Jump to content

Nail Board Test Apex Vs Equinox


Recommended Posts


Yes and yes. I have done those adjustments on the Equinox during nail board testing and the results are the same.

I tried to keep the settings for this Equinox video more conservative and more in line with what I would use in the field. I just wanted enough Fe2 iron bias to silence most of the falsing and enough recovery speed to give good separation and good solid audio tones.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • The title was changed to Nail Board Test Apex Vs Equinox

Great tests Jeff, thanks for taking the time. Though I do think coils matter a lot in these tests, and same tests with Coiltek 6x10 on Equinox, or Ripper on Apex, might even up the results a little. Another way these tests can also be done is stock machine to stock machine, as shipped out of box, as that’s probably how most people actually use the detectors - with stock coils.

In general though, if asked I’d give Equinox the nod, as it’s adjustments for recovery speed and iron bias give it a distinct leg up over the Apex. As well it should, as the extra money should get something for the dollars spent.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I could have further handicapped the Equinox by using the stock 11” coil for sure. However, with the settings I used, the Equinox with the 11” coil still scores a 14 just like with the 6” coil. It does struggle with the coin in position 1 on sweep number 2 but still hits in both directions. I don’t have the Coiltek 10X6” yet. I’m still waiting for Chuck to get his…………

My main purpose for this video was to show the capabilities of these two detectors in a well established and respected iron test that does give a good glimpse of how iron targets skew a detector’s performance and what adjustments can be made to make the situation better. Out of the box, default settings are not always the way to go, and for those that don’t want to make a few adjustments, the Equinox may not be their best choice.  However, the Equinox has no trouble with this test except with the coin in the “down the barrel” position (coin in position 2/sweep 4) which also trips up most detectors.

Another reason for making these videos was to show how Mutli Flex and Multi IQ handle down averaging with non-ferrous coin sized targets in iron. Multi Flex detecting my 90% silver Mercury dime in between four 1800s square nails caused the Mercury dime’s target ID to drop from the low 80s into the mid 20s to the mid 40s or straddling the upper iron/lower foil range on the APEX.  So this extreme down averaging can potentially create missed/discriminated out targets using Relic mode unless one is willing to have their eyes glued to the display and look for upper iron range numbers, hunt in Zero mode or compromise and accept part of the iron range. Multi IQ also experienced some down averaging on the Mercury dime from 27/28 or so to 17 to 20. That drop in target ID still leaves the Mercury dime solidly in the middle of the Equinox non-ferrous range. The Equinox 800 has easy to adjust tone breaks for optimizing its two tone mode and even the 600 in 2 tones would have no problems either.

Finally, I wanted to let people who don’t have an APEX, hear its very improved iron tone. I still do not care for its IRON AUDIO function except for temporarily checking targets for iron. To me pressing the Iron Audio button with some of the iron range rejected results in typical Garrett extremely enhanced, smeared and elongated iron responses which are not proportional to the size of the iron targets and which over powers non-ferrous targets even with the iron volume on 1. However, using Zero Mode with Iron Audio OFF or Monte’s Custom Mode settings or something similar with about half of the iron range rejected or just enough to cause iron responses on most nails, results in iron responses which are proportional to the target size, allow for very good audio separation and which do not over power nearby non ferrous targets. Also, the Equinox 800 has fully adjustable iron and non-ferrous individual volume and pitch adjustments which really come in handy for 2 tone, ferrous/non-ferrous relic hunting for those who are hearing challenged and need to make adjustments for easier tone acquisition.

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/6/2021 at 11:20 AM, Steve Herschbach said:

Great tests Jeff, thanks for taking the time. 

Jeff, I also appreciate your time and effort on the videos.  I don't have a camera, but my youngest son Bryan, hitting 40 next week, has a few and when I get with him next I plan to make a few videos to post.

Jeff and Steve:  Please e-mail me at monte@ahrps.org to keep it private and send me your mailing addresses.  I want to send you each something that I've  sent to Nokta / Makro, White's and Garrett before.

 

On 9/6/2021 at 11:20 AM, Steve Herschbach said:

Though I do think coils matter a lot in these tests, and same tests with Coiltek 6x10 on Equinox, or Ripper on Apex, might even up the results a little.

Yes, search coil size, shape and type can all make a difference, but it really is important for them to be attached to a detector that works well with them to bring out their performance.

 

On 9/6/2021 at 11:20 AM, Steve Herschbach said:

Another way these tests can also be done is stock machine to stock machine, as shipped out of box, as that’s probably how most people actually use the detectors - with stock coils.

