Eq 600 5 Khz Crushing Multi On Depth

[CaptainCoinSpill]

First time longtime prowler, and first want to say thanks to Steve H. For the wealth of info I have obtained from him.  I’ve recently traded in my 705 for the EQ 600 and have my first 20 hours on it.  I def love it but I do have one pending concern that I’ve researched quite heavily to no avail.  I’m in central Texas(we have thick dark clay soil that balances at 22 to even 80 sometimes) and mainly hunt old parks or homesteads but will be hitting the beach in a few days now that the virus has subsided.  First off, I’m proficient in proper initial set up(noise cancel, manual ground balance, etc.).  I’ve ran a test garden and have checked many good targets I hit, and this is the conclusion I’ve come to of late: multi doesn’t touch 5 kHz on depth and Id/tone.  5 kHz has slammed 7 wheats that multi couldn’t see at all?  I’ve toggled every option(FE, Speed, hunt pattern) and the same holds true.  The primary reason I got the EQ is for the multi tech.  Now I find myself using 5 kHz only.  I know multi may be better for low conductors but if it doesn’t see a 6” coin flat that gives me A LOT of concern.  Please help.

[palzynski]

2 hours ago, CaptainCoinSpill said:

I've ran a test garden and have checked many good targets I hit, and this is the conclusion I’ve come to of late: multi doesn’t touch 5 MHz on depth and Id/tone.  5 MHz has slammed 7 wheats that multi couldn’t see at all? 

This is odd  , I have an Eq800 and on my test boxes I get the same depth result between mono 5khz and Multi on a 10grams copper coin ( with a very slight advantage to 5khz). Park1 or Park2 . Coin depth 11inches ..Moderate mineralized ground ( Balance at 30 ).  This test is very reliable I use it since several years now  . Then I always use Multi because I do not want to miss small targets that are not seen by the 5kz mono .

[CaptainCoinSpill]

I did just read this in a buried topic:

“Just an example of where multifrequency can still go. Right now you will hear it said that when a detector uses single frequency, all the power is focused on that one frequency, which can give slightly better results on that frequencies preferred target class over multifrequency. This is because multifrequency spreads the power out over the frequency range, with each frequency therefore running slight less than full power. It is the compromise of running all frequencies versus a single frequency. However, with that single frequency you are focused on a single class of targets, and will do less well on the other frequency ranges than the multifrequency unit.

But it does not have to be that way. That is mostly a function of battery power and the desire to keep power use within tolerable ranges. With new high power battery technology, the next step will be multifrequency where each frequency is optimized and running at full power equivalent to what you get running at a single frequency only. I expect we will see this development in the relatively near future.” -Steve H.                                                             

That does explain my concern some and thanks for the reply.  However, we are talking about a pretty drastic disparity here.  Typically, I balance in the teens or 20’s...and sometimes in the 80’s.  I basically want to know if I have a glitch in my machine, or an oversight on my part on Settings(more probable)...but I’ve tried every combo I can think of.  I usually run park one and haven’t tried the field settings a lot.  I did test the concern in all the programs but more in park one.  Perhaps I need to focus of field settings but here in Texas you can barely find a spot to ground balance because our ground is FULL of can slaw and a myriad of pop tops and tabs.

[CaptainCoinSpill]

“This is odd  , I have an Eq800 and on my test boxes I get the same depth result between mono 5khz and Multi on a 10grams copper coin ( with a very slight advantage to 5khz). My test is done on moderate mineralized ground ( Balance at 30 ).“  

I certainly don’t doubt that and this is what is bothering me.  Why am I getting such a huge disparity?  Believe me I’ve tried everything to avoid posting a question that has probably been addressed.  However, I’m out of options and can’t find the answer thru my research?

[Steve Herschbach]

I guess I don’t entirely understand the concern. If 5 kHz is working best for you, why would you not want to use it? Were they to have left it off the machine as having no purpose? The entire reason for having the frequency options is in being able to have them for use in situations where they might offer an advantage. It may simply be your particular location, the combination of ground and targets sought, plus background EMI, favor using 5 kHz.

I keep telling myself I should try 5 kHz more often than I have due to persistent reports it may offer some advantages in some situations. Unfortunately, in my area it seems to be the frequency most prone to EMI if used on its own.

I’m assuming your detector is operating properly. If it is not, that would be a different issue. You say you have tried everything, so I assume you have done a full factory reset? If multi is remarkably and persistently deficient on all targets at a wide range of locations, you may have an issue with the machine and I would not want to discount that possibility. But 5 kHz working better on some targets at some locations? If it did not it was a mistake including it as an option.

[Kaolin washer]

Yes your ground may have alot to do with it , in my soil i found better response in multi, especially in park 1 field 1 which are low Khz weighted. but that iron rich clay could change that  its nice to have the optoins

[palzynski]

It would be interesting to do your test on low mineralized ground if you can ( less than GB 30 ) . Normally you should have similar depth results between mono 5khz and multi for a big coin...

[CaptainCoinSpill]

“I guess I don’t entirely understand the concern. If 5 kHz is working best for you, why would you not want to use it? Were they to have left it off the machine as having no purpose? The entire reason for having the frequency options is in being able to have them for use in situations where they might offer an advantage. It may simply be your particular location, the combination of ground and targets sought, plus background EMI, favor using 5 kHz.”

My concern is pretty clear imo...why would all frequencies be as deficient as they are...when I’ve compared them to multiple locations in multiple scenarios?

[CaptainCoinSpill]

24 minutes ago, palzynski said:ould be interesting to do your test on low mineralized ground if you can ( less than GB 30 ) . Normally you should have similar depth results between mono 5khz and multi for a big coin...

Well test garden gb’s at 21 or so.  There is a big fluctuation in the GB #s from location to location.  I do the same test at every location I’ve been at, and have experienced the same observations.  Of course I don’t mind using 5mhz if that is the best option which I have been...but I was led to believe multi’s strength was optimal performance across the board in many situations...so far it’s been zero for me.  So of course after spending the $ I have...I’m going to investigate this to ensure there isn’t something I’m missing like anyone would.  I haven’t done a reset which I will do this evening.

[Sinclair]

Afaik GB Numbers are not linear to ground mineralization, so don't care too much about them.

Wait until you hit the wet sand on the beach...   multi will definitely outperform single frequency 😃