Jump to content
  • ×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

      Only 75 emoji are allowed.

    ×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

    ×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

    ×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Similar Content

    • By RobNC
      Ok.. I've encountered some really tough ground conditions in a lot of areas that I hunt regularly. We are talking the red dirt with little shiny particles all in it that also has iron mixed in.  My Teknetics T2 struggles in it. My ORX struggles but will fish things out if you can stand the machine gun blips. I keep reading that the Equinox is more suited to deal with this. Now, I tried an Equinox 600 and found it to also cut up on certain plots of land, and the particular one I had was really horrible in iron. The tones also played tricks on my ears and I found the bleepity bling like sounds to confuse my caveman brain. The ORX has been a decent detector for me, and helped me rehabilitate myself after a car accident this year. However the tones in it are so close together that my ears can not often discriminate high from mid tone. There is no way to adjust it.
      Let's fast forward to today. The Equinox 600 does not have the adjustability of the 800 concerning tones, or at least that is my understanding. I walked away from my Equinox 600 ticked off that I could not seemingly bond with it. In my mind there was a single thought - how much better would the 800 be? For those of you that have especially used the XP ORX or the Teknetics T2 and also used an Equinox 800 I'm asking you, does the Equinox 800 do better in contaminated soil than my current 2? It is possible I will trade the XP ORX towards the EQ800. Would that be a "step-up" in capabilities? I've always found this forum and the people here honest and fair with no BS. So I ask you, would it be worth the extra money, hassle and such to truly give the Equinox 800 a chance even though I had a 600 and it didn't quite suit me. It is entirely possible the 600 I had may have had a fault of some type for all I know. And what of depth with the EQ800 vs the XP ORX?
      Reaching out to everyone in the know.
    • By Fskafish
      Im looking to buy an orx but, ive noticed the price of them is all over the place, from 899 to 650 i know theres roughly 3 packages or so im looking for the package with the 9 inch hf coil and wireless headphones. Where are you orx owners buying from?
    • By MannyScoot
      Shot a video of a small nugget I found yesterday using the XP ORX in Carefree Arizon...... If anyone is interested : 
       
    • By Rick N. MI
      I find myself also using the Orx more and more.
      I'm finding it pretty equal with the Equinox. The Orx is better hunting gold jewelry in Gold modes. Gold Kruzer 2nd for gold jewelry. Equinox 3rd.
      It doesn't false either. Better in iron.
      It's becoming my main detector.
      Detectors I have:
      Equinox 800 w/ 11" and 6" coils
      XP Orx w/ 9" hf coil
      Gold Kruzer w/ 9.5x5.5 concentric, 9.5x5 dd, 4x7.5 dd coils
      Lobo STmodded w/ 8" and 5.75" concentric coils
    • By Steve Herschbach
      Has anybody used both or have any opinions on which coil offers the most useful overall frequency range? With the X35 you have 4, 8, 12, 16, and 26 kHz and with the round HF coil you have 15, 30, and 55 kHz.
      It seems to me the X35 26 kHz is sufficient for most nugget detecting while offering frequencies as low as 4 kHz. I guess another way of asking would be has anyone really found the 55 kHz or 74 kHz settings to be that much better than the 30 kHz setting on the HF coils?
      I’m just speculating that for the die hard nugget hunter the HF coils make sense but with the ORX X35 wired headphone combo available for as low as $649 it might actually be the better option for the multi-use detectorist.

      XP ORX with 9" round HF coil or 9" round X35 coil options

×
×
  • Create New...