MINELAB MANTICORE: DATA & PERFORMANCE

NASA-Tom -- this is absolutely terrific information. I'm so glad you are finally able to share some of the performance/settings secrets of the unit.

Steve

I need to clarify....even further.

When you perform a LONG PRESS Noise Cancel........ the detector may narrow down between (say) 2 or 3 channels. As you continue to LONG PRESS..... the unit is still searching ALL NOISE CANCEL channels..... simultaneously. . . . . . . . . . . . . even though it may be narrowing down to just 2 or 3 'best' channels.
ONE of the reasons for the unit to cycle between a couple/few Noise Cancel channels is...... there may be a couple/few DIFFERENT noise-generating SOURCES!!! And the Manticore is struggling to seek to cancel the worst offender.
You are going to run into cases whereby..... there will be MULTIPLE DIFFERENT EMI generating sources. And...... as of right now...... it is impossible to lock on to more-than-one Noise Cancel channel.
Testing Manticore INDOORS for EMI mitigation (LONG PRESS)..... is a remedy for frustration!

Tom I have a million dollar question for you so the 23 percent depth over the deus 11 is that only applicable if (you place Ferrous Limits Upper on '0'.......... max depth (with reasonable ID) in test-garden is 15.4")If it is what is the depth increase if you run it on more usable settings?

Thanks TOM for the feedback. I've got a MC ordered just waiting for my dealer to get one. Minelab all the way!!!!!

NASA-Tom Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Mike K......... MC will out-perform the CTX in nea
> rly every hunting application (has more to do with
> the Manticore's NEW Operating System).
> As for finding tiny jewelry in freshwater....... a
> gain...... the new O.S. onboard Manticore...... wi
> ll do better. You may need to try the different lo
> w conductor Modes with Manticore (NOT any of the B
> each Modes..... as they are config'd for wet-salt)
> ...... and see which one(s) handle your wet (fresh
> water) mineralization the best.

Jesse..... NO! ABSOLUTELY NOT!!!!
This is with Factory Preset Ferrous Limits.
This is ALSO to say: IF you can afford to run hotter Ferrous Limits (especially Upper)...... the unmasking abilities AND depth performance: increase!
(((This should lead you to the NEXT logical sequential question!!!))) And the answer will be: "Mostly, Yes"!

Also. Remember = As you increase Recovery Speed........ depth AND signal strength start to diminish. Same with EQX, Deus-2.....and the like.

Understood wow I'm very impressed in all aspects.Tom all the respect in the world for you and this forum.I can honestly say that I wouldn't know half of what I know if I hadn't been reading all the posts many very knowledgeable people have took the time to share over the years.

Jesse Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Understood wow I'm very impressed in all aspects.T
> om all the respect in the world for you and this f
> orum.I can honestly say that I wouldn't know half
> of what I know if I hadn't been reading all the po
> sts many very knowledgeable people have took the t
> ime to share over the years.


+1

Don't be afraid to use All Terrain Low Conductors in carpets of nails........as.........this Mode is a highly modified EQX Field Mode-2. It runs higher freq's. I like a Recovery Speed of '5' in.,.,.,., especially carpets of nails.

You guys want me to compare Tarsacci to Manticore. In a nutshell:
Manticore is much better in the wet-salt (and dry sand) for gold: necklaces, earrings, anklets, pendants, chains, charms, bracelets. Manticore is also deeper on Nickels & rings in the wet-salt & dry sand. If you are a wet-slope hunter, damp-slope hunter & dry sand hunter...... Manticore is the choice. IN the saltwater...... the jury is not out (yet). Manticore & Tarsacci are VERY close in performance..... in the ocean. If you add wet-salt AND black sand..... the Tarsacci is still the choice. Most beaches around the World do not have much (if any) black sand.
For inland hunting....... if you have heavy mineralization....... stick with the Tarsacci. If you are below: "medium-mineralization" (below 4-bar dirt)....... Manticore all-the-way.

