

Even if it's "no better than my current arsenal" then that in itself is a finding, and in reality it is better - it's water proof, far lighter, field upgradable, etc., so that in itself is an improvement even if the ability to do whatever YOU think it needs to excel at is no better, but no worse, than your Exp2.

I think at the end of the day, and knowing you like I do, you're just extremely resistant to change...personally I'm happy that you've decided not to keep one, as I feel at our relic sites it gives me an edge over your first generation FBS machine



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/13/2019 12:11AM by Cal_cobra.

Cal_cobra Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> ... You have nothing to loose?
>
>

Actually, yes, I would have "something to loose". Namely : My results .... if they didn't support the "win" category, would be inconclusive. They could simply mean "I didn't try it long enough". Contrast to if I saw someone who showed me signals that ... I had to admit I wouldn't have heard with my Exp II, only then would I conclusively know that "I didn't try it long enough " . Or "didn't have the settings right", etc.....


As for the tough nut to crack: That finger points both ways.

Tom_in_CA Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Cal_cobra Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > ... You have nothing to loose?
> >
> >
>
> Actually, yes, I would have "something to loose".
> Namely : My results .... if they didn't support t
> he "win" category, would be inconclusive. They co
> uld simply mean "I didn't try it long enough".
> Contrast to if I saw someone who showed me signals
> that ... I had to admit I wouldn't have heard with
> my Exp II, only then would I conclusively
> know that "I didn't try it long enough " . Or "di
> dn't have the settings right", etc.....
>
>
> As for the tough nut to crack: That finger points both ways. >>> How do you figure? I like to try new things.....most people moved on from the likes of AOL and flip-phones eons ago...yet there's those (you know who you are) that thrive on complacency...

So riddle me this....at a certain site with Spanish influence, one that I like, and you not so much, I recently dug 12 seated dimes, in an area I know your Exp2 has been over a multitude of times....(as have all of my previous detectors).....I could understand if it was one seated dime that we missed and I lucked onto it, but 12 is a fairly large sample set that you're Explorer was blind to.

Doesn't that in itself tell you anything? Or are you just going to chalk it up to Brian was lucky?

Cal_cobra Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>]>>> How do you figure? I
> like to try new things.....

So do I . That is why I want to try the Nox out for size. And the best way to do that (ie.: the best way to "try new things") is to compare with a skilled user, of said device.


>
> So riddle me this....at a certain site with Spanis
> h influence, one that I like, and you not so much,
> I recently dug 12[/
> b] seated dimes, in an area I know your Exp2 has b
> een over a multitude of times....(as have all of m
> y previous detectors).....I could understand if it
> was one seated dime that we missed and I lucked on
> to it, but 12 is a fairly large sample set that yo
> u're Explorer was blind to.
>
> Doesn't that in itself tell you anything? Or are
> you just going to chalk it up to Brian was lucky?

We would need to be comparing signals. I was not there to try the various signals, over flagged spots. It's possible that the Exp. II could have heard them.

And in any event, I don't dispute that the Nox is going to be a better iron-see-through-machine. Thus yes, it would probably do better an ghost-townsy sites when compared to the Exp. II. However, that's not the venue that I'd like to see how the Nox does at. My primary curiosity for the Nox is strictly : How does it compare in Deep turf cherry picking.

>
> So riddle me this....at a certain site with Spanis
> h influence, one that I like, and you not so much,
> I recently dug 12[/
> b] seated dimes, in an area I know your Exp2 has b
> een over a multitude of times....(as have all of m
> y previous detectors).....I could understand if it
> was one seated dime that we missed and I lucked on
> to it, but 12 is a fairly large sample set that yo
> u're Explorer was blind to.
>
> Doesn't that in itself tell you anything? Or are
> you just going to chalk it up to Brian was lucky?


Wouldnt this example just follow Bayard's pattern of using the Nox as a clean-up machine......to follow the cherry picking machine. I don't believe their is such a thing as a "do-it-all" metal detector.....(even though manufacturers try to "sell-it" as such). Both machines have a task that is equally important.

