Manticore In Iron (nail Beds)

[Jeff McClendon]

38 minutes ago, phrunt said:

Nokta have done updates to fix updates that didn’t work as intended, that by definition is beta testing.

Suits some people, I’d like the frequent  software fixes and improvements but to many it’s likely a pain and they would prefer a more polished product at release especially with all the problems people have had with installing updates.

it’s all options, we can choose between the detectors we prefer based on stuff like this.

Absolutely.

I have purchased newly released detectors from Minelab, XP, Garrett and Nokta during the last 4 years. All of them, every single model (two from Minelab) had either hardware, board level component or software issues right out of the box that either required physically shipping them back to a repair center or doing several software updates. 

The days of advanced metal detectors being perfect or even close to perfect at release seem to be over at least for the time being.

Hopefully some very multilingual people at Minelab are carefully reading and watching (God Bless them by the way whoever they are) all of this online material about the Manticore. Give them a pay raise Minelab.

[Cal_Cobra]

On 12/29/2022 at 1:54 PM, PSPR said:

Maybe Simon is right in that Minelab is holding up Manticore production until they get some newly found bugs worked out of the software.

Tom D. indicated that initial production was uber conservative as they want to make sure [crucial to success] "exacting" tolerances are employed while at the same time [I suspect] monitoring user response as they trickle into the field.

Mine is finally shipping, time to crack open the manual 🙂 

Here's to hoping the Manticore is worth the premium over the EQX900 🍺

[steveg]

On 12/27/2022 at 12:12 PM, cobill said:

Scoop,

Yes they are blowing this out of proportion. This YT video was released 11 days ago. Doesn't look that hard to me after reading the manual!😂

 

cobill,

Excellent, informative video.  Thanks for linking it.  For you or I, with Minelab FBS background, this makes sense.  BUT -- for those who don't have that background, and have been a bit confused about the 2D screen, and how "ferrous limits" work, I'd think this video makes things ALOT more clear/understandable.

NOW -- if I can just talk Minelab into including a TWO-DIGIT display option for target ID (i.e. including the Ferrous number, ALONG WITH the Conductive number), then things (in my opinion) would be even MORE clear, as it would show more directly the relationship between the 2-number ID (FE and CO) that is being calculated in the background, and the 2-D screen (which is simply an x,y coordinate system, with 2-number coordinate pairs -- i.e. target IDs -- plotted on the coordinate system as the machine takes snapshots of the target).

Steve

[Chase Goldman]

39 minutes ago, steveg said:

NOW -- if I can just talk Minelab into including a TWO-DIGIT display option for target ID (i.e. including the Ferrous number, ALONG WITH the Conductive number), then things (in my opinion) would be even MORE clear, as it would show more directly the relationship between the 2-number ID (FE and CO) that is being calculated in the background, and the 2-D screen (which is simply an x,y coordinate system, with 2-number coordinate pairs -- i.e. target IDs -- plotted on the coordinate system as the machine takes snapshots of the target).

Totally agree, Steve.  But ML will want to wring some more dollars out of us to get that feature because they're likely saving that for the MantiNox 2500 with it's precision wound coils to exacting nanometer tolerances and 75% more coil power than the Go Find 66 and which will be announced to great fanfare and breathless claims of multi generational leaps in capability by erstwhile NASA engineering consultants and unbiased YouTube influencers. 

I'm hoping that marvel of engineering prowess is not announced before I get my replacement Nox 900 back from ML warranty support or I might have post-warranty user's remorse.

On a serious note, ML's Ferrous Limit implemention on M-core, though daunting in its setup for some, is not really the issue.  It seems more signal processing magic tweaking is required to get a subset of small ferrous from landing on or near the centerline (i.e., outside of orjust inside of the max Upper Ferrous Limit setting of 14).  In other words, higher accuracy/reliability in generating the numerically hidden FE ID component of the TID.  So even if ML provided FeCo 4-digit ID, that would only be as reliable as the extent that you could actually bank on the accuracy of the provided Fe ID component.

[steveg]

57 minutes ago, Chase Goldman said:

Totally agree, Steve.  But ML will want to wring some more dollars out of us to get that feature because they're likely saving that for the MantiNox 2500 with it's precision wound coils to exacting nanometer tolerances and 75% more coil power than the Go Find 66 and which will be announced to great fanfare and breathless claims of multi generational leaps in capability by erstwhile NASA engineering consultants and unbiased YouTube influencers. 