Jess, Nasa Tom said the Manticore has 23% more depth over Deus 2 in iron not over all. That's still good. It's hard to get depth in iron.

Yeah I understood that and honestly that was my main concern because that's a large percentage of the hunting conditions I encounter.I wanted to ask about clean ground but I am trying not to bomb him with questions.

Tom was told the 7/900 had full CF shafts with significantly improved locks. But, i believe i read they use the same coils and the 6/800. If true, isnt the lower coil connector..... meaning nothings really changed with those coil ears. On my side of the island the Nox tended to loose or should i say ID a nickle as iron close to 11".

In the water is the MC going to be quieter than the Nox? I admit ive not taken much time to read all the posts on the MC yet. So are there two beach modes and how well does it eliminate salt..... as good as the MDT? Sold my Nox some time back as well as my CTX and all my Xcals and only own the MDT..... so id like to have that second detector that would perform well out of the water and in dirt. Ive passed on the Deus there was just things i didnt like and it didnt give any advantage in the water.

So .... what is MLs flagship detector? Cost wise it would be the CTX.... but it seems these detectors over shadow it.... are the working on a new flagship or a DIVE machine? Depth in the water is one thing the Deus and Legond have over these machines it seems.

dewcon4414 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Tom was told the 7/900 had full CF shafts with sig
> nificantly improved locks. But, i believe i read
> they use the same coils and the 6/800. If true, i
> snt the lower coil connector..... meaning nothings
> really changed with those coil ears.

Dew, for what it's worth, my understanding is that the new EQX's can indeed use the same coils as the old EQX's. And given that -- despite the new EQX's having a Manticore-like carbon-fiber shaft, the lower rods for the Manticore, and the 700/900, should be different (with the 700/900 lower rods having the same "clevis" or "yoke" on the end, as the 600/800 lower rods do).

BUT -- I also am of the understanding that it's not quite true that "nothing" has changed with the coil ears; I did hear that the 700/900 stock coil (the 11") includes beefed-up coil ears, compared to the regular 11". And I saw a picture of what was said to be one of the new EQX 11" coils, and it did appear that the coil ears are different -- beefier, and with a bit of a "curved" shape out near the edges, away from the bolt hole, that would also add additional stability/structural integrity.

Steve

NASA-Tom --

So, as I continue to read what you've posted, and ponder the MC, and try to apply some of what I know about FBS units, and THEIR 2-D screens, I want to ask a clarification question.

On FBS units, one way to deal with iron was to adjust your "iron mask." On my Explorer, I used to run with iron mask set at "20" -- which would have the effect of "graying out" the bottom portion of the 2-D smart screen. I think it's called "Iron Mask" on the CTX as well (if I recall), and again -- I set my CTX up to "gray out" the bottom 1/4 or so of the screen.

Looking at the Manticore, and the "Ferrous Limits," you are doing something similar -- in terms of "graying out" sections of the screen. So, on Ferrous Limits -- Lower, if I "gray out" the lower 1/4 of the screen, the screen would APPEAR fairly similar, visually, to what my Explorer or CTX screen would look like.

BUT -- you said you set up your machine with certain levels of "Ferrous Limits," BUT that you also run "all metal" or, "no discrimination." Which then says that ferrous limits IS NOT discrimination. Lightbulb moment!

SO -- I am left to conclude something that I DID NOT realize until you started the "data dump," WHICH IS -- ferrous limits are NOT discrimination. On FBS units, "grayed out" areas on the screen mean the target is discriminated (i.e. NO target report, just a "null" in your threshold). Meanwhile, on the MC, grayed out screen (via Ferrous Limits adjustment) seems, based on what I'm now understanding, to only change the target's tonal reporting. In other words, if a target falls in a grayed-out section of the screen on a CTX, the target has no audio tone report (but a "null" in the threshold). On the MC, however, if a target falls in a grayed-out section of the screen, it DOES report, audibly -- as IRON. Is this a correct understanding? (As an aside, I assume that just like FBS and EQX, if you are running DISCRIMINATION on the MC, a discriminated target would result in a null in the threshold?)