The bigger question to me is, why limit yourself to one or the other? The eTrac is a fine machine, has been out a while now, and has proven itself. The best two things going for it IMO, are that it has a plethora of coil options and best of all, with it being out so long, you can readily find used ones for very cheap prices. With the used detector market being stagnant, it is a great time to be a buyer. Neither machine is perfect. They both have strong points and weak points. If you can only buy one, I would buy the one that checks most of the boxes for the type hunting you do the most, and focus on what it can do the best instead of putting a laser beam on the weak areas. The only time that should matter is if the weaker area is what you do the most.

If the sites you plan on hunting are old farm fields, torn down homesites, ghost towns, forts, mining camps, stage stops, etc. Then in my opinion, the Equinox is going to be better. If the ground is mineralized, then the Equinox would be better (based on my experiences in my area). I think it handles a wider variety of hunt conditions/scenarios better.

I don't "deep turf coin" hunt all that much so that is not an area of focus that I get hung up on that would prevent me from buying a machine. If I travelled a lot, I would want a vehicle that rode well, was comfortable to ride in and got great MPGs. If I wanted to hunt and fish, I would probably be better suited with a truck instead of a Prius. I'm not going to ignore that it has a bed to put stuff in, is 4x4, has the towing capacity to haul ATV/UTVs and boats (all the stuff I will be doing most)...but don't get the same MPG as a Prius does. "Man it does all that, but just don't get 50 mpg...". Pick what best suits your needs. No machine does it all the best. That's why most all of us have multiple machines.

I do beach and jewelry hunt though and for that, I have a CTX 3030. I can't see the screen at all on it (I wear sunglasses most all the time and this blacks out the screen). It's not that I think the CTX can find more stuff. I just like how it swings in the water better. I don't use it on dry land at all. The Equinox ticks the boxes of the things I do most so I use it most. But I break out the CTX when I need it. It doesn't eat anything just having it around.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/13/2019 05:49AM by Daniel Tn.

Daniel Tn Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> They both have
> strong points and weak points.

But that's just the point . What you are saying seems to imply that there is a "weak-point" on the machine in question. That's just the question : Is there, or is-there-not, a "weak-point" for the Nox, in a certain area ? Namely deep turf cherry picking. As you read, you will see that some say "yes" and others say "absolutely not".

And if you are perpetually hearing/reading that there is NOT a "weak point", of a machine, in a certain area of your interest, then you'd want to get to the bottom of thay. Eh ? You'd want to see that, eh ? And the best way to do that, is with a proficient user of said model, and say "show me" (so-to-speak). That's all I'm saying.

Because for me to try to sort out by myself whether-or-not this claim is true, will always leave nagging doubts. I can always tell myself : "What if I wasn't interpreting the signals correctly ?" and "what if I didn't do the right settings ?" etc... But if user B has already overcome those hurdles, and seeing better results, then ..... what's not to love about comparing flagged signals with said-user ? They'd both be in for a cross-education.

I can't be more serious and firm when I say this. I ain't going to argue, debate, discuss this with you like Steve has. I ain't got the patience or the time to waste fooling with you. It's a very simple thing man. Buy one or borrow one and see for yourself whether you like it or not and if it meets your needs or not. You're the only one that can answer that. If it does, keep it and be happy with it. If it don't, then sell it and keep what you have. It don't get any more simple.

I can see why you can't get anybody to get together with you for a "dual". If you argue and go on and on and on and on in person like you do in these threads, then trust me...other people just simply don't want to be around you. I live on the other end of the United States but even if I was just 10 minutes away, I still wouldn't want to get together with you for that very reason. Steve has more patience than I have for sure. I'm not into giving medicine to the dead, and that's about the equivalent to debating/arguing anything with you.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 11/13/2019 04:02PM by Daniel Tn.

Daniel Tn Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> ... debating/arguing anything.....

Wow. Glad no one else here is guilty of that accusation. They (like yourself) chime in with their views. And that's just conversation pro's/con's. Got it.

Tom,

You have asked "what is wrong with a duel." The main thing is, I, and most others, don't live near you. I personally can't travel easily, due to stage in life. IF you travelled here, I don't have a site that would tick off the necessary boxes (DEEP coins, that I could be reasonably certain exist in sufficient numbers to have a meaningful test).

