Manticore For Prospecting

[strick]

17 hours ago, DSMITH said:

Well when you accuse someone of Lieing it gets their attention pretty dang quick and that is what Meril did LOL

He was mocking the head engineer a lot in that video...

 

16 hours ago, schoolofhardNox said:

They did not ask him to remove the video. 

But he did and quickly...like in one day.  Wonder what they told him then? 🙂

strick

[abenson]

1 hour ago, GB_Amateur said:

I don't remember Tom D. writing that, but I may have missed it.  His writing style can be (for me) difficult to follow.  I do like reading what he has to say.  He's very dedicated and seems to go all in with detectors he likes.  From what he says he has Minelab's ear on the Manticore.  He acknowledges that the areas he detects (penninsula of Florida) have mild ground and that the performance he gets isn't the same those in more mineralized ground will experience.  At least with the Manticore (since release but also in prototype/beta testing) it seems he's concentrated on beach detecting, I'm assuming all types (dry, wet, in the water).  But I seem to recall he's talked some about dry land detecting, in a positive light.  I think he also has done test garden type experimenting with the Manticore.

Everything I've read there is in that growing (18 pages last I visited) thread I linked.  Rather than to quote from memory (bad idea for me) or to spend a lot of time trying to find snippets, I'd prefer to suggest that those interested go there and dig through that thread themselves.  I'm aware that you, Andrew, and many others here participate as I've seen at least one post from you in that thread.  But I get the impression that many others here haven't seen it.  I myself just watch from the cheap seats, gobbling up as much as can while trying my best to maintain a balanced view....

OK I thought I was going crazy. But I found it on page 17 of the thread.

The Manticorps is only a few percent deeper than EQX at inland/turf/dirt sites. Fact!
BUT. Implementing Noise Cancel LONG PRESS.......... and.......... on average........ the Manticorps is (my overall nominal-median average....thus far)..... the MC is approx 23% deeper than EQX. . . . . . . as long as you THEN employ higher Sens numbers before & after LONG PRESS.
If you (mostly) hunt sites that have little/no EMI...... stick with the EQX.
If you hunt the beach...... get the Manticore. It is MUCH deeper (especially on fine gold) than EQX.

[Chase Goldman]

4 hours ago, GB_Amateur said:

His writing style can be (for me) difficult to follow.  I do like reading what he has to say.  He's very dedicated and seems to go all in with detectors he likes. 

Same here, and I'm an engineer!  He writes like he is taking technical shothand notes for himself (probably a habit based on his background).  Sometimes this style results in gaps and loss of context that the reader has to infer or fill in.  As a result, his comments can occasionally be ambiguous or misinterpreted.  And assumptions on his part (because ML is not going to divulge all the proprietary details to an outside tester/contributor) are taken as gospel fact by readers. 

Like any high profile detectorist, he's very knowledgeable about his primary detecting niche  (S. FL beaches and mild soil inland sites) but has less experience outside of that.  So it's impossible for him to give useful feedback outside his wheelhouse.  That's why ML is getting input from contributors across the globe, not just Tom D. 

We all have a wheelhouse where we primarily excel (prospecting, salt beach surf, dry sand, hot dirt relics, park coin shooting, etc.) based on the sites we have the most access too and the types of targets we enjoy recovering most.  True even for those of us who dabble in multiple different detecting pursuits. 

My point is only that Tom D. has experience gaps in his detecting resume (as we all do), so tempering his M-core comments by understanding his limited frame of reference and seeking multiple opinions on M-core from multiple sources with diverse detecting experiences is essential for determining the actual strengths and weaknesses of Manticore (despite its versatility) and making an informed buy decision.  This forum is one of the best sources for obtaining those diverse points of view on any particular detector.

I have had to restrain my early adopter impulses on this one and that's not easy.  BUT am glad I did.  Not because I think M-core is falling short or is not a great detector (no doubt it is a great detector - at certain tasks), but because I am gaining a better understanding of whether it brings anything to the table that I don't already have with my current detector lineup (D2/Nox 900/GPX, Tarsacci and Legend).  Instead, I hopped on the Nox 900 bandwagon because I understood better its plusses and minuses (mostly plusses so far) over the 800. 