And IF this is a correct understanding, then what does the screen look like when discrimination is applied? I would assume you could glance at the screen, and see NOT ONLY where you have your "Ferrous Limits" set (grayed out), but also what targets you are discriminating?

Finally, restating my understanding, just to be clear -- ferrous limits is ACTUALLY an adjustment that decides which portions of the screen would correspond to an iron tone, for targets plotting in "grayed out" locations, and which portions of the screen would correspond to conductive tones, for any targets plotting in "white" areas. Correct?

Thanks!

Steve



Edited 8 time(s). Last edit at 12/04/2022 12:50AM by steveg.

steveg....... (I'm badly short on time....but) correct on ALL accounts!

Remember....... the EQX 700/900 share the same earless coil! The ears ... are now on the shaft!

NASA-Tom --

Got it. Thanks much for the clarification! I have new things to ponder, then...

As for the 700/900 having the SAME lower rod, and thus the same "earless" coils, hmm. It is correct that the 600/800 coils are compatible with the 700/900, right? IF so, then that means you'll need to use an OLD Equinox lower rod with the carbon-fiber shaft on a new EQX's, if you want to use one of the older coils...

Thank you!

Steve

I think the 700 and 900 just beefed up the ears and attachment points on the coils themselves, thus why the old and new coils are interchangeable between 600/700/800/900.

Link to full Manticore Instruction Manual

Manticore Full Owners Manual



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/04/2022 10:50AM by FloridaSon.

@NASA-TOM

Question on Manticore, Florida Beach, headphones

I have hearing loss; aftermarket (wireless and wired) headphones for NOX 800 include very good insulation and active noise cancelling that virtually eliminate the sounds of crashing surf. Resulting in better clarity of tones.

I have learned aftermarket wireless headphones cannot be used with Manticore.

How is the Manticore headphones insulation quality against ambient sounds? I.E. do you notice the surf sounds?

Thinking about it, I guess I could go with wired noise cancelling headphones?

Thank you for this great primer on the Manticore, it is invaluable. A great reference.
Best regards!

NASA-Tom Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> steveg....... (I'm badly short on time....but) cor
> rect on ALL accounts!
>
> Remember....... the EQX 700/900 share the same ear
> less coil! The ears ... are now on the shaft!


This is inaccurate. Minelab just beefed up the coil ears on the coils made for the equinox series due to having the aftermarket coils available. Coiltek or whatever the spelling is, makes coils for the equinox. So if they changed design that would make many people upset due to having pretty much very expensive paper weights.

sumrtym & basstrackerman.......... We are still tossing around the idea of keeping the old-style coil ears..... or using the upgraded coil anchor. All the feedback may very well cause us to (marketing-wise) keep the older style coil ears....... just for the interchangeability of 600/700/800/900 coils.

steveg........ Yes. If you increase the limits on Ferrous Limits Upper......and/or......increase the limits on Ferrous Limits Lower.,.,.,.,., targets that fall within the shaded-out/gray areas ... will STILL give an audio report.... BUT: now as 'iron' tone.

Let's say you detect a moderately rusted steel bottlecap/crowncap. It ID's as a (say) '46'. On the 2D graph.... it may NOT be all the way on the bottom (F2/Lower) line; yet, may be BELOW the non-ferrous line; yet, ABOVE the pure (bottom) ferrous line. The bottlecap will ID as a '46' non-ferrous tone........ unless/until you adjust your Ferrous Limits Lower......to encompass where the steel bottlecap is hitting/landing on the 2D screen. Now the steel bottlecap will audibly report as a ferrous tone.

NASA-Tom Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> sumrtym & basstrackerman.......... We are still to
> ssing around the idea of keeping the old-style coi
> l ears..... or using the upgraded coil anchor. All
> the feedback may very well cause us to (marketing-
> wise) keep the older style coil ears....... just f
> or the interchangeability of 600/700/800/900 coils
> .

