Equinox 4 khz testing vs multi on deep silver anyone

Has anyone done any testing to see if there is any advantages of using multi to to find a deep iffy high conductor then switching over to 4 khz to see if they get a better sounding hit on the target? Or does one run in 4 khz and if they hit a deep high conductor target like a possible silver then go to multi to see if is worth investigating? Do you get more falsing using 4 khz over multi? Tom!, Calabash! Anyone! Thanks

4 kHz goes at least an inch deeper than Multi in my test garden. It gave good digable tones on the 12" silver dime and 15" silver quarter. Multi will not even pick up these coins.

EMI is more of a problem with 4 kHz though. I tried it at my favorite silver coin site and it was unusable due to powerlines. The lowest frequency I could use was 10.

I don't bother checking targets in other frequencies while hunting but I often switch to different frequencies during a hunt. I select a frequency for the type of target I'm looking for. If I wanted all types of targets, I would probably use Multi and put up with a slight loss of depth.

My ground is very mineral free. In mineralized ground, multi may be equal to or even have a depth advantage over the single frequencies.



Edited 8 time(s). Last edit at 08/24/2020 07:17PM by Badger in NH.

I found that 4khz gave a worse signal (scratchy) than multi on almost all of my live digs that was on Deus half mineral bar soil.

Badger....... how interesting about your dirt and test-garden.
In my test-garden; 4-Khz is 1.2" less depth than Multi...... on a clad dime.
Multi is deeper on the entire spectrum (low-to-high) conductive targets....... in my Florida inert dirt.
And....... yes. 4Khz is slightly more unstable...... in regards to EMI.

BUT........ this new software update (MUU-3) is presenting slightly less (overall) EMI issues. ANY reduction in EMI is highly welcome.

NASA-Tom Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Badger....... how interesting about your dirt and test-garden.


After comparing my machine to other 800's using identicle settings, it makes me wonder if there might be variations from one machine to the next. Sometimes my 800 goes crazy with EMI while another 800 at the same site with the same settings is perfectly quiet. I need to have my friends bring their 800's to my test garden for some depth comparisons between machines.

Badger in NH Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> EMI is more of a problem with 4 kHz though.

In your opinion, would this ONLY be true, if someone were in the 4 kHz ? Or would it manifest itself even in the normal pre 3.0 options of usage ?

The 3.0 seems to have opened a bunch of interference even without availing oneself of the new features. As if it opened up even the prior settings (Ie.: even if you don't avail yourself of the new options) to interference. My buddy had nothing but problems in an inner-city deep-turf test. Just constant chatter. We are wondering if it is strictly d/t the 3.0, since he didn't have quite the problem on previous trips to this zone. Could have been a one-night thing.

Tom_in_CA Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Badger in NH Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> >
> >
> > EMI is more of a problem with 4 kHz though.
>
> In your opinion, would this ONLY be true, if someo
> ne were in the 4 kHz ? Or would it manifest itsel
> f even in the normal pre 3.0 options of usage ?
>
> The 3.0 seems to have opened a bunch of interferen
> ce even without availing oneself of the new
> features. As if it opened up even the prior setti
> ngs (Ie.: even if you don't avail yourself of the
> new options) to interference. My buddy had nothi
> ng but problems in an inner-city deep-turf test.
> Just constant chatter. We are wondering if it is
> strictly d/t the 3.0, since he didn't have quite t
> he problem on previous trips to this zone. Could
> have been a one-night thing.


Like Tom said, I think there may be less EMI problems overall but 4 kHz seems to be extra sensitive to it. At the site I was hunting, 5 kHz also has EMI noise but 4 kHz is worse. I can't make any conclusions as to how much the overall sensitivity to EMI has changed if at all.

The high EMI sensitivity in 4 kHz might be a good thing though, in the same way that the T-2 and F-75 were before DST. The instability might be the price you pay for a boost in performance in certain conditions.



Edited 5 time(s). Last edit at 08/25/2020 11:52AM by Badger in NH.

Seen a video where A guy shows he did the update 3.0 and ran a coin under his coil and the coin sounded terrible. Then he did a factory reset and the coin sounded great. Should you do a factory reset when you update the Equinox?

You should not have to (yet; I always do...... for GP).

Badger in NH Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Tom_in_CA Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Badger in NH Wrote:
> > ------------------------------------------------
> --
> > -----
> > >
> > >
> > > EMI is more of a problem with 4 kHz though.
> >
> > In your opinion, would this ONLY be true, if som
> eo
> > ne were in the 4 kHz ? Or would it manifest its
> el
> > f even in the normal pre 3.0 options of usage ?
> >
> > The 3.0 seems to have opened a bunch of interfer
> en
> > ce even without availing oneself of the n
> ew
> > features. As if it opened up even the prior set
> ti
> > ngs (Ie.: even if you don't avail yourself of th
> e
> > new options) to interference. My buddy had not
> hi
> > ng but problems in an inner-city deep-turf test.
> > Just constant chatter. We are wondering if it
> is
> > strictly d/t the 3.0, since he didn't have quite
> t
> > he problem on previous trips to this zone. Cou
> ld
> > have been a one-night thing.
>
>
> Like Tom said, I think there may be less EMI probl
> ems overall but 4 kHz seems to be extra sensitive
> to it. At the site I was hunting, 5 kHz also has E
> MI noise but 4 kHz is worse. I can't make any conc
> lusions as to how much the overall sensitivity to
> EMI has changed if at all.
>
> The high EMI sensitivity in 4 kHz might be a good
> thing though, in the same way that the T-2 and F-7
> 5 were before DST. The instability might be the pr
> ice you pay for a boost in performance in certain
> conditions.


during the 70's and 80's i ran whitey's detectors at 6.59 kHz,and seldom,if ever experienced any (e.m.i.) issues.
granted we are talking 2.59 kHz higher than 4khz,and the sources of (e.m.i.) didn't really exist back then i don't believe.
still, never had any interference issues running 6.59 and that is still pretty low.it is possible, it may be a one time deal.
and won't be a concern over time...just sayin'

(h.h.!)
j.t.

[youtu.be] a video i did

Just tried using the 4khz to hunt a old park I hunted hard using the Equinox in multi. Was wanting to see if I could pull some silvers that I may have missed using multi. Found 2 wheats and some modern change but, no silvers. I did notice the Equinox ran very quiet in 4khz. So I don’t know yet if there is any advantage in using 4khz over multi when trying to hit silvers when dealing with bottle caps, pull tabs and other high conductor trash. I did notice that bottle caps came in from 35-40 and most of my coin finds came in 25-30. I also noticed coins ID was very stable and pull tabs numbers seemed to jump all over the place. I got where I could tell every time when I was hitting a pull tab or bottle cap over a coin. Anyone else played with 4 kHz?