I'm hoping that marvel of engineering prowess is not announced before I get my replacement Nox 900 back from ML warranty support or I might have post-warranty user's remorse.

On a serious note, ML's Ferrous Limit implemention, though daunting in its setup for some, is not really the issue.  It seems more signal processing magic tweaking is required to get a subset of small ferrous from landing on or near the centerline (i.e., outside of orjust inside of the max Upper Ferrous limit setting).  In other words, higher accuracy/reliability in generating the numerically hidden FE ID component of the TID.  So even if ML provided FeCo 4-digit ID, that would only be as reliable if you could actually bank on the accuracy of the provide Fe ID.

Chase, 

I hear you, on your slightly cynical humor in the first half of your post.  I get it. 

I WILL say that I understand the "multi-generational leaps" thing that is being referred to, and I get why it's been said, but I also get why that statement might be misconstrued by some to think that this means that the machine is going to give you a an on-screen, photograph-quality picture of each target in the ground, AND dig it for you!  LOL!  But, in defense of the statement, I think there are some very significant engineering achievements built into the unit, in SPECIFIC aspects (EMI handling being one of them) that are indeed major engineering breakthroughs. 

Let me illustrate with an analogy.  Consider a vehicle.  When we moved from carburetors to fuel-injection systems, that was a HUGE engineering leap, in terms of internal-combustion engine development/advancement.  HUGE.  An engineering marvel, some would say.  It revolutionized 100- (or more) year-old technology.  BUT -- to your average car owner, did they see it quite that way?  Yesterday, I could drive my car with carburetor to the grocery store with no issue.  Today, I can drive my NEW car with fuel injectors to the grocery store, with no issues.  So what's the big deal?  NOW -- would ANY of us, today, opt for a vehicle that utilizes a carburetor, instead of fuel injection?  I don't think so; most would agree that fuel injection is a far superior way to achieve proper gas/air mixture, get it to the cylinder, and thus improve internal-combustion engine performance.  So -- YES, I feel it was an engineering marvel.  BUT -- I also can imagine why some, at the time of its introduction, would have said "What's the big deal?  I've been misled by false claims!"  What an engineer sees as a "huge leap" in technological achievement may not always translate into something that a CUSTOMER feels is a "huge leap," but instead just a small, incremental improvement.  I know you are (were) an engineer, so I know I'm preaching to the choir a bit, but...

ANYWAY, how much these "breakthroughs" engineered into the MC translate into actual, improved performance for us, remain to be seen IMO.  BUT, with that said, I am 100% convinced that EMI mitigation is a big part of this discussion, and that the "long-press" trick that NASA-Tom described, when doing a noise cancel, is a key to unlocking this particular "engineering marvel," so as to coax maximum performance from the unit.  I could elaborate on this...and will if anyone wants to read a way-too-detailed and way-too-lengthy post, but I'm being cognizant of the tl;dr problem!

NOW -- switching gears; as far as ferrous limits, I totally agree with you.  There are two issues at hand, that have to be considered separately.  ONE, is knowing how to set your limits up properly to best take advantage of what the machine IS capable of, but the other of course is that there's no way ferrous limits can help in improving anything if the machine itself is NOT capable of providing accurate target identification.  You and I totally agree on this. 

My focus here has been hoping to help people without prior FBS familiarity, to better understand FE/CO, and the 2-D screen, and how setting proper "limits" is of huge importance.  There are nuances and subtleties there that will TOTALLY affect what we hear, and thus what we choose to dig.  BUT -- all of that is based on the ASSUMPTION that the machine is ACCURATELY ID-ing the target IN THE FIRST PLACE, which is YOUR point.  And you are spot-on, of course, because if the MC is INCAPABLE of properly IDing a nail, for instance, then all of the understanding in the world of 2D display and 2-digit VDI and ferrous limits and everything else, becomes a moot point (for those improperly ID-ing targets).

So, yes, we totally agree.  Again, there are two separate considerations here; ONE is knowing what limits are, why they are important, and how to set them up, so as the coax from the machine "the best that it is capable of."  That video that was linked by cobill does a very good job on illustrating that, in my opinion.  BUT, that still leaves the issue of what IS "the best that the machine is capable of" in terms of proper target ID?  For those nails that are going to "false" as good signals, and fall right on the "zero line" (the "non-ferrous" line), nothing in that video is of any utility at all, for those specific targets.

