Minelab Equinox 900 Or Manticore For Prospecting

[phrunt]

I wonder if the Manticore and the Equinox 600, 700, 800 and 900 will have identical ground handling capability.  The 600 and 800 obviously do, the question is has it improved with the new Nox and the new Nox+ (Manticore).  I think salt handling has been improved as for the Manticore they're saying a good increase in depth on the beach.

This line from the Manticore manual suggests it's probably not much different, "Goldfield Mode is suited to finding smaller
surface gold nuggets (and some larger deeper ones) in mineralised ground."

Where I mostly use air testing is identical detector, identical settings (usually maximum) and identical targets with the only change being the coil, and this has been very revealing which coils are very sensitive and which are not.  The target I prefer to use is the smallest lead pellet the detector will even see at all, and the depth is generally less than an inch often significantly less except on the most sensitive of coil.   Some coils won't see it at all where as others get inches on it so I find that valuable, at least to know which coils I personally want to use when looking for small targets.  I completely agree they're not related to depth in ground, although I'm quite fortunate here where my air test depths are often quite similar to in ground tests on such small targets where depth is very limited already.

On something like a coin even in my most mild of ground I can expect a significant drop in in ground depth from an air test result using any VLF.

[Steve Herschbach]

On 12/2/2022 at 8:49 PM, jasong said:

Exactly, but neither of us were trying to determine depth "in ground". Just trying to look at raw sensitivity numbers in air as a baseline, nothing more or less. 

Without wanting to unduly sidetrack this thread from the subject at hand, I will bite and take this opportunity to discuss something that I believe is really misunderstood and I've never really elected to respond when it comes up in order to keep things on track, but since you bring it up here...

Air tests are simply measurement and data acquisition in a (more or less) repeatable, replicatable manner. It's a baseline measurement. It doesn't depend on anyone's specific soils, it removes that unknown variable entirely. And that's why it's an important measurement that IMO gets a bad rap for no reason at all. The problem comes when people misinterpret the data, but how other people interpret data is not my concern, and I don't find it to be a valid reason to ignore real data or not take measurements.

By the same argument you are making, I could say in-ground tests are even more flawed, unless you have ground mineralization exactly equivalent to the person doing the tests. Because an in ground test means absolutely nothing unless everyone understands the characteristics of that specific ground. And that's literally impossible, because most places I detect the ground changes so often from place to place that even I couldn't properly characterize it myself except in the vaguest of terms, let alone accurately convey that information in any meaningful sense to people via  a forum, except in the vaguest of terms which make the measurement almost meaningless: Hot, hottish, mild, salty, hella salty, etc. And what that term means to me could and often does mean something totally different to someone else (places I consider mild I often find people insisting it hot and requiring Difficult as one example). There is no control, there is no repeatability, there is absolutely no ability to replicate it unless someone goes and buries the same target in the same place, and even that (as you, Condor, and abenson discovered) is not reliable since the minerals can be redistributed in different ways than the previous test.

There is nothing magic about a detector that makes it beyond testing and measurement. The place people go wrong in individual interpretations of data. And honestly, I don't find someone's inability to understand that an air test is simply just performance in air to be a compelling reason to make an air test forbidden. It's useful data. Data is just data. It's just a measurement, wether someone misinterprets it or not is their problem, not mine. If science never happened because we always worried that the general population wasn't capable of correctly interpreting it, we'd understand far less than we do today. And there probably wouldn't be metal detectors to begin with.

Air tests forbidden? Come on Jason, don’t play the straw man game, or put words in my mouth. Like I said, a lot can be learned from air tests. I do air tests all the time. Any kind of tests really can be informative. It all just depends on who is doing the tests, and who is interpreting the results, based on what kind of experience. On that much we agree. However, If you think you are learning anything about the efficiency of the detector ground balance system by air tests, on that we have to disagree. Yes, mineralization varies, but how a detector balances it out is critical, and air tests can tell you nothing about that. Worst case scenario is air testing a high frequency VLF against a PI, which delivers results completely the opposite of what you’ll see in bad ground.

But do test away - it’s not forbidden. 

[PhaseTech]

I envy all you guys who find heaps of VLF gold. 90% of the ground where I hunt is just too mineralised to use them anywhere near full potential. When the ground dries out, it possibly opens up 10% more areas. I just need to focus on quartz wash type soils, and stay away from the red clay. Still it's hard not to grab the GPZ or 6000. 

