Equinox 900 Vs 800 Iron Test

[Lynk]

Thank you Jeff for doing a deep dive on this.

Part of the Minelab pitch for the 900 is better target separation, but we all know the claims take a bit to parse themselves out in the wild. The area I usually detect in has a substantial amount of trash, so if there is an improvement it could be a real reason to upgrade.  

[Jeff McClendon]

2 minutes ago, Lynk said:

Thank you Jeff for doing a deep dive on this.

Part of the Minelab pitch for the 900 is better target separation, but we all know the claims take a bit to parse themselves out in the wild. The area I usually detect in has a substantial amount of trash, so if there is an improvement it could be a real reason to upgrade.  

Thanks for posting the video. I was skeptical at first when I watched it but I figured it can’t hurt to try that test myself. 
 

Now I need to do more work with multiple nonferrous target separation and see how that goes. Most of my nearby hunt areas are covered with nonferrous and steel alloy trash. 

[Jeff McClendon]

I retested the Equinox 800 with the same mode and settings as Mr. Irvine did in his video with exactly the same results using Fe at 4 and F2 at 4 which is, there was absolute silence with the iron range target IDs rejected and iron audio responses plus three high tone blips during ten sweeps with the iron range target IDs accepted. As I said yesterday, the only way to get my Nox 800 to give somewhat consistent non ferrous tones on this test was to lower Fe and F2 to 0 and raise recovery speed to 8. I hunt with Fe and F2 on 0 most of the time. I never hunt with recovery speed on 8. At recovery speed 8 on the Nox 800 all of the audio is so clipped that I am likely to miss targets unless I have a perfect swing. At recovery speed 8, lack of depth is an issue.

I tested the Nokta Legend in Park M1, discrimination on A and F, recovery speed 4, iron filter 4, iron stability 1, bottle cap 0, GS 0, 2 tones and Pitch tones, sensitivity on 20. It performed almost exactly like the Equinox 900 in the video and in my previous testing, which is extremely well.

I tested the Xp Deus 2 in Park, discrimination on 25, sensitivity 90, recovery speed 2, silencer 1, notch Off, bottle cap Off, iron volume Off, 2 tones and Pitch tones. It performed very similar to the Equinox 900 and the Nokta Legend, which is extremely well.

[Jeff McClendon]

On 2/10/2023 at 7:25 AM, Digalicious said:

The Nox would have hit those masked targets, if he had lowered the Nox's IB. I also find it hard to believe that this guy doesn't know this. Then again, he happens to mention twice in the video that he's a Minelab dealer. So sell your crappy 800 and buy a 900! Especially from him 🙂

I often see these comparisons in which the tester erroneously assumes that a particular number setting on one detector is the same as a particular number setting on another detector. Or they do know, but have an agenda.

Note how in the comments, only one commenter points out that the IB is not the same on each detector. The tester replies to most of the comments, but he doesn't reply to that one.

Some who have contributed to this topic have criticized the video maker for 

1. being a dealer

2. not knowing how to operate a metal detector

3. not doing a fair test.

For me, the entire point of the video was to show that an Equinox 900 set on the same numerical value settings as an Equinox 800, totally outperforms the 800 in iron handling and ferrous/non ferrous target unmasking.

The purpose of the video was not to show how to setup the Equinox 800 so it will perform at least the same as the Equinox 900 in iron handling and ferrous/non ferrous target unmasking since at least from my testing and from actual side by side hunting......that is not going to happen. 

 

 

[Digalicious]

Jeff,

For many reasons, I disagree with you on the intent of the video, but whatever. I really don't want to get into that kind of subjectivity 🙂

Thank you for duplicating the test on the Legend and D2. I don't have a D2, but I put my legend through lot of various tests (especially unmasking tests). As such, I knew that the Legend could easily hit those good targets without even coming close to having to max out the recovery speed, and/or dropping the IB to minimum. If indeed that has to be done on the 800 to hit those targets, then that's quite a surprise to me. 

The guy in the video never adjusted the 800, but you did. So what I'm going on now, is your word. To me, your test results suggest that the 900, Legend, and D2 are significantly more efficient at ferrous unmasking than the 800 is. If that is true, I sure would like to know why that is.

 

[Sinclair]

On 2/12/2023 at 1:16 AM, Jeff McClendon said:

the only way to get my Nox 800 to give somewhat consistent non ferrous tones on this test was to lower Fe and F2 to 0 and raise recovery speed to 8. I hunt with Fe and F2 on 0 most of the time.

Mind you: There is no "and" - it's FE or F2. They're completely independent settings ☝

[Jeff McClendon]

 

3 hours ago Sinclair said:

Mind you: There is no "and" - it's FE or F2. They're completely independent settings ☝

----------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Correct.

My statement referring to having to set iron bias on Fe=0 and F2=0 meant that I did the testing using the Fe iron bias setting adjustments and then did the testing using the F2 iron bias adjustments.  The 0 setting using either iron bias version gave somewhat consistent non ferrous tones combined with a recovery speed of 8. 

I have been too lazy to find out if Fe=0 and F2=0 are exactly the same value of iron bias. Just to be safe I leave both settings on 0 most of the time. They definitely don't mean zero iron bias is being used. Why Minelab didn't just start the iron bias settings at 1 is beyond me.

At least for me, it is easy to go into the recovery speed/iron bias setting area of the Equinox 600/800 and accidentally leave the iron bias on Fe instead of F2. So, leaving both on zero keeps me from screwing up the iron bias setting too much.

[midalake]

2 hours ago, Jeff McClendon said:

The 0 setting using either iron bias version gave somewhat consistent non ferrous tones combined with a recovery speed of 8. 

Hi Jeff

Why are you using a recovery of 8??  Your soil?  Carpet of nails? 

Thanks.

[Jeff McClendon]

2 minutes ago, midalake said:

Hi Jeff

Why are you using a recovery of 8??  Your soil?  Carpet of nails? 

Thanks.

I was trying to duplicate the results of the ferrous/non-ferrous target separation test video that was posted by the original poster. Then I went a few steps further and tried to find where the 800 would sort of equal the 900. I had to set the 800's iron bias on a setting of 0 (using Fe or F2) and then raise the recovery speed to 8 just to get some sort of two way hit on the non-ferrous target I was using for the test. The non-ferrous target response length was so short that I could barely hear it but it was there. 

I have never used a recovery speed setting of 8 in the real world.

[Chase Goldman]

1 hour ago, midalake said:

Hi Jeff

Why are you using a recovery of 8??  Your soil?  Carpet of nails? 

Thanks.

 

1 hour ago, Jeff McClendon said:

I was trying to duplicate the results of the ferrous/non-ferrous target separation test video that was posted by the original poster. Then I went a few steps further and tried to find where the 800 would sort of equal the 900. I had to set the 800's iron bias on a setting of 0 (using Fe or F2) and then raise the recovery speed to 8 just to get some sort of two way hit on the non-ferrous target I was using for the test. The non-ferrous target response length was so short that I could barely hear it but it was there. 

I have never used a recovery speed setting of 8 in the real world.

Test threads are often spread out over weeks.  Sometimes it is necessary to read more than just the last post and to go back through the previous posts (again) to remind you of or pick up on the bread crumbs of information that provide the context of why people set up their machines the way they did.  Often, to duplicate similar results on A to B comparisons means you may have to do some severe settings "gymnastics" like Jeff did, to get an an idea of the extent of the machine-to-machine performance deltas under extremely atypical test target placements to stress the machines' capabilities.  This also means, that a machine can end up in a settings configuration far from where you would otherwise set up the machine if you were simply taking it out for a more typical "real life" detecting scenario.