You know Tom that would work if they would just make the manticore and the equinox with all of the same lower rods and coil hookups. Then sell a block or give the buyers of the new equinoxes a block that would slide down between the coil ears and bolt on there then the new lower could bold one right above that. That way they should use all of their older coils and the coiltek coils

Why couldn't ML use the newly designed coils on the 700/900 and include an adapter for all the older style coil ears?

Kenny
[www.youtube.com]

NASA-Tom Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> steveg........ Yes. If you increase the limits on
> Ferrous Limits Upper......and/or......increase the
> limits on Ferrous Limits Lower.,.,.,.,., targets t
> hat fall within the shaded-out/gray areas ... will
> STILL give an audio report.... BUT: now as 'iron'
> tone.
>
> Let's say you detect a moderately rusted steel bot
> tlecap/crowncap. It ID's as a (say) '46'. On the 2
> D graph.... it may NOT be all the way on the botto
> m (F2/Lower) line; yet, may be BELOW the non-ferro
> us line; yet, ABOVE the pure (bottom) ferrous line
> . The bottlecap will ID as a '46' non-ferrous tone
> ........ unless/until you adjust your Ferrous Limi
> ts Lower......to encompass where the steel bottlec
> ap is hitting/landing on the 2D screen. Now the st
> eel bottlecap will audibly report as a ferrous ton
> e.

NASA-Tom,

Thanks for the more detailed reply. It confirms my (new) understanding.

THANKS!

Steve

basstrackerman and khouse --

Isn't more complicated than using your (existing) "old style" lower rods for the "old style" coils, and your new lower rod (that would come with purchase of a 700/900) with the "new style" coils? As long as the lower rods (old EQX and new EQX) are the same outer diameter, either one should work in the new Minelab carbon-fiber shaft...

Steve

steveg Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> basstrackerman and khouse --
>
> Isn't more complicated than using your (existing)
> "old style" lower rods for the "old style" coils,
> and your new lower rod (that would come with purch
> ase of a 700/900) with the "new style" coils? As
> long as the lower rods (old EQX and new EQX) are t
> he same outer diameter, either one should work in
> the new Minelab carbon-fiber shaft...
>
> Steve


I'm talking about making the new equinox lower exactly like the manticore. So the coil would have no coil ears. That way from here forward all of their detectors can use the new design for a much stronger connection. Then the people using the older style equinox coils could use a minelab made or printed adaptor to slide between could ears of the older nox coils so the new lower rods with ears built on them would fit ... NASA Tom said earlier in the thread that he thinks the new nox will be designed like the manticore lowers

basstrackerman Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> steveg Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > basstrackerman and khouse --
> >
> > Isn't more complicated than using your (existing
> )
> > "old style" lower rods for the "old style" coils
> ,
> > and your new lower rod (that would come with pur
> ch
> > ase of a 700/900) with the "new style" coils? A
> s
> > long as the lower rods (old EQX and new EQX) are
> t
> > he same outer diameter, either one should work i
> n
> > the new Minelab carbon-fiber shaft...
> >
> > Steve
>
>
> I'm talking about making the new equinox lower exa
> ctly like the manticore. So the coil would have no
> coil ears. That way from here forward all of their
> detectors can use the new design for a much strong
> er connection. Then the people using the older st
> yle equinox coils could use a minelab made or prin
> ted adaptor to slide between could ears of the old
> er nox coils so the new lower rods with ears built
> on them would fit ... NASA Tom said earlier in th
> e thread that he thinks the new nox will be design
> ed like the manticore lowers

basstrackerman -- I get what you are saying. But what I am saying is, if you have one of the old coils, and the coils are prone to coil ear breakage with a LOWER ROD installed between the ears, is there all that much less chance of breakage if there were an "adapter" inserted between the ears? In other words, either way, the coil ears are "in play." So, at least as far as "breakage potential" goes, I'm not sure how much such an adapter would "mitigate" that problem...

