Jump to content

Modified Monte's Nail Board Results: Tesoro Versus Equinox 600


Recommended Posts

I have a modified Monte's Nail Board that I used recently to compare the Equinox 600 to the Fisher F2, Garrett AT Max and Vanquish 340. You can see my post discussing my results here.

I recently acquired a Tesoro Cibola and Tesoro Vaquero. Both are in great shape and both have the stock 8x9 "monolithic" coils (are these concentric?). I tested both on the same Modified Monte's Nail Board using the same parameters as my previous test. Just as a refresher:

Coin Position 1 (Up) = the dime is in the middle coin position, but the dime is on the same plane as the nails. 

Coin Position 1 (Down) = the dime is in the middle coin position, but the dime is below the plane (about 2.5 inches) the nails are on.

Coin Position 2 (Up) = the dime is in the side coin position, but the dime is on the same the plane nails are on.

Coin Position 2 (Down) = the dime is in the side coin position, but the dime is below the plane (about 2.5 inches) the nails are on.

4 = The metal detector gave a tone and/or VDI response that would definitely result in me digging the target.

3 = The metal detector gave a tone and/or VDI response that would likely result in me digging the target.

2 = The metal detector gave a tone and/or VDI response that would likely result in me NOT digging the target.

1 = The metal detector gave a tone and/or VDI response that would definitely result in me NOT digging the target.

 

Here are the Equinox 600's results and settings: The Equinox 600 was set up in Park 1 where everything was stock, except I adjusted F2 = 0. Sensitivity was at 10 (out of 25). The Equinox 600 was using the stock (11") coil.

Coin Position 1 (Up):

Sweep 1: 4

Sweep 2: 1

Sweep 3: 3

Sweep 4: 4

 

Coin Position 1 (Down):

Sweep 1: 4

Sweep 2: 1

Sweep 3: 1

Sweep 4: 1

 

Coin Position 2 (Up):

Sweep 1: 4

Sweep 2: 2

Sweep 3: 2

Sweep 4: 2

 

Coin Position 2 (Down):

Sweep 1: 4

Sweep 2: 1

Sweep 3: 1

Sweep 4: 1

 

 

Here are the Vaquero's results and settings: Discrimination nob was set to Iron, sensitivity was set to 4 and I was using the stock 8x9 coil.

Coin Position 1 (Up):

Sweep 1: 4

Sweep 2: 4

Sweep 3: 4

Sweep 4: 4

 

Coin Position 1 (Down):

Sweep 1: 4

Sweep 2: 3

Sweep 3: 4

Sweep 4: 3

 

Coin Position 2 (Up):

Sweep 1: 4

Sweep 2: 2

Sweep 3: 4

Sweep 4: 4

 

Coin Position 2 (Down):

Sweep 1: 2

Sweep 2: 3

Sweep 3: 4

Sweep 4: 3

 

 

Here are the Cibola's results and settings: Discrimination nob was set to Iron, sensitivity was set to 4 and I was using the stock 8x9 coil.

Coin Position 1 (Up):

Sweep 1: 4

Sweep 2: 4

Sweep 3: 4

Sweep 4: 4

 

Coin Position 1 (Down):

Sweep 1: 1

Sweep 2: 1

Sweep 3: 1

Sweep 4: 2

 

Coin Position 2 (Up):

Sweep 1: 3

Sweep 2: 1

Sweep 3: 1

Sweep 4: 3

 

Coin Position 2 (Down):

Sweep 1: 1

Sweep 2: 1

Sweep 3: 1

Sweep 4: 2

 

Pretty impressive, eh? Yet the Equinox 600 had clearly superior recovery speed. But what I found interesting was that when I compared the Equinox 600 and Cibola, they were similar in regards to target masking. Here's my rough test:

The Equinox 600 was set up in Park 2, F2=0, sensitivty was 10 and I notched out everything below 17 (everything else was stock). I placed a Zincoln between two modern aluminum can pulltabs. I placed the Zincoln between the 2 pulltabs in a straight line with equal distance b/w the pulltabs and coin. I then swung my Equinox coil over the line and saw if it detected the coin and discriminated out the pulltabs. I then moved both pulltabs in closer to the Zincoln while keeping all 3 pieces of metal in a straight line. There was a point where, during the swing, the Equinox failed to beep on the coin. I'd estimate this was when the pulltabs were about 5 inches (maybe?) on each side of the coin. However. if I honed in the on coin and did those mini "wiggle" swings, the coil could detect the coin (so the separation was there with the coil, but the recovery speed wasn't, apparently).

Anyways, I did the same test with the Cibola and sets the discrimination so that the coin could be clearly detected and the pulltabs not detected (discriminated out). When I did the same above test with the Cibola, it performed virtually the same as the Equinox 600, ie the pulltabs masked out the coin at almost the exact same point and the coil could still be "wiggled" over the coin only and still detect it, but not during a "full" swing.

I still need to test the Tesoros more, and I'll be selling at least one of them (if not both). But I wanted to hear your thoughts as to what I could do differently to get better results with either the Vaquero, Cibola or Equinox 600.

Don't my results with Monte's Modified Nail Board seem a little...too good to be true for the Tesoros? What am I missing? Is it b/c I'm using a "monolithic" stock coil (is this a concentric coil?) and the coil is averaging the nail and coin values, which still come up above iron? I think I answered this question; see below/updated post.

And same for the target masking when comparing the Cibola to the Equinox 600 using the Zincoln and pulltabs. I'm not surprised by the Cibola's results, but the Equinox 600? What could I adjust on the Equinox 600 to reduce this target masking (besides getting a smaller coil)?

