Jump to content

Legend Vs Equinox 900 Park Hunt


Recommended Posts


Thank you for that testing Jeff. I still have at least 2 months to go before the ground thaws 😢

I have one observation I hope you can comment on:

You know that the Legend's new M3 is weighted very low on the receiving end. It's weighted even lower than the Nox's 600 and 800 Park 1, which seems to be mid weighted. I suspect that the 700 and 900 would have similar, if not identical, weighting as the 600 and 800.

I don't have highly mineralized like you do, but it's my understanding that such low weighted frequencies are not ideal for highly mineralized ground, due to poor ID and poor performance on small signals such as coins on edge. But even in low mineralized ground, a higher weighted frequency will hit better on low to mid depth small targets, such as coins on edge (regardless of the coin's metal composition).

If all that is true, and especially in your highly mineralized ground, then I wonder what would have happened if the Legend wasn't in such a low weighted SMF mode? Rather, have the Legend in Park M1 which is mid weighted and likely similar in weight to the 900's Park 1.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Digalicious said:

Thank you for that testing Jeff. I still have at least 2 months to go before the ground thaws 😢

I have one observation I hope you can comment on:

You know that the Legend's new M3 is weighted very low on the receiving end. It's weighted even lower than the Nox's 600 and 800 Park 1, which seems to be mid weighted. I suspect that the 700 and 900 would have similar, if not identical, weighting as the 600 and 800.

I don't have highly mineralized like you do, but it's my understanding that such low weighted frequencies are not ideal for highly mineralized ground, due to poor ID and poor performance on small signals such as coins on edge. But even in low mineralized ground, a higher weighted frequency will hit better on low to mid depth small targets, such as coins on edge (regardless of the coin's metal composition).

If all that is true, and especially in your highly mineralized ground, then I wonder what would have happened if the Legend wasn't in such a low weighted SMF mode? Rather, have the Legend in Park M1 which is mid weighted and likely similar in weight to the 900's Park 1.

The Legend’s Park M3 having very effective simultaneous multi frequency technology had no problem with accurate target IDs. If there had been a problem with IDs, I would not have decided to dig 41 coins in a small very trashed area based on Park M3’s information. It having lower frequency weighting could definitely cause problems in higher iron mineralization as far as depth. However, all of the coins on edge that were found by the Equinox 900 were high conductive coins apart from one US nickel. A few of the coins found by the Legend using Park M3 were also on edge or poorly oriented.

So, if the Legend actually missed those 16 coins that the Equinox 900 found behind it, I would look towards the Equinox 900 and its very much improved target separation compared to the original Equinox as being more of a factor than just laying the cause solely on the Legend’s Park M3 frequency weighting being the wrong choice for the soil conditions here.

  • Like 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jeff, 

I'm not referring to depth or conductivity, but rather the ability of higher weighted frequencies hitting better on small targets (like coins on edge), when compared to lower weighted frequencies. 

Does the Nox 900 have better separation than the Legend? I don't know. I would have to see some head to head comparisons on tests targets, that also alter the recovery speed and other settings on each detector.

You did a lot of work to present such a comparison, and I appreciate that. Although it would have been interesting to go back over those 900 targets with the Legend, while altering its settings accordingly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Digalicious said:


I don't have highly mineralized like you do, but it's my understanding that such low weighted frequencies are not ideal for highly mineralized ground,

Actually, I have heard just the opposite.  Namely, generally Lower detector operating frequencies perform better in mineralized soil.  Similar to reactivity/recovery speed, however, there probably is a sweet spot operating frequency range that works best.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Out here the frequency is 15 to 20 kHz. The mineralization here is caused by heavy iron concentrations of magnetite. Some places have much smaller decaying iron particles mixed in with clay. Salt mineralization definitely needs a lower frequency weighting……..

There are lots of variables and lots of trial and error needed.

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jeff,

Yikes. That's a lot to deal with. Best wishes on that. 

It does seem that the Legend, D2, and new Nox, have notably better separation characteristics than the old Nox. Although I haven't seen any head to head target videos comparing separation abilities of the new Nox, Legend and D2. 

The Legend's very low weighted M3, as any other very low weighted SMF, works wonders in accurate coin identification if the coin is masked by nonferrous trash. The caveats for those that are wondering though, is such a low weighted SMF has somewhat poor performance on coins on edge, lowered sensitivity to gold, and also has a tendency to ID some aluminum with an abnormally high ID. I suspect the sometimes abnormally high aluminum ID is related to the much better coin ID when the coin is masked by aluminum items.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, Chase Goldman said:

Actually, I have heard just the opposite.  Namely, generally Lower detector operating frequencies perform better in mineralized soil.  Similar to reactivity/recovery speed, however, there probably is a sweet spot operating frequency range that works best.

Hi Chase.

I've never heard of that for ferrous based mineralization. Then again, what about soil that has been fertilized with fertilizer that contains sodium and even some metals?

The ground mineralization I'm referring to is ferrous based mineralization, and ya, the lower the frequency in that ground, the worse the performance. With that said, I'm referring to very low SMF modes like the Legend's M3, to which I suspect is similar to the D2's Deep HC, and the Manti's HC mode (likely the received weighting being 10 khz and below). None of which I would use in highly ferrous mineralized ground.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jeff,   Thank you for the test comparison . There is a lot of good info in you observations. My East Texas iron ore based red dirt is not as bad as your soil. It is normally 3-4 bars on the Legend’s meter depending on moisture. 
 I use M3 often. In Park it is noticeably better dealing with Al trash than M1 or M2. Your multiple testing since getting your Legend bears this out. 
 What l have also noticed is that M3 is often the best choice in wet ground as Nokta stated due to it’s soil moisture subtraction. Where M3 seems to fail for me is depth in my higher mineral red dirt. M1 is noticeably deeper. I wonder if the soil moisture subtraction is the difference?  Take away the mineralization and M3 is a little deeper. It’s not the weighting, it’s the mineralization.

As Steve H reminds us, soil is what matters more often than not. Our own testing in our own dirt is the best gage but l learn from others too. Your well rounded efforts are appreciated.

  • Like 4
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...