Jump to content

Reliable Test For Comparing Target Separation Capabilities?


Recommended Posts

45 minutes ago, Jeff McClendon said:

Testing the Equinox in default Park 1 is a bit like seeing the world through a front door security peep hole.

Yeah, I just learned that a few minutes ago.

I did a quick and dirty test with my version of Monte's Nail Board and when comparing Park 1 in the Equinox to the AT Max, the AT Max won. The Equinox was silent on the dime and the AT Max gave a scratchy tone, but definitely consistent (although the VDIs were all over the place).

But when I placed the Equinox into Field 1 or 2, it easily smoked the AT Max. 

So yeah, I understand that there's no way I'll be able to "fully" compare the Equinox to the AT Max But I'll work on finding some sort of "gotta-start-somewhere-cut-off" to compare these machines.

I feel like an employer looking through hundreds of CVs while trying to figure out how to sort through them all. And I'm deciding if I should use the GPA or test scores as my primary qualification and if so, what those cut offs should be. I know it's arbitrary, but I need to use something to create a manageable way to compare the CVs.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites


2 minutes ago, mh9162013 said:

But when I placed the Equinox into Field 1 or 2, it easily smoked the AT Max. 

What made this change of results possible?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, Jeff McClendon said:

What made this change of results possible?

I don't know for sure, but I figure the Iron Bias settings might have something to do with it; I know the recovery speeds are the same between those modes. The dime was about 2-3 inches below the nail, but still very close to it (in regards to the horizontal, not vertical, plane).

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Iron bias default settings do make a difference. Some have said that Park 1 and Field 1 are the exact same default modes meaning they have exactly the same frequency weighting using Multi but with slightly different discrimination patterns, different iron bias settings and different tone settings. There does seem to be a difference in the frequency weighting between them from my experience. There is a huge difference in the frequency weighting between Park1/Field1 and Field 2 for sure.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Jeff McClendon said:

Iron bias default settings do make a difference. Some have said that Park 1 and Field 1 are the exact same default modes meaning they have exactly the same frequency weighting using Multi but with slightly different discrimination patterns, different iron bias settings and different tone settings. There does seem to be a difference in the frequency weighting between them from my experience. There is a huge difference in the frequency weighting between Park1/Field1 and Field 2 for sure.

I didn't think about the frequency weighting differences, but those could play a role, for sure.

I didn't really notice a difference between Field 1 and 2, though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Weighing frequency/Equinox/ is very important in such types of tests ... another difference between the program we have is in the limit of the Iron-tone break ... and perhaps also in the Iron bias ...

The case of good mastery of the" Monte Nailboard Performance Test" at Silver Dime is here ...

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You may already have your answer.  The versatility of Equinox likely enables you to set up the Equinox to spank the AT Max for your specific different circumstances.  My advice to you is to do some book study and practical validation on test targets before head-to-head testing to really learn how the various Equinox mode settings are set up for different circumstances and target objectives including how settings such as the ferrous break, recovery speed and the two iron bias filters affect response.  The descriptions in the Equinox user guide manual are a pretty good place to start as is Steve’s compendium of informative Equinox forum posts.  That way you can anticipate what you should do to set up Equinox to be optimized for a given situation then verify expectations with head to head testing.  There may be some odd corner case where the AT Max excels over the Equinox, but that shouldn’t necessarily win the day.  If you don’t learn the modes and settings before you test then you are just guessing and basically flying blind. Give it a shot.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Chase Goldman said:

You may already have your answer.  The versatility of Equinox likely enables you to set up the Equinox to spank the AT Max for your specific different circumstances.  My advice to you is to do some book study and practical validation on test targets before head-to-head testing to really learn how the various Equinox mode settings are set up for different circumstances and target objectives including how settings such as the ferrous break, recovery speed and the two iron bias filters affect response.  The descriptions in the Equinox user guide manual are a pretty good place to start as is Steve’s compendium of informative Equinox forum posts.  That way you can anticipate what you should do to set up Equinox to be optimized for a given situation then verify expectations with head to head testing.  There may be some odd corner case where the AT Max excels over the Equinox, but that shouldn’t necessarily win the day.  If you don’t learn the modes and settings before you test then you are just guessing and basically flying blind. Give it a shot.

I agree, but I think this is what's going to happen:

I run my battery of tests and the only settings I mess with in the Equinox will be changing the modes (Park 1, Park 2, Field 1 and Field 2). As for the AT Max, I'll probably just mess with the modes (Zero, All Metal and Custom) and maybe the sensitivity.

I have a strong feeling that the Equinox will still edge out the AT Max. Depending on how much better the Equinox does, I'll start doing some comparisons after adjusting for recovery speed, both types of Iron Bias, etc. In other words, I'll make sure I understand the Equinox more to better make adjustments with it and take full(er) advatnage of its capabilities.

I just made my test garden. It's just a dime at 4-5 inches down in my highly mineralized soil. This dime is also 1 inch away from a brand new nail. I originally buried these items around 6-7 inches down, but neither the AT Max nor the Equinox could detect the dime. And only on the rare occassion, could either make ANY sort of sound on the nail (or a combination of the two targets).

But after burying both items just 4-5 inches down, the AT Max could detect both targets and separate them, but gave readings b/w 11 and 99 on the dime. As for the Equinox, in both Park and Field modes, it could reliably detect the nail and dime. But when hitting the dime, the VDIs ranged from around 18 and 25. So as many of you have already said, the AT Max can often detect what the Equinox can detect, but at "depth," its VDIs are no where near as consistent or accurate as the Equinox.

So in just 2 rudimentary tests today, the AT Max is already 0-2 against the Equinox.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You can save a lot of testing time by using the Equinox and actually learning it. You can also save hours and hours by posting a question on the forums like " who here has sold their Equinox and kept, or bought the AT Max. (Crickets chirping I'm sure).

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Tom Slick said:

You can save a lot of testing time by using the Equinox and actually learning it. You can also save hours and hours by posting a question on the forums like " who here has sold their Equinox and kept, or bought the AT Max. (Crickets chirping I'm sure).

I have no doubt that Equinox, in most situations, will outperform my AT Max. The only question is by how much. But the AT Max has certain advantages over the Equinox, in my opinion. While these advantages may not matter to most people, they matter to me.

And no, just "using the Equinox" won't save time. Running tests offers a more time-efficient (and still enjoyable) way to compare the Equinox to the AT max under my conditions, using my method of hunting and taking my preferences into consideration. And logistically, it's easier for me to test metal detectors than actually go hunting with them. Finally, running these tests is teaching me a lot about the Equinox. 

This doesn't mean results from actual hunts don't matter. But adding a series of tests to my occassional outings to go hunt (which isn't as often as I'd like) is the most efficient way for me to make a decision between the two machines.

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...