But, I have a solution for you. And then, I'll quit beating this dead horse (which will please most of the other folks on the forum, whom I am surprised haven't already told the two of us to "get a room," LOL)!

DO WHAT I DID.

Trust me, I have already "dueled" myself, exactly as you are hoping to duel with someone. I have done "me against myself" duels in various tests -- total coin counts (averaged over time) at the end of a hunt at spots I'm familiar with; total coin counts at the end of a hunt at spots I'm NOT very familiar with, head-to-head evaluation on flagged targets "in the field" (i.e. targets located FIRST, by either machine, flagged, and then re-scanned with the other unit), and head-to-head evaluation on KNOWN targets, in my test garden. After all of this "dueling" of myself against myself, I can tell you that there is a reason I'm swinging the EQX. It does not SPANK FBS, overall, but it has a pretty decent edge in a few areas, while at the same time (FOR ME), it does NOT have any area that it is any more than very minimally deficient, in comparison to FBS, for deep turf coin hunting. (That being, mostly, a bit less "accurate" VDI -- but which is largely compensated for, audibly). SO, with the EQX having some decently substantial advantages in some scenarios over FBS, few -- and relatively minimal -- disadvantages, plus lighter weight, and more versatile overall, means it's the one I reach for most often, and quite confidently.

BUT -- back to what I was going to say, DO WHAT I DID. That is my challenge to you.

What I did, is this...I bought the EQX for THESE TWO REASONS -- to serve as the backup to my CTX, and as my "niche" machine, for hunting in heavily trashed sites (where I thought the faster speed might give me an edge).

SO -- buy yours for that same reason. That was was my intent -- INITIALLY. FBS primary, EQX backup, and niche unit.

Then -- VERY importantly, I gave myself SIX MONTHS to ONE YEAR of heavy use of the EQX -- i.e. enough time to begin to really get comfortable with it, and it's nuanced language/information output. I FULLY AND ENTIRELY committed to that, UP FRONT. NO GOING BACK to the "more familiar" option. Why? BECAUSE -- I truly believe that I could NEVER become skillful with it as my "niche" unit, in the TOUGH, TRASHY sites, if I did not first invest the time to truly learn to be skillful with it in the "REGULAR" sites. And thus, if I did not become skillful with the unit in "normal" deep coin hunting, and thus could not eventually trust that I could ALSO then become skillful enough with it to be able to out-hunt my CTX in the tough/trashy sites I bought it for, WHY EVEN BUY IT?

Anyway, I felt that the decision to COMMIT to the 6 months to one year, totally immersed, in that learning stage, with "no going back" to FBS during that time, was key. I also committed to hunt it in many different sites, but always targeting mid and high conductors -- and always with the primary focus on digging deep, old coins. While I HAVE run the unit in those "heavy trash" sites, or portions of sites, that I specifically bought the machine to use in eventually, this is NOT where I primarily hunted, during my "learn the unit" stage, as I decided that that would not have been the best way to learn it, and gain confidence with it. So, I primarily hunted the same "average trash density" types of sites that I have always hunted, as this is the type of hunting I'm most comfortable with, and thus felt that this would be the way to learn it most quickly/efficiently. The "heavy iron/trash" niche hunting, I planned to learn LATER, after I had a good level of comfort with the unit's language and behavior overall.

During this stage, I almost always had the CTX with me, and at times would break it out -- mainly to hit "flagged" targets, for testing purposes. BUT -- AGAIN -- I committed NEVER to "fall back" to the CTX for entire hunts, due to "comfort level" or "familiarity" reasons, during that 6 month to one year time period.

And you know what happened, gradually, over time, and COMPLETELY unintentionally as I got more and more comfortable with the EQX? I found myself starting to wonder WHEN I would be ready to return to running the CTX primarily. I made excuses to "grab the EQX" each time out. Then, I started trying to think which scenarios or sites I would prefer the CTX at, so that I might start using it again. But THEN, I started to wonder IF there were scenarios where I would prefer the CTX at...IF there were scenarios where I felt it would give me a decided advantage. I really gave alot of thought to this, as I found myself preferring the EQX. Finally, I resorted to starting to TRY to make excuses to actually CHOOSE the CTX, on occasion, when I arrived at a hunt site -- just because I KNOW that I love FBS, and have had SO much success with it...