THAT problem will have to be handled in a different way (which may include some combination of frequent/proper ground balancing, lowering sensitivity, increasing recovery speed higher than might otherwise be desired, changing detecting mode to one that includes a mix of higher frequencies, etc.)  And ULTIMATELY, it may have to be handled with a MUU/update, as some have speculated.  But, I think the jury is still out there; I don't think there are enough machines, in enough peoples' hands, for enough time, to conclude anything in that regard just yet...

Steve 

[midalake]

14 minutes ago, steveg said:

That video that was linked by cobill does a very good job on illustrating that, in my opinion.  BUT, that still leaves the issue of what IS "the best that the machine is capable of" in terms of proper target ID?  For those nails that are going to "false" as good signals, and fall right on the "zero line" (the "non-ferrous" line), nothing in that video is of any utility at all, for those specific targets.

I am interested in the manticore's ability to separate out those non-ferrous coins in Mexico. I think this is where the ferrous limits will shine. I look forward [if possible] to identify the Mexican 5-peso coins which is about 50 cents local worth. Right now, I have to pass these up with the Equinox and D-2. I am guessing on a yearly basis I am leaving $150 worth of these in the beach. 

 

[steveg]

2 minutes ago, midalake said:

I am interested in the manticore's ability to separate out those non-ferrous coins in Mexico. I think this is where the ferrous limits will shine. I look forward [if possible] to identify the Mexican 5-peso coins which is about 50 cents local worth. Right now, I have to pass these up with the Equinox and D-2. I am guessing on a yearly basis I am leaving $150 worth of these in the beach. 

 

midalake -- why do you "have to pass them" on the EQX or D2?  Because of the way they ID, obviously, but I'm not sure of the details of how they ID, that forces you to "pass on" them.  Do they ID as solidly ferrous or something?

Steve

[midalake]

1 hour ago, steveg said:

Because of the way they ID, obviously, but I'm not sure of the details of how they ID, that forces you to "pass on" them.  Do they ID as solidly ferrous or something?

The coin is a combination ferrous outer ring and non-ferrous center. 

On the Equinox they bounce all over with the short ferrous ID range from -4 to-7. I dig a few by signal size once in a while. But as we all know the Equinox does not size targets well by sound. 
These coins are all over on the D2. Right now, my hunting style on the D2 has my iron tone/vol at 1. They fall solid in the iron bin, so I do not even hear them. 
My hope for the Manticores expanded iron range is it holds a better range number and paints them on a certain spot on the screen. If so. I can notch that location on the screen.  

[schoolofhardNox]

1 minute ago, midalake said:

The coin is a combination ferrous outer ring and non-ferrous center. 

On the Equinox they bounce all over with the short ferrous ID range from -4 to-7. I dig a few by signal size once in a while. But as we all know the Equinox does not size targets well by sound. 
These coins are all over on the D2. Right now, my hunting style on the D2 has my iron tone/vol at 1. They fall solid in the iron bin, so I do not even hear them. 
My hope for the Manticores expanded iron range is it holds a better range number and paints them on a certain spot on the screen. If so. I can notch that location on the screen.  

If it was just iron it would probably be easier to accept that narrow spot. I'm guessing the way to do it is to read the target with no discrimination and see where the pattern lands. I would think it would travel from a certain number in the non ferrous line and continue up into the ferrous line. It would probably look like how a nail responds sometimes. But it sounds like it could work unless a nail displays in the same exact spot as the coin would.

[steveg]

10 minutes ago, midalake said:

The coin is a combination ferrous outer ring and non-ferrous center. 

On the Equinox they bounce all over with the short ferrous ID range from -4 to-7. I dig a few by signal size once in a while. But as we all know the Equinox does not size targets well by sound. 
These coins are all over on the D2. Right now, my hunting style on the D2 has my iron tone/vol at 1. They fall solid in the iron bin, so I do not even hear them. 
My hope for the Manticores expanded iron range is it holds a better range number and paints them on a certain spot on the screen. If so. I can notch that location on the screen.  

Got it.  Makes sense now.

Steve