M-core may be in my future, but frankly I haven't found the thing that compels me to spend that much coin for it.  I thought the deep high conductor capability was going to be the thing, but Simon's feedback has tempered my enthusiasm on that and D2 is no slouch.  The D2 does all I need it to do at the Beach and even bottlecaps are a thing if the past, so I don't see a need to grab one for that task.  So it really just comes down to curiosity regarding how I might be able to utilize the 2D screen and Ferrous Limits for relic hunting in mild and hot dirt.  It's going to have to jump high to beat the depth, TID stability, and EMI immunity of the D2 on beach and land, Nox and Legend have me covered on the diverse backup SMF detector and 10x5 coil front, Tarsacci on raw VLF depth in mild and hot dirt, and the GPX is the king of depth in the hot dirt relic fields of Virginia.  Not sure where M-core and it's $1.6K price tag fits at the moment.

 

[Chase Goldman]

5 hours ago, abenson said:

the MC is approx 23% deeper than EQX

"[A]pprox 23% deeper"-  Would love to know how he arrived at that number.  By putting an "approximate" but specific number down that tends to sway people that he is espousing fact, yet no objective evidence or background is provided to verify that number.  Simply interested in the basis for the "23% deeper" claim?  Controlled testing data?  Real world "nominal-median-average" target recovery depth data? Ratios of max sensitivity settings?  Something else? And yes...even if there is a solid basis for the depth comparison claims, they only apply to the mild sandy soils - not mineralized hot dirt sites.

[dsb]

Lawrie said in a old interview M/C was a little over an inch deeper the the EQ 800 but in Germany on small targets he found it was a few inches deeper.  Don't remember type of targets but small.

[Steve Herschbach]

Was this thread about gold prospecting with the Manticore? With all due respect to Tom his quoting of depth numbers and percentages are wildly inaccurate in highly mineralized detecting environments. If you hunt low mineral ground then for sure pay attention to what he says. But anyone running with his numbers in high mineral ground will think their detector is defective. Tom is the last guy you would want to pay attention to if you are interested in gold prospecting with the Manticore. There are far more qualified people on this forum, and I'm not talking me either.

[abenson]

2 hours ago, Chase Goldman said:

"[A]pprox 23% deeper"- Would love to know how he arrived at that number.  By putting an "approximate" but specific number down that tends to sway people that he is espousing fact, yet no objective evidence or background is provided to verify that number.    Interested in how Tom came up with "23% deeper"?  Controlled testing data?  Field "nominal-median-average" target recovery depth data (i.e, anecdotal observations in the real world.  Ratios of max sensitivity settings?  Something else? And yes...even if verfied, these claims only apply to the mild sandy soils that he detects in - not mineralized hot dirt sites.

Well my whole point was if you don't hunt the beach or sites with much EMI then get the Equinox 900. My initial feeling about how the Manticore does on small gold and Simons findings also, suggests that the 900 would also be the way to go. Personally I think once you get into mineralized ground with the Manticore and it's ferrous limits, it's going to be kind of a nightmare trying to figure out where to set them. Set them too high and you're bound to lose small/deeper gold to the mineralization. Set them too  low and you're going to be digging more iron. Ferrous limits are nothing like iron bias on the 900, it's going to take some trial and error to get the right setting. Bottom line is if you're serious about gold nugget hunting get a PI.

[phrunt]

Yup, I think the 900 if it is just a better quality built 800 with a extended sensitivity range would be the better or at least simpler to use prospecting machine, as a way around the increased EMI I was getting with the Manticore in the higher sensitivity settings I just switched to 40kHz and compared the Manticore to the Nox in that, minimal EMI in 40kHz on both detectors and the Nox was still winning the fine gold race if you did it sensitivity of 20 vs 20 for example, the Manticore again needs higher sensitivity to keep up with the 800 on lower sensitivity.  This is why I keep saying I think the scale is different between their sensitivity levels. 

