Jump to content

Could Not Make Eqx To See The Target


nordic

Recommended Posts

In order not to pollute forum, I'll ask here, does anyone use headphones plugged directly into Nox? What are your preference, direct or wireless?

As well known, wifi stream, bluetooth operate in GHz area, but mobile phones operate in the upper MHz /GHz bands as well and do effect the coil noise, does it make sense to go direct perhaps? This always puzzled me a little. Phones transmit with a lot more power, but hey, that Nox wifi module is next to the sensitive unshielded circuitry... 

I also notice direct has somewhat fuller sound, while WM08 module is a little thin and dry using stock iphone ear phones.

To experience the latency using WM08, you may try using a pair of ear bud type headphones, one plugged directly and one into WM08 module simultaneously, one earphone into one ear and another into another ear, you may notice a slight doubling, but it is very subtle.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Nordic,

I only used the 800 headphones when there is cooler weather, or the surf and/or wind is loud! Warmer weather, they make my ears sweat which is very uncomfortable!  And I've also had pairing/ unpairing issues with them!  So i always carry the module and a light foldup pair of  wired earphones with me as the primary, and/or backup! 

Also, as long as my cellphone is in my back pocket, is doesn't interfere with the module!  I've found that if i put the module and extra wire in a cellphone arm band; like joggers wear, the wire is out of the way, and does not get hung up like it always does when i have it on a beltloop! Also I'm generally wearing a large sunhat, so regular headphones don't work well! So i use the bottom two! 

  If i am going to be wearing a pack for extended use away from my vehicle, i also bring a charger, and Nox wires with me!( see bottom pic)!          And drinks, lunch, and TP,  no pics!!🧻🤣

Here are pics of what i use! 🎧👍

20191205_123557.jpg

20191205_123703.jpg

20191205_123904.jpg

20191205_123751.jpg

20191205_125446.jpg

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, I will chime in nordic and say I have to disagree with your overall assessment as regards software development. I have used more Equinox software versions than any of you... all of them since day one of product development. The goal is for each version to be better, not make versions that are a step backwards. Yes, there are trades, but a new version never is issued unless it is felt the pluses outweigh the minuses. The earliest production version missing some silver on edge was a big deal for many people.

The software the Equinox was shipped with was not what the engineers thought was the best that could be achieved. It is simply as far as they could get by the time the decision was made to go into production. The whole point of having the update capability is to insure more improvements can be made later as user feedback is collected.

I run the latest version of Windows, I run the latest version software in my iMac. This forum is running the latest version. I run the latest updates on my iPhone and iPad, and all of my Equinox are running the latest software update. I kept a couple at older versions to do comparative tests and decided there was no point in sticking with the older versions. I certainly do not think the latest version is making my Equinox less effective, just the opposite. I think the new ferrous settings are a major addition and would not be without them.

However, if a person truly feels that for some reason an earlier version is better for them, there is nothing wrong with that either. If your testing has convinced you that for your particular situation you are better off with an older version I am not going to disagree with you there. We all have very specific needs not shared by others.... some people DO prefer an older version of Windows! :smile: If you prefer the earlier version of the Equinox software then you have the ability to use it if you prefer. That’s the beauty of the system. Most manufacturers still require you to mail the detector back for an update, and once done, there is no going back.

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe more because of my computers - the isue with going back to older versions , I do get buggered by updates .

So like to see that it is possible to roll back , thanks .

I also like to dig all targets and learn how to read the tool .

At this time [ low income ] I have to make my one detector - NOX 800 , be the best / only detector there is , maybe some day in the future I can own more than one , but for now it was a stretch to buy this one , so far I think I made the right choice , also bought the Garrett AT Pro pin-pointer .

Going to be trying salt water beaches for the 1st time this Jan. FL for a few weeks with a friend - he will be on his boat that I will help look after and he will fishing and throwing everything back [ sick puppy 😉

While I will be on the beach looking for goodies , and later go on the boat to play with the Bermuda triangle .

Late , who knows when , I will head back to AZ & CA looking for gold new-gets , use to do dredging in No. Cal. 80-90s .

If I find enough , I will get back to owning about half dozen detectors .

Thanks all , I can not disagree with any of the above .

 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Myself working in software/hardware industry, things, unfortunately, are not as simple. This is just my personal opinion only, but a healthy dose of caution and skepticism needs to be applied when replacing/upgrading something that serves one well or one learned to live with it. Forums and general research are invaluable resources for this.