You know when the last time I "forced" myself to hunt with my CTX? Over a year ago. Yes, I found a couple of old, deep coins, that day. As you know, that's what FBS does! But, it was heavy to use (I had forgotten just how heavy it really is), and I truly NEVER sensed, during that hunt, that it was doing anything for me that I would not have been able to achieve essentially equally, by swinging my Equinox.

In other words, the Equinox, quite unexpectedly, eventually FORCED ME to use it, a vast majority of the time. This happened very gradually due to countless experiences, numerous specific coin digs -- often at sites I know like the back of my hand and know EXACTLY (on average) what I expect to dig in "x" number of hours at that site...in other words, an innumerable number of tiny little data points, over many months' time, that eventually led to where I don't even BRING the CTX most times (unless I am traveling far from home, and need to have a "backup" unit available...yes -- an FBS is now my BACKUP)!

I truly believe, Tom, that if you would commit to the same thing, you would reach a very similar conclusion. Sure, at the end of that trial, you might end up on the "other side" from where I did, and still choose your EX2 most often. It's an old, worn, comfortable shoe for you, and you may simply find that you "click" with it a little better. BUT -- I truly believe that you, or ANYONE, who has taken the time to truly learn the EQX, would NOT be able to say that it performs "decidedly worse" for them, than FBS. Yes, they may point to a target here, a dig there, where they feel FBS had an advantage for them, and at the same time, that the EQX at their sites did not offer ENOUGH advantages over FBS to cause it to rise to their "go-to" unit. I truly get that. But I believe that ANYONE who deep coin hunts, and who has truly learned the EQX, will absolutely admit that it is quite capable of doing a very good job of deep coin hunting -- and better than nearly anything else out there (except, for them, FBS). In other words, they'd admit that at the VERY LEAST, belongs in the same conversation as FBS, as one of a very small number of a top-notch deep coin hunting units.

So -- what, exactly, do you have to lose? At WORST, you spend six months where you may have left a few coins in the ground that -- given your familiarity with your EX2 -- you may have missed with the EQX but would have found with your EX2, while also having a few more pieces of trash in your bag that fooled you, than you would have with your EX2. At WORST! BUT -- at BEST, you will discover it to be a machine that nearly equals your FBS on almost all targets, and exceeds it on enough OTHER targets, that overall your finds remain the same, or slightly increase, using the EQX. I fall in that second, "at best" category. That has been my experience. My finds pouch will vouch for that. I am betting that yours would, too...

Steve

steveg Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Tom,
>
> You have asked "what is wrong with a duel." The m
> ain thing is, I, and most others, don't live near
> you.

Steve , thanx for the input. So : It's not that you are against duels. It's not that you don't see the value of duels. And I think you can see that they over-come the stigma of "didn't practice enough" and "didn't have the right settings". Thus ....... bottom line is , I think you acknowledge the power of comparing flagged signals, for 2 old-timers to compare units.

It's just that there doesn't happen to be any "takers" (fluent in deep-turf with that particular machine) anywhere near me. So you say the solution is to put it through the paces myself.

But this is where I already can forsee that my conclusions, unless they were in the "affirmative column" would be inconclusive. Both to myself, and to any input on hobbyist forum topics such as this one. As I've said , they would be written off to "lack of settings" and "lack of experience". Thus .... for me personally ....... it won't work. I'm glad it worked for you (but only since it was in the "affirmative" column,). But for me, my experience in trying machines (which I had initially written off), is that : If I see first-hand that they "spank", THEN I progress to step #2. But that's just me.

No dead-horses being beaten here. You are not "argumentative" nor am I . I appreciate your input.

Why duel?? When trying out a new metal detector, don't feel obligated to get rid of your favorite old machine. If you can afford it...own two machines of your choice and enjoy each of their strengths. Use both as a team effort, not constantly trying to out hunt each other. No worries

Isn't it true that it is human nature to prefer the thing we become accustomed to using and then typically find the old thing replaced by the new to be now strangely odd and undesirable? Do not children fight not to replace their worn clothes or shoes and reject the new item as weird and uncomfortable, hating it at first but eventually adapting to the new and soon predictably rejecting the old thing as inferior? Well, that is my experience.