Also, sensitivity level 30 can be quite stable after a long noise cancel in areas with EMI, bump it up to 31 and it goes wild, so I think the difference between 30 and 31 isn't the same as the difference between 29 and 30 for example.  I think those increased sensitivity red line areas are quite a bit more than 1 standard notch.

It's all very early days for me and these are just initial impressions but out of the box switch on adjust sensitivity and go the Nox is the winner on small gold over the Manticore from what I can see.  Fiddling with settings may catch the Manticore up, I'm yet to find a way to do so but I'm no settings expert.

[Chase Goldman]

36 minutes ago, abenson said:

Well my whole point was if you don't hunt the beach or sites with much EMI then get the Equinox 900. My initial feeling about how the Manticore does on small gold and Simons findings also, suggests that the 900 would also be the way to go. Personally I think once you get into mineralized ground with the Manticore and it's ferrous limits, it's going to be kind of a nightmare trying to figure out where to set them. Set them too high and you're bound to lose small/deeper gold to the mineralization. Set them too high and you're going to be digging more iron. Ferrous limits are nothing like iron bias on the 900, it's going to take some trial and error to get the right setting. Bottom line is if you're serious about gold nugget hunting get a PI.

Yeah.  Wasn't trying to shoot the messenger, Andy.  I know where you were coming from. Just commenting on Tom's info that he presents as "fact" because he throws around these numbers like they're verified data.  Sounds like there is growing consensus regarding M-core's above average beach performance capabilities especially compared to the Nox.  If that was Minelab's focus and they were leaning heavily on feedback from that demographic, like Tom, then mission accomplished.  We'll see if it came at the expense of (or wihout benefit to) other capabilities and modes, such as prospecting.

[rled2005]

On 1/31/2023 at 6:38 PM, phrunt said:

I will clarify in case my post was confusing, now I read it back it even confuses me 🙂

The Manticore needs run on higher sensitivity settings to achieve the same results the Equinox 800 can get on lower sensitivity settings, but the problem is it's hard to run the Manticore on these higher sensitivity settings due to EMI when you get to the 30 - 35 sensitivity range where as for me at least I normally always run my Nox on 25 when prospecting. 

The Manticore may very well end up similar in performance overall IF you can run it on it's highest few sensitivity settings. 

I think the Manticore on 30 on tiny gold is similar to the Nox on 20 with the sensitivity settings, the Nox on 25 (max) is slightly outperforming the Manticore on 35, I think mainly due to the Manticore being troubled by EMI at 35 more than the Nox is at 25.

Where the Nox is going to have the advantage is by having the smaller 6" coil, which is crazy the tiny gold it can find.

I just can't see the Manticore with it's 8x5.5 M8 coil matching the small gold performance based upon what I've seen so far comparing the Nox 11" vs the Manticore 11".  I was hoping the extra power to the Manticore coil may increase small gold sensitivity, after all that's what they did with the White's/Garrett 24k and it's very much worth reading that link if you haven't already.

It's a shame they're not doing the 6" coil for the Manticore, hopefully Coiltek come out with a 5 or 6" round for it, the EMI will be less and possibly the higher 30-35 settings maybe more usable and it then match or better the Nox, but with the Nox 900 now having more sensitivity over the 800 that maybe a difficult challenge for it.

It makes me wonder if as a coin machine the Manticores 0-30 sensitivity is the same as the Nox's 0-25 but on a different scale, with the same top end sensitivity and the boosted sensitivity over the Nox is when you go from 31 to 35 in the red line zone.

I'm not overly bothered it doesn't appear to match the Nox, not enough to go out and buy a Nox 900 as I rarely use a VLF for gold and the 800 and 24k do the job for me anyway.  It is a bit disappointing though, hopefully my early testing is wrong and I change my mind with more time behind the wheel.

I noticed too that the Manticore isn't as sensitive to gold as the 800. But maybe software updates will correct this. I plan to use the Axiom on gold, and I got the Manticore so I could cover everything outside of the Axiom. The 2 should be all that I need for whatever detecting comes about. The plan was to clear everything else out and have just the two, (and maybe one other for family loan-out).