Steve

Regarding 'adaptor pieces' ( so eared Eqx coils will couple to an eared lower-rod ):
The adaptor does not have to squeeze together the two ears in order to function, they could attach independantly ( something like the way Fishers AQ coil attaches ).
And the adaptor doesn't need any frictional forces on rubber washers etc to hold it, it can rely on the flat area of the coil, for example, to stop it rotating. The other part of the adaptor will allow rotational movement of the rod relative to coil, so there's no need for the adaptor to be adjustable relative to the coil.

Pimento Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Regarding 'adaptor pieces' ( so eared Eqx coils wi
> ll couple to an eared lower-rod ):
> The adaptor does not have to squeeze together the
> two ears in order to function, they could attach i
> ndependantly ( something like the way Fishers AQ c
> oil attaches ).
> And the adaptor doesn't need any frictional forces
> on rubber washers etc to hold it, it can rely on t
> he flat area of the coil, for example, to stop it
> rotating. The other part of the adaptor will allow
> rotational movement of the rod relative to coil, s
> o there's no need for the adaptor to be adjustable
> relative to the coil.

I'm not familiar with the way the AQ coil attaches, unfortunately.

But, even if you use the "flat area of the coil" to keep the adapter from rotating, you still need to "lock" the adapter in place, with the coil bolt through the coil ears, and through the adapter, right? So, for example, swinging the coil and accidentally smacking into a tree, or whatever, would STILL put "stress" on the coil ears, right?

To me, the only way to make it work so as to CONFIDENTLY eliminate the coil ears from the equation, would be to epoxy any adapter not only to the flat part of the coil, but to the ears themselves, as well...

Steve

steveg Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> basstrackerman Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > steveg Wrote:
> > ------------------------------------------------
> --
> > -----
> > > basstrackerman and khouse --
> > >
> > > Isn't more complicated than using your (existi
> ng
> > )
> > > "old style" lower rods for the "old style" coi
> ls
> > ,
> > > and your new lower rod (that would come with p
> ur
> > ch
> > > ase of a 700/900) with the "new style" coils?
> A
> > s
> > > long as the lower rods (old EQX and new EQX) a
> re
> > t
> > > he same outer diameter, either one should work
> i
> > n
> > > the new Minelab carbon-fiber shaft...
> > >
> > > Steve
> >
> >
> > I'm talking about making the new equinox lower e
> xa
> > ctly like the manticore. So the coil would have
> no
> > coil ears. That way from here forward all of the
> ir
> > detectors can use the new design for a much stro
> ng
> > er connection. Then the people using the older
> st
> > yle equinox coils could use a minelab made or pr
> in
> > ted adaptor to slide between could ears of the o
> ld
> > er nox coils so the new lower rods with ears bui
> lt
> > on them would fit ... NASA Tom said earlier in
> th
> > e thread that he thinks the new nox will be desi
> gn
> > ed like the manticore lowers
>
> basstrackerman -- I get what you are saying. But
> what I am saying is, if you have one of the old co
> ils, and the coils are prone to coil ear breakage
> with a LOWER ROD installed between the ears, is th
> ere all that much less chance of breakage if there
> were an "adapter" inserted between the ears? In o
> ther words, either way, the coil ears are "in play
> ." So, at least as far as "breakage potential" go
> es, I'm not sure how much such an adapter would "m
> itigate" that problem...
>
> Steve
Steve all I'm saying is this is only for use so the people who still have them older coils would still be able to use them going forward. The breakage isn't going to stop no matter what's attached to them that's not what I'm trying to say I don't care about breakage I just care about usage. And when them toil ears break if they're still under warranty they can swap them out for the newer design I'm sure minelab would do that. At that point after they've swapped him out for the newer design I'm sure there won't be a coil ear breakage. I think even a better option would be just make a carbon fiber lower for the older coils and put it in the box with the new setup when you sell the new equinox 700 or 900. the coiltek coils have no breakage issues and many people would still like to use those with a newer machines since they are compatible. It's only the older stock coils that have the issue and those can be replaced under warranty. And if out of warranty and they break then they're going to have to buy a new coil anyway