As for which will be better, I'm curious to find out as well. I'm hoping whatever the rumoured improvements were made to the Manticore's prospecting mode have filtered down to the Nox 900 as well. I'm kinda curious about the Pitch Depth audio in a Disc mode vs the prospecting mode. Sound wise, to my ears at least, the Nox 900 in factory mode sounds just like a Nox 800, but the Manticore sounds a little more like a 3030 maybe??, but prospecting modes on both machines I have no idea. Hopefully get to have a play with them soon.  

[Gold Catcher]

1 hour ago, PhaseTech said:

I envy all you guys who find heaps of VLF gold. 90% of the ground where I hunt is just too mineralised to use them anywhere near full potential.

I concure. VLFs have very limited use where I hunt as well. But then I only focus on gold prospecting. 

GC

[Steve Herschbach]

Yeah, same here. Pretty much PI all the way. I might use a Nox or maybe the Manticore if I get one, with 15" coils, to do some blue sky prospecting in the high Sierra Mother Lode country. 150 years of logging has scattered little bits of wire and other ferrous stuff far and wide in the forest duff. Large specimen gold would be the target, pocket hunting, and so scanning lots of terrain efficiently is the order of the day. The tiny ferrous can really interfere with that. Frankly, the country is so shot full of bullets from 150 years of hunting that's bad enough, so taking the ferrous bits out of the equation might be helpful.

But I dream of doing that often, have for years, and never seem to get around to it. I normally just grab my Pi and go right to where I know there is some gold for the taking. But maybe this year. The thought of finding a new little patch somewhere looks better every year as the known areas are getting more pounded all the time.

Once you get serious about using PI detectors for nugget detecting, discussing which detectors with far less power might be "best" gets a little silly. From a PI perspective all VLFs are about the same. It's only when you compare a VLF to a PI that you see genuine mind blowing improvements in performance worth talking about.

[mn90403]

1 hour ago, Steve Herschbach said:

Frankly, the country is so shot full of bullets from 150 years of hunting that's bad enough, so taking the ferrous bits out of the equation might be helpful.

Now you have done it Steve.  The BB subject has come up.  Those 6s and 8s sound so good on most detectors.  You have a 'feeling' of knowing what you are going to see but you just have to sift through the scoop and see it anyway.

What do they sound like with the new 900 and Manticore?  What do they sound like with the Axiom?  Can they be ignored without missing gold in the settings?

They are the crusty pennies of the goldfields.

[Steve Herschbach]

When people went

11 minutes ago, mn90403 said:

Now you have done it Steve.  The BB subject has come up.  Those 6s and 8s sound so good on most detectors.  You have a 'feeling' of knowing what you are going to see but you just have to sift through the scoop and see it anyway.

What do they sound like with the new 900 and Manticore?  What do they sound like with the Axiom?  Can they be ignored without missing gold in the settings?

They are the crusty pennies of the goldfields.

When people went from the 7000 to the 6000 vast amounts of tiny shot appeared, in places where it did not exist before. One might also say the same of the small gold - the two go together. But it does raise the question of how small is too small. For some of us missing the tiniest bit is a bad thing. For those who actually do this for money, you must be pulling in larger gold, as the tiny bits very rarely are going to pay off. The big money is in chasing the larger gold. But tiny gold can lead to big gold, so….. ?

That being the case, it is possible to finesse things by the choice of detector. It’s why a GPZ 7000 is the better choice for the pro trying to pay the bills over the 6000. Though I do think the 6000 is the better choice for the patch hunter. And for me hunting in areas full of junk and hot rocks, I’m thinking the Axiom is a pretty good option also. Does it hit a tiny bit as well as a GPX 6000? Probably not. Is that what I need where I’m going to be hunting? Also probably not. And in fact, a good VLF does have its place also, for the very same reasons. That’s why I’m thinking Manticore might be helpful, with maybe less emphasis on the tiniest nugget, and more emphasis on the best discrimination possible.

The thing about this that I enjoy is there are not these simple black and white answers people tend to crave. Nugget hunting can get complex, with situations grading from one set of circumstances into another. It makes the choice of the right detector more challenging than the oh so simple question of “what goes deepest.” And is why many of us have more than one. One detector really can’t do everything perfectly, that’s just a fact, so having two or three makes plenty of sense for the serious detectorist who is doing more than just one particular thing.