Anyway, I did few more tests yesterday at home with 1.5, 1.7.5 and v2 and decided to go with 1.7.5 tomorrow to that field. Will report. I hope to prove myself wrong and all these versions perform same. Most of all I want to see how it reacts to coke and close targets.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, nordic said:

Myself working in software/hardware industry, things, unfortunately, are not as simple. This is just my personal opinion only, but a healthy dose of caution and skepticism needs to be applied when replacing/upgrading something that serves one well or one learned to live with it. Forums and general research are invaluable resources for this.

Anyway, I did few more tests yesterday at home with 1.5, 1.7.5 and v2 and decided to go with 1.7.5 tomorrow to that field. Will report. I hope to prove myself wrong and all these versions perform same. Most of all I want to see how it reacts to coke and close targets.

Since you ruled out 1.5, did you make that decision to go with 1.75 over 2.0 by thoroughly/exhaustively testing Fe vs. F2 iron bias settings? Otherwise, there should be practically no difference in baseline performance between 1.75 and 2.0 given identical user settings including Fe iron bias.  The main performance difference between 1.75 and 2.0 is the F2 bias setting and since 2.0 includes the legacy Fe settings as well as the F2 settings, 1.75 brings practically nothing to the table over 2.0 performance wise and the 1.5 to 1.75 update was the one that changed baseline detector performance with respect to low profile (e.g., edge-on coin) target performance.  That is just simple straight forward logic.  

I suppose one could challenge the assertion whether the “baseline” (i.e., non F2 iron bias) performance is identical between 1.75 and 2.0 but ML’s admittedly vague description of the 2.0 changes doesn’t imply anything beyond the addition of F2 and the backlight enhancement for the 600 and perhaps some low level underlying bug fixes.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I didn't want to make the post too long explaining the test I did at home, but if it is of any interest...

I have a wooden floor infested with nails and they ring as iron. I placed a small target and swang few times over it trying to see how each firmware responds to it. Same settings on all versions, FE=0. The 1.5 and 1.7.5 behaved identical, except that on 1.5 iron nails appeared to start giving positive IDs at a certain coil height, but that height was higher on 1.7.5, but not much. Other than that, signal was strong. The v2 in both FE=0 and F2=0 modes was giving a broken signal over the target, so I just left it at that, just preferred the signal of the older version.

Most of the time I hunt in fields that, luckily, are never too trashy and prefer iron bias to be at 0 and judge rather from the way target sounds, from different angles, etc. It only takes to dig few targets to kinda see the pattern and character of the field... As was also mentioned, the pinpoint gives a good idea of the size of the target as well. I know some people complain about the pin pointer being off-center, but I never found that to be the case. The pin-pointer does behave differently from time to time sound wise, but I learned if I turn it on higher off the ground, it works well most of the time.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some time ago I compared several detectors with small coils in a classic monte nailbord test..wherever the aim was a small and thin silver hammered 14mm -0.44gram coin ..- I will say a relatively demanding test..on separation .. One of the detectors tested was Equinox with a small 6 "coil on the new firmware 2.0.12 .... and this detector, when properly set up in Park 2, discrimination at 0, and iron bias F2 to 0 to set3 ..., recovery speed 7 .. achieved excellent results. .., 6.5point from 8-point max ..

if you change the discrimination setting above 0, or change the iron bias FE above 3, you will lose a lot of the Equinox separation benefits ...
the correct setup of Equinox is essential ..

Another detector that achieved similarly good results was the Vista gold gains 5.7 "coil at a suitable setting  and iron audio settings ... 7 points from 8 points max ...but the 5.7 "coil ... is nearly 1cm closer than the 6" coil of Equinox..

 

mi note7 december 2019 2299.jpg

mi note7 december 2019 2301.jpg

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So... I feel I had a great day today hitting that field once more, but with 1.7.5

Many would call items on photos junk, but that is what I like digging. 

On one photo you may see a small item that came from 8 inch depth, and to the right bottom of it is a covered hole from last week, I just missed the item beside it. In fairness 1.7.5 saw targets that Garret pin pointer had trouble picking up, so small they were (see pictures)

This is one of those days when I felt md talking to me, rather than making decisions for me. Last week most of things sounded broken and undiggable, but today it was letting me to do the decision. There was subtle shift in feedback from rather negative (last week on v2) to rather positive (1.7.5 today), making me feeling guilty walking away. I have to say I removed some iron too until I could relearn the pattern - rust was coming at ID 13 predictably. All I can say is I felt confident not missing much in the ground. Will stay at 1.7.5.

8A390C52-047F-4522-B2B6-2DD3AC749851.jpeg

ECF54EE2-960A-4E33-9BB9-022B94A74F41.jpeg

BCC75B58-E5A0-4BB4-9C4D-F01CC7F8A5E7.jpeg

8AE03B15-5FD8-4BFD-8F1E-4D1421AAA4F4.jpeg

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...