Jump to content

Public Mention Of Multi Iq Gen-2 In Link Below


Recommended Posts


Next generation of Equinox.  From what little I know, it seems that sort of like the Explorer/E-Trac were "FBS", and then the CTX was released and considered "FBS2" -- i.e. a more "fully matured" version of the FBS platform, I am pretty sure that the Equinox/Vanquish are rightly considered M-IQ1, and then that the next "flagship" from Minelab in this line, will be considered M-IQ2.

Steve

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You could be reading too much into that post, due to it coming from Tom D. It seems pretty obvious that simultaneous multi-freq has a LOT of options available, and the Eqx implementation is just the 'first try' , despite being a good try.
The Eqx generates it's transmit waveform arbitrarily, it's just programmed in software, so all sorts of different freqs / combination thereof could be created. Not necessarily limited in range to the 4->40 kHz the Eqx coils currently seem capable of, as new coils could be designed. And some 'BBS type' transmissions are also viable.
The details of 'received signal processing' is the area most likely to benefit from ongoing development. But as we know essentially nothing about what techniques ML are using currently, it's tough to speculate what they are working on for the future.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

We all know there is going to be a successor to Multi IQ/Equinox and based on the updates that ML has rolled out just for the Equinox you know they are heading in the direction of improving and tweaking MIQ.  That, of course, will be released (an invariably promoted) as MIQ second generation.  I suspect that as Steveg stated it will be directed to a more sophisticated "Flagship" detector implementation in regards to User Interface, discrimination, target ID, probably some sort of successor to the CTX.  

I think people are reading too much into Tom's comments - of course there is going to be second generation MIQ coming, that's just obvious if you follow ML's innovation roadmap history.  There was no real insight provided by Dankowski, in this regard.  The question is when will that be and Tom didn't say when, so no real groundbreaking information there.

(BTW Steve - maybe you want to ask your nail falsing question over on this forum 😉 Hint:  use iron bias at 6 and get your hands on one of those Coiltek 10x5 ellipticals, if you can)

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wonder what the name of it will be?

Could it be Equinox 2 in line with the say name Explorer 2 following the explorer.

Or could it be maybe a CQX, in line with CTX.  Using C as first letter, followed second letter of previous model ( Q = Equinox) (T = Etrac) and finish it off with and X designator?

Or some thing else?

Guess in time we’ll know.

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My money is on a CTX variant - but one that is affordable, fast, and actually waterproof.  It may externally still look similar to Equinox but with a lot more under the hood and MUCH BETTER build quality (hopefully).

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My crystal ball broke around 2 weeks ago.  Haven’t got it fixed.  So I have no idea.

  • Like 1
  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Chase,

Not a bad idea, LOL!  

I appreciate the info.  You are the first to suggest the 5x10 for working in iron; I had been waiting to hear that from someone.  You like it better in iron than the 6"?

Steve

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, steveg said:

Chase,

Not a bad idea, LOL!  

I appreciate the info.  You are the first to suggest the 5x10 for working in iron; I had been waiting to hear that from someone.  You like it better in iron than the 6"?

Steve

I def like the swing coverage vs. the 6 inch, but honestly, I need to give it more run time in square nails.  I made a lot of iron falsing go away on some recent beach runs by running with high F2 bias and managed to snag nickels and high conductors (the nickels and deep quarters told me gold would have popped if I had gotten my coil over some bling).

Problem is its impossible to get your hands on one in the states right now.

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
  • Similar Content

    • By diggindaboot
      THIS !! All the people boo hooing will be in line to get one at that price point. It will also force the hand of ML with their price structure. ML raised their price on the 800 and NM absolutely crushed that price point. The Legend doesn't have to be better, just equal to turn the fortunes in their favor. ML and their arrogant "obsolete" charge is foolish. Obsolete by definition means no longer produced or used. Many detectorist and their single frequency machines are still out there making great finds and having fun. Furthermore, single frequency detectors are still being made and sold. NM build quality is far and away superior to the Nox detectors. 
       