You run Brand X for years, and as Steve experienced with the shiny new Brand Y that there is some trepidation with using Brand Y -- it is at first unfamiliar, uncomfortable, and in some way makes the person uneasy (there is an expectation or dread of buyer's remorse, steering the user to try and show initial favoritism to Brand Y, to see your purchase as gain, not loss. In other words, to find the happiness that is expected with buying things). As Steve explained, a gradual switch happens where upon returning to old Brand X it is now the one that is oddly uncomfortable and off-putting. Brand Y has become the new norm (one wonders how we survived without it).

That is not to say that comparing flagged targets in the field is not informing the decision to switch, this methodology is perhaps the only way (besides a vast test garden) to evaluate side-by-side performance potentials equitably and impartially (as much impartiality as we are able to muster). Such testing is certainly not easy to do. Constantly switching detectors is laborious and time-consuming. Yet, if the testing were done with a variety of different soils and target matrixes over a long period to gather a statistical grouping of data points, then the strength/weaknesses of Brand X and Y would become undeniably evident. It is a type of semi-scientific and semi-controlled experimentation. Yet, there is still another factor lurking that must be acknowledged. Another significant factor is affecting results. That is the ability of humans to prejudice the data in favor of whichever Brand is perceived as better, not necessarily even being cognizant that the data points are being tainted by implicit bias.

In other words, given an old Brand X and newly purchased Brand Y, eventually, Brand Y will edge out Brand X, all things being equal. Should the person return to Brand X after many months of letting it sit unused in the closet, it may seem awkward and finding targets difficult. The old detector's faults appear glaring now by comparison. That initial poor performance of the new purchase fades, it is overcome with experience through use. The target yields rise with the new as confidence increases. Target yields fade away with older Brand X, as it becomes increasingly disappointing to use. Did target yields actually decline or was this a case of subconscious bias? And do we even recognize our own foibles? Perhaps the results are strictly due to the superior performance of Brand Y, or maybe an unconscious bias has skewed the results, such that unknowingly the detectorist tries harder to make Brand Y win over against older Brand X (it also could be vice versa, depending on which one the person is most emotionally invested in).

To put two detectors through testing and not be inclined toward one or the other would require a stern constitution, a person willing to accept the results unflinchingly. I know personally that I have to force myself to squelch the tendency for leaning toward preconceived notions. It is not easy for most of us, especially if the results are counterintuitive and buck the perceived wisdom of the crowd. Some may have the will, but I perceive that most would not. That is why a year-long comparison testing between two detectors on many hundreds of targets is rare if not unheard. It seems people typically don't use old Brand X after they purchased new Brand Y, the first indication it is better in some way is enough to usually settle the matter. There exists a self-fulfilling bias that is real and operative. That new Brand Y carries the expectation (desire) as the replacement, thus the reason for the purchase. The decision was tempered by the wildebeest stampede which declared it the best. The result is a foregone conclusion, the bias has already predetermined the winner. The rest is just tricking oneself into agreement. Which is not particularly difficult to do since the most earnest expectation for success is an emotional and monetary investment and thus often dictates and controls the final result, in part or whole. Just something to think about.

--Jonnyanglo

John...…. very well stated.

Johnnyanglo Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>..... That is why a year-long comparison te
> sting between two detectors on many hundreds of ta
> rgets is rare if not unheard.....

A year long ? To decide that something else is or isn't superior to-your-liking ? This is actually something that someone could find out in a mere 30 minutes or a day. No need for a "year".

Oh sure, to ascend-to-a-skill level .... sure .... practice makes perfect. That can be a year. But for the decision process ........ that can be in just a few flagged signals to compare. With someone proficient on the other machine. That allows a user to realize "He's getting stuff that I can't ". And THEN the "year" begins. JMHO.

This can go on a long time.

If you read Tom's post about why he uses an Explorer you will understand his ask around the Equinox. We are all unique. Arguing about each other's decision making process is just a waste of time.

I am a bit different. I just need to like using a particular metal detector. It doesn't matter how deep it goes or how fast it responds. If I like using it I'll find sites that fit within its operating parameters just so I can use it. I have just as much fun and find just as good targets with a Tracker IV as I do with an Etrac when I take it to sites that match it.