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites


Update: I just completed the Modified Monte's Nail Board test with the Cibola and Vaquero, but used the Mars Tiger (DD) coil on each. I also adjusted the discrimination so it was one tick mark past Tab (when moving clockwise). Sensitivity remained at 4. This made it possible to pick up the clad dime, but reject the iron (consistently, w/o any chirps or small blips). Here are the results for both:

Coin Position 1 (Up):

Sweep 1: 2

Sweep 2: 1

Sweep 3: 1

Sweep 4: 1

 

Coin Position 1 (Down):

Sweep 1: 1

Sweep 2: 1

Sweep 3: 1

Sweep 4: 1

 

Coin Position 2 (Up):

Sweep 1: 1

Sweep 2: 1

Sweep 3: 1

Sweep 4: 1

 

Coin Position 2 (Down):

Sweep 1: 1

Sweep 2: 1

Sweep 3: 1

Sweep 4: 1

 

Now that's "more like it."

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Very interesting test results. I think the lesson gleaned (for me anyway) is that coil choice, for the conditions, is very important. Maybe I missed something?

For certain areas that I hunt, I've long preferred concentric coils because (for me) they seem to perform better in those conditions. A number of people have told me I'm wrong, but that hasn't changed the fact that I've had better results (certain sites) with a concentric coil.

 

Thanks for taking the time to do the test and post your results.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Tahts-a-dats-ago said:

Very interesting test results. I think the lesson gleaned (for me anyway) is that coil choice, for the conditions, is very important. Maybe I missed something?

That's the lesson I learned from my battery of tests. I still don't understand how the Cibola matched the Equinox in terms of target masking when discriminating, though.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I still don't understand how the Cibola matched the Equinox in terms of target masking when discriminating, though.

 

                

                 Keep the bias out of scientific experiments. What I mean is you sound as if, in your mind, that the Equinox is the better detector.   Could that old analog detector from the last century beat a modern, digital, multifreq, WhizzBangXLT?

And forget the Cibola, look at the results of the Vaquero. Nailed it!

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm surprised the Cibola and Vaquero perform so much differently on your modified MNB, given they are very similar detectors (both operate at 14.5 +- 0.2 kHz and both use the same ED120 Silent Search Discriminator circuit.  It sounds like both had the same coil in your tests (stock 8"x9" concentric).

BTW, it wouldn't be a bad idea to run the tests with no coins present.  I've been surprised in the past when my in-ground testbed was giving a good high tone with a pulltab right next to a coin, thinking I was getting the coin without interference from the pulltab.  But when I took the coin away I got the same high tone!!  (This was ML Equionox in 4 kHz.)

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Cibola, Vaquero and other 10 kHz and higher Tesoros were never considered to be slow detectors. They could separate and unmask targets very well in milder dirt. I am not surprised that they did well since they have a much smaller number of filters compared to the Equinox along with much less complicated processing of the return signal.

Most older simultaneous multi frequency detectors suffered from slower or snail's pace recovery speed, below average target separation, minimal unmasking in iron and struggled in moderate to high iron mineralization including those offered by Minelab. Minelab's Multi IQ simultaneous multi frequency technology vastly improved the performance of the Equinox as far as recovery speed, target separation, unmasking in iron and achieving good target ID and depth in moderate to high iron mineralization. Unmasking in aluminum or other targets with similar conductivity is another issue entirely. The bread and butter target range on the Equinox due to its higher operating frequencies is the entire aluminum range from about 2 to 26 or so depending on the size of the aluminum. The Equinox will hit targets in that range really hard.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Flydog said:

Keep the bias out of scientific experiments. What I mean is you sound as if, in your mind, that the Equinox is the better detector.   Could that old analog detector from the last century beat a modern, digital, multifreq, WhizzBangXLT?

It's not bias, it's a hypothesis. When I did some preliminary test on the Monte's Modified Nail Board, I was impressed with the results. I was even debating whether I should keep the Vaquero or Cibola and sell the Equinox! But then I realized it was the coil and most likely, an averaging of the nail and coin values producing the tone. not either Tesoro machine actually having the unmasking and separation ability that exceeds the Equinox.

But like Jeff mentioned, these Tesoros seem to do hold their own when it comes to separating targets and unmasking, especially considering how old their tech is. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, GB_Amateur said:

I'm surprised the Cibola and Vaquero perform so much differently on your modified MNB, given they are very similar detectors (both operate at 14.5 +- 0.2 kHz and both use the same ED120 Silent Search Discriminator circuit.  It sounds like both had the same coil in your tests (stock 8"x9" concentric).

BTW, it wouldn't be a bad idea to run the tests with no coins present.  I've been surprised in the past when my in-ground testbed was giving a good high tone with a pulltab right next to a coin, thinking I was getting the coin without interference from the pulltab.  But when I took the coin away I got the same high tone!!  (This was ML Equionox in 4 kHz.)

I think the differences in performance b/w the Cibola and Vaquero were due to the analog nature of the machines. There's also the fact that there could have been some slight variations in the Discrimination Knob position. I'm not saying that the Vaquero and Cibola should in theory, have performed identically (I don't know that). But what I am saying is that any differences could have been amplified by the simple nature in how the Tesoros work and are adjusted.

I did do the tests with no coin present. Neither Tesoro could individually pick up each iron nail consistently. When I lowered the discrimination past Iron, all I usually got was a single beep when swinging over Monte's Modified Nail Board.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just as an FYI, when I usually hunt, due to the Equinox separation ability, the only thing I have notched out is iron. So when I swing over a moderately trashing area due to aluminum, I often get the classic "machine gun" series of beeps from my machine. But since I'm hearing individual sounds, I'm capable of listening for the high tone of a coin and can hone in on one if I should hear it.

These tests show that if I want to continue hunting in trashy yards and parks (assuming much of the trash is aluminum), I should continue hunting this way and NOT notch out aluminum (as to avoid masking).

  • Like 1
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...