       
    • By Gerry in Idaho
      I thought I was pretty damn good, but this technology has me beat.
      https://www.nbcnews.com/science/environment/mining-gap-companies-push-find-raw-materials-electric-vehicle-boom-rcna5077
      Might be time to invest?
    • By mcjtom
      Metal detectors often seem to have a 'Depth Gauge'.  How is it calculated? Is it the strength (or inverse of it) of the amplitude of the return signal?  So, for instance, everything else being equal, the 'deep' target would mean either a stronger target at greater depth or a weaker shallow target?
    • By GB_Amateur
      While we're all abuzz with the announcement and advertised feature and performance characteristics of the XP Deus II, I'm wondering about tests that distinguish between detectors' target separation abilities.  'Word on the street' is that in trashy iron sites, the original Deus is still the best available.  Presumably those reports are based upon in-field testing, which of course is the real proof.  But the downside is, (AFAIK) these are qualitative observations, not quantitative.  Subjectivity involved?  Unfortunately, yes.
      We do have Monte's Nail Board Test for a special case -- iron nails near a single coin, all in the same plane and typically all on the surface of the ground.  Add depth combined with some mineralization (burying the MNB) and you've included another real world dimension.  But in the field, multiple nearby targets are seldom in the same plane.
      So you hopefully see the purpose of this post.  Has anyone seen/tried other methods to better simulate actual in-field conditions to differentiate between competing detectors to best be able to handle trashy sites?
    • By Rick N. MI
      I mostly hunt in lakes and the bottoms are mostly all sand. A test on a sandy beach with the Equinox 800 and Xp Orx, both hit hard on a 14k 3.7 gram gold ring buried at 14". For mild ground I don't see a need for multi frequency. I do like the multiple frequencies on the Orx.
      Is there an advantage to multi frequency in mild ground?
    • By Steve Herschbach
      We have the Deus 2 just announced, Nokta/Makro Multi on the way, possibly the next generation Equinox from Minelab, and maybe even another Garrett multifrequency model to follow Apex, all coming in 2022. I guess we should even toss First Texas in there, as they just officially discontinued the CZ-3D, with the possibility something new will replace it soon. If this does not mean we are moving past single frequency, I don’t know what does. Or are we? There will no doubt always be a place for a finely tuned single frequency detector. However, if you consider Deus as selectable frequency, and Equinox as selectable/multi, then very many of us have already moved past a simple single frequency detector as our primary detectors.
      This is the thread to speculate on what is coming, where we are, and where we are headed. 2022 is shaping up as the year SMF (simultaneous multifrequency) finally takes off for real. In some detectors, it’s just companies chasing the latest marketing catchword. Multifrequency is only as good as the way it is implemented, otherwise we’d all have been swinging White’s DFX ages ago. It’s not enough to make a SMF detector, it also has to have genuine performance advantages. About the only given is that any multifrequency machine will outperform a single frequency on a saltwater beach. The rest, however, is very much up in the air.
      For some detailed explanation of the technology, and a history of past selectable and simultaneous multifrequency detectors, see my write up on Selectable Frequency And Multiple Frequency
      Where it all started, Fisher CZ-6 and Minelab Sovereign, both released in 1991. I think Fisher wins claim to being first, since Minelab takes a swipe at them in their Sovereign introduction. Notice how the misdirection on transmitted versus received and processed started on day one. 

      Fisher CZ-6 Quicksilver. The technology: Dual frequency Fourier Domain Signal Analysis. Patented state-of-the-art analog/digital electronics transmit two VLF signals (one 5 kHz, one at 15 kHz) deep into mineralized soil. The receiver circuitry had two ground compensated target signals to analyze, compare and identify. The result? Deeper targets, more accurate target identification. Wet sand is no problem for the CZ-6, it compensates for salt and ground mineralization simultaneously! Source Fisher CZ-6 Datasheet
       
       

      "The Sovereign" is the first of the latest generation of metal detectors from Minelab featuring Minelab's new technology called Broad Band Spectrum or BBS for short. This revolutionary new technology which is unique to Minelab has already been awarded patents in the USA, Canada and Australia and has several pending. Unlike other metal detectors which operate at just one frequency, or even the "newest" two frequency machines, "The Sovereign" actually transmits over a wide spectrum of frequencies. The resulting signal that is received from a target buried in the ground is processed by a microprocessor that removes interference caused by ground mineralization which limits the depth at which targets can be found, and often results in inaccurate target identification. The remaining signal can then be analysed to determine the actual composition of targets even if they are deeply buried, or if the ground is mineralized or salt water is present. Thus it is the only detector that can simultaneously reject both salt and mineralization while at the same time accurately discriminating the target, making it ideal for black sand beaches and many desert areas. In many areas that are highly mineralized and have been heavily searched in the past, "The Sovereign" will prove that many of the valuable targets are still there waiting for a Treasure Hunter with the proper detector to locate them. Source Minelab Sovereign Instruction Manual
×
×
  • Create New...