I agree, Steve, but way too many people tinker around with settings after turning them On and before reading their manual.  Besides, the Apex, out-of-the-box when brand new 'turns-On' in 15 kHz.  I don't doubt that most Apex buyers tend to immediately select the 'MF' function just because they think Simultaneous Multi-Frequency is the only way to go .... and it isn't ... but few use the Selectable Single-Frequency option and never experience an 'as-new', 'as-shipped' default turn-On operating frequency.

 

On 9/6/2021 at 11:20 AM, Steve Herschbach said:

In general though, if asked I’d give Equinox the nod, as it’s adjustments for recovery speed and iron bias give it a distinct leg up over the Apex. As well it should, as the extra money should get something for the dollars spent.

I'll give the Equinox the nod for doing well for a detector that retails for about twice-the-price and does feature more adjustment functions.  But so far, hunting a lot of iron debris filled sites and using my Custom settings of accepting '20' on up for VDI's, Volume '8' and Iron Volume '2' and using the 'Ripper' 5X8 DD most of the time, I find this mid-priced Apex set-up to work quite well.

Monte

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I still have yet not seen the videos I will do it when I have a little time available .

Just one thing,  I dont want to be negative but I am very careful with these 2D separation tests. The reason is because once I did one at home where I had excellent results  ( I dont remember the machine ) . Unfortunately in the field the results were totally opposite and the detector was really poor in the iron trash .

Why the results were so different between the home test and the field test? I dont know , may be because the home test is only 2D , while in the field there is a 3D structure with irons at different levels much which is more complex than a 2D device.

I prefer testing the machines directly in the field , an area with high iron trash , same conditions for each machine , and simply determine the ratio number of coins found / hour for each detector 

On the other hand I am much more confident with home depth tests using boxes filled with ground because it is a 3D device and I have always had very good results with it.  If a machine goes deep on the box it will go deep in the field.

Perhaps we should imagine a 3D separation test using a box filled with a mix ground and irons , I dont know ...

Just my opinion , as usual ..

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, palzynski said:

I still have yet not seen the videos I will do it when I have a little time available .

Just one thing,  I dont want to be negative but I am very careful with these 2D separation tests. The reason is because once I did one at home where I had excellent results  ( I dont remember the machine ) . Unfortunately in the field the results were totally opposite and the detector was really poor in the iron trash .

Why the results were so different between the home test and the field test? I dont know , may be because the home test is only 2D , while in the field there is a 3D structure with irons at different levels much which is more complex than a 2D device.

On the other hand I am much more confident with home depth tests using boxes filled with ground because it is a 3D device and I have always had very good results with it.  If a machine goes deep on the box it will go deep in the field.

Perhaps we should imagine a 3D separation test using a box filled with a mix ground and irons , I dont know ...

Just my opinion , as usual ..

I use both types of tests to assess whether a VLF detector will work well in the moderate to highly mineralized soil types I often hunt in and for how well those detectors can handle man made iron and aluminum trash masking and ID up or down averaging in the presence of iron or aluminum trash. The test used in the videos, created by forum member Monte Berry, is from an actual situation he encountered in a Western USA ghost town and is similar to many situations that I have encountered also. It is easy to do and offers a lot of information that has been helpful to me and many, many others in the North American detecting area. I often put this nail board on top of different samples of mineralized dirt that I have collected and use gold nuggets of different sizes instead of coins. Relics work well too.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Jeff McClendon said:

I use both types of tests to assess whether a VLF detector will work well in the moderate to highly mineralized soil types I often hunt in and for how well those detectors can handle man made iron and aluminum trash masking and ID up or down averaging in the presence of iron or aluminum trash. The test used in the videos created by forum member Monte Berry is from an actual situation he encountered in a Western USA ghost town and is similar to many situations that I have encountered also. It is easy to do and offers a lot of information that has been helpful to me and many, many others in the North American detecting area. I often put this nail board on top of different samples of mineralized dirt that I have collected and use gold nuggets of different sizes instead of coins. Relics work well too.

Yea western ghost towns tend to have the targets laying on top of or just below the surface. So the 2D test is very relevant for those situations. Hunting a ploughed field is a different story and in that scenario I've found that some detectors do well while others don't. Mineralization also plays a big part and can often mask targets just like iron does.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, abenson said:

Yea western ghost towns tend to have the targets laying on top of or just below the surface. So the 2D test is very relevant for those situations. Hunting a ploughed field is a different story and in that scenario I've found that some detectors do well while others don't. Mineralization also plays a big part and can often mask targets just like iron does.

Absolutely……one of the first things I try to find out in a new western USA relic area is if the ground has been disturbed, cultivated or not. It helps me know which detectors and settings may work best for either situation.

  • Like 4
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...