I think the main reason I haven't purchased a Nox to try for myself is that it only offers plain jane phase shift target id. I already have that. I don't need to spend 900 bucks on that feature in that frequency range. The Etrac discrimination system is so much better than the Nox that for me,its a waste of time and money to even look at it. Really, when I coin hunt (coin hunting not clad hunting) I usually pick the V3 over the Etrac. I know what my ground does to high conductors and I can see it easier on 3 frequency display. But with more use on the Etrac that may change. I dunno. I like them both.

Anyhow,,,,wanted to chime in a little myself.

HH
Mike



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 11/15/2019 08:44PM by Mike Hillis.

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

>
> A year long ? To decide that something else is o
> r isn't superior to-your-liking ? This is actua
> lly something that someone could find out in a mer
> e 30 minutes or a day. No need for a "year".
>
> Oh sure, to ascend-to-a-skill level .... sure ....
> practice makes perfect. That can be a year.
> But for the decision process ........ that can
> be in just a few flagged signals to compare. With
> someone proficient on the other machine. That all
> ows a user to realize "He's getting stuff that I c
> an't ". And THEN the "year" begins. JMHO.

Johnnyanglo -- excellent post.

Tom_in_CA -- I guess I will never understand your point of view. Which is fine, but I think discussing is fruitless. I cannot POSSIBLY imagine a scenario -- if my goal is to truly figure out whether machine A or machine B might be the more capable machine, for my type of hunting, for the targets I prefer -- where I could POSSIBLY determine which machine is a more capable unit by "just comparing a few flagged signals." That simply "does not compute" for me -- brain fry! I mean, I'm trying to wrap my head around how your thinking works, there, how you might know "with a few flagged signals" whether one machine might out-perform another, and I just can't fathom how that conclusion could be drawn, with that few number of data points.

Again -- to use a golfing analogy -- if you have a tried-and-true driver, that 90% of the time you hit straight down the fairway, at 250 yards, but I tell you about a new driver that I am now using which -- over time, I have found to give me 20 extra yards, on average...and you take the driver, hit two or three balls into the rough, and say "nope, not for me..." I just don't get that. You aren't USED to the club yet! It has a different swing weight, different flex to the shaft, it's an inch longer -- i.e. there's an adjustment period there, where you have to tweak your swing timing a bit, etc. But you claim that "you will know" in two or three swings?

Anyway, it's all good. To each his own; you love your EX2, and I think that's great. It's a terrific unit, and you will find lots of what you are looking for, with it -- for sure.

Steve

steveg Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> Anyway, it's all good. To each his own .....

ok

And that concludes our broadcast, now back to your regular programming.....

Whew, GLAD that one's over with!-----Where were we now?----oh yeah, the G2+

R.I.P. dead horse.....I'm beginning to wonder if you were ever alive.

LOL!

Sorry guys. Sometimes, when it comes to debates, I just can't help myself...

Steve

LOL.....Sometimes humor is the only thing able to break the tension. Happy hunting.

Talking about newbies and machines. I believe the Exp2 with the 10" coil was one of the best combo out there until the pro coil came along. But..... the explorers took a good long time for things to click..... OH MY GOD thats what silver sounds like DEEP. Here came the Etrac.. you lost that distinct tinkle... HOWEVER it gave a newbie a HUGE advantage.... it shortened that learning curve out of the box..... thats similar to what the Nox has accomplished. I dont think we have ever seen so many GOLD items found in areas like parks.... and it wasnt because we didnt look. The lack of modulation seems to have improved people focus with this machine as well. I say lack because you could adjust the modulation to your liking on the Explorers. Which i liked. Im not sure i agree with saying you can tell in a few tests how well a machine will do the move on. Im one who doesnt believe in putting a machine down until its paid for its self..... by then i know especially if im looking for specific targets like gold or coins. You really have to learn the machine each seems to be unique on how it reacts to DEEP targets.... lets face it thats what we are after... taping that target line others didnt. The Nox is FAST.... but the Explorers was a machine you could barely move and it really went deep catching those near targets in a trashy area. Both of these machines have their strengths....... but i wouldnt dismiss one over the other after a 30 min run/test.