[phrunt]

The Coiltek 10x5" on the Nox doesn't quite have the small gold sensitivity that the 6" does, I'm hoping the smaller 8x5.5 on the Manticore does have the 6" sensitivity or at least closer to it, then that alone will be big for me as the elliptical shape is just better especially with the hot nose on the elliptical coils.  The hottest spot on the 6" is the center of the coil, not always possible to get that over targets.

I also hope they've improved the knock sensitivity a bit.

There is a cross-over point in target size where VLF makes the GPX 6000 and GPZ look pretty poor, especially in milder soils, swing the Nox with 6" and it can sound like a machine gun on pellets that the 6000 and 7000 even with small coil are completely blind to so those that like finding the smallest of gold can benefit from the Manticore/Nox 900.  Both have a higher gain setting that the Nox 800 which might be good, I often always ran on 25 so pushing that higher might be good, it's their redline settings as they've said they may not work but if you can use them all good 🙂

I found a nugget on this little bedrock ledge with a coating of soil, the soil got mostly deeper in the cracks, I was using the 6000 and 11" coil so of course I spent an hour or so cleaning the little ledge out of all targets, I also took the GPZ and 8" coil there the next week to finish it off and found 2 more bits of gold from memory benefiting from the small size coil on and directly around the ledge where I'd checked the week before and I also found more pellets and was pretty sure I'd finished it off, went the next week with the Garrett 24k and cleaned out another 20 or so pellets I'd completely missed with both which was a big surprise to me and they had me excited as they were the deeper pellets.  I didn't expect that I'd missed so much.

I like VLF's for gold, they will find gold the other detectors will not, generally very small gold and it sure won't pay the bills but for someone that does it for fun they're great and for pure bedrock detecting they're hard to beat.

I'm also much more comfortable taking a VLF into a creek looking for gold than the GPZ or GPX 6000 and I'd never buy an SDC just for the purpose of the occasional creek detect, especially when the VLF's are just fine for it and come waterproof.  I do wish they also made the 6" for the Manticore though just so I could retire my Nox.

[Gold Catcher]

5 hours ago, phrunt said:

I'd never buy an SDC just for the purpose of the occasional creek detect, especially when the VLF's are just fine for it and come waterproof

The point is, they are not. VLFs are no match for the SDC when it comes to shallow gold hunting in difficult soil. You've got to come here to the Motherlode, Phrunt, or to most parts of the CA desert for examples of gold-typical difficult soil conditions to understand this issue a bit better. I doubt that many places on earth have the ultra-mild soil you are having, so less experienced DP members should not be misled when reading the thread. VLFs do have severe limitations in most gold bearing areas (unless in NZ), this is why the SDC was designed and why it has been so successful ("PI-GB2"). I don't say they are entirely useless, and especially with very small coils (GM5, Nox 6) the performance can be reasonable. But not anywhere close to what VLFs can do in super mild ground.  In addition, discrimination hardly ever works and you will miss gold, unless the gold is literally touching you coil.

8 hours ago, Steve Herschbach said:

Yeah, same here. Pretty much PI all the way. I might use a Nox or maybe the Manticore if I get one, with 15" coils, to do some blue sky prospecting in the high Sierra Mother Lode country.

Good point Steve. I see the opportunity to use the Manticore (or Nox) for surface scanning and to then perhaps follow up with PI later on. For super trashy areas this might be a good strategy, with the caveats of discrimination understood. But from that perspective, why not using the Axiom right away? Also, for the Manticore discrimination, I wonder what depth would be for the "cliff", where discrimination stops working altogether beyond hope. For the GM it is about anything great than 0.2 inch.

GC

[phrunt]

14 minutes ago, Gold Catcher said:

The point is, they are not. VLFs are no match for the SDC when it comes to shallow gold hunting in difficult soil

We are certainly at opposite ends of the spectrum when it comes to soil Gold Catcher, you sound like you've got the worst of the worst which is why our views are so polar opposite.  I'm sure there are plenty of places around the world with gold that aren't as difficult as you're describing, VLF's have done great over the years for gold in many countries including Australia and Africa, yes PI's are better overall, except for the smallest bits in mild conditions but VLF's certainly have their place for many people. 

The idea of this thread isn't to compare VLF's to PI's, it's comparing the Equinox to the Manticore for prospecting purposes, my choice was the Manticore, hopefully I've picked the right one.  I'd like it if it they didn't somehow hinder its prospecting mode to benefit sales of the Nox 900 seeing it's so clearly going to be the better coin and jewellery detector of the two.