Jump to content
Steve Herschbach

Will Multi-IQ Obsolete CTX - And What About Those Single Frequencies?

Recommended Posts

This is an official Minelab response to a question on their YouTube channel back in late November (overlooked until now):

Question from cache mole - "Will Multi IQ obsolete FBS?"

Answer from Minelab Metal Detectors - "A very good question!

We are generally stating that Multi-IQ obsoletes single frequency detectors, not simultaneous multi-frequency detectors. This really has captured market attention! It is quite likely that some people will become EQUINOX supporters, while others will want to keep using their favourite FBS detector (not too dissimilar to GPX vs GPZ).

So the best honest answer to your question right now is:

"Multi-IQ has the future potential to obsolete FBS technology."

For some users, that may be immediate when they buy an EQUINOX. For others it may be with a future product with Multi-IQ, or an enhancement of it.

If you refer to our first TT blog on Multi-IQ technology:
https://www.minelab.com/usa/go-minelabbing/treasure-talk/equinox-technologies-part-1 and look at the timeline diagrams - there were/are several generations of BBS/FBS detectors. We are only at the very beginning for Multi-IQ.

Minelab-Treasure-Detectors-Timeline-Grap

When EQUINOX is released, CTX 3030 will remain as our flagship treasure detector, having many functions that EQUINOX does not have - Fe/Co discrimination, Target Trace and others.

A significant advantage with Multi-IQ is it's FAST. Think of it as the typical multi-frequency performance of a Minelab detector, at the speed of any good single frequency detector you are familiar with. Also, expect no performance downside running in "Multi" compared to a single frequency. Unless in Gold Mode, we recommend "Multi" as the best frequency option. But, you can use a single frequency if you wish, in Park and Field modes."

Multi-IQ Technology Explained

  • Like 7
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for posting this Steve, very interesting indeed!! So, it looks like the EQ800 is just the beginning of a new line of Minelab machines.

It sure would be interesting to see an EQ1000 with target trace and a 2-D screen.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm an old 705 guy. Meaning I'm the old part.I have coils in all frequencies.I'm thinking I want the Equinox .But not sure. I like the 705 a lot.But no coil change is tempting . I run a plugger rod and the stock  rod so always have two detectors basically. Is there a real performance ---major change???

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am specifically disallowed from presenting information regarding differences between modes or anything that has the goal of “figuring out” how Multi-IQ works until such time as Minelab themselves present that information. Such tests on anything but a final, production version of Equinox would be misleading at best.

minelab-equinox-multi-iq-metal-detector-technology-frequency-response-chart.jpg

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's amazing how few if any leaks on news of the Equinox.  But at this point with units shipping in January, why the continued secrecy?  I would think releasing all the Equinox Goodies now would create even more demand.  I'm beginning to wonder if we will ever get all the dirt on M-IQ?  Perhaps ML has to guard until patents approved?  Yet having multiple machines on order, I sure would like to read about all the Equinox functions and capabilities.  I asked ML when they might post the Equinox manual now that an estimated release date was announced.

With the ML answer post above, I wonder why as I've pointed out ML said M-IQ was not as sensitive to silver as FBS, nor handled salt as well?  Clearly ML has high expectations for M-IQ and is it possible we're seeing the beginning of the end of BBS/FBS as we know it?  Now I'm even more excited about the Equinox!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The UK fella that found that 1 cm. gold coin at a 10"+ depth with ID, with the EQX 800.  Could the CTX or deus  have found that gold coin under those conditions ?  Could any detector on the market today, excluding the pulse units , have  located and ID'ED that coin  the way the EQX did?   ( I never owned a ctx or deus)  . If not,  the words obsoleting the single freekers, and many other detectors  comes back to mind.  

In about 30 days, I could be holding one of these 800's in my hands.  :wub::biggrin::tongue:.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Redneck,

#1 -- I have never dug a gold coin (yet, LOL)!  #2 -- I have only owned the CTX for about 6 weeks.  With those disclaimers out of the way...

...I will say that I am near certain -- and that's an understatement -- that no way does the CTX find a 10" deep, 1 cm gold coin...

A very, very impressive dig, and testimonial on the Equinox -- if indeed that coin was near the bottom of the 10" plus hole he dug (which we don't know FOR SURE; we only that it was "in the dirt" removed from his 10+" deep hole...)

Steve

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Information will be available when it appears. No amount of wondering why it is the way it is or letting Minelab know there are still things they still need to do (they know that) will change a thing. If the information currently in hand is insufficient for making a purchasing decision, then hold off making that purchasing decision.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll wait until Steve reports the facts, but looking back over the past several weeks/months and just how may well know hunters have sold off their machines indicates positive motive.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎12‎/‎20‎/‎2017 at 9:43 PM, Steve Herschbach said:

Also, expect no performance downside running in "Multi" compared to a single frequency

This is a key ingredient in consistent performance of a multi-frequency machine.  If this holds true, it will be a game changer for sure.  interesting how this would do in some of my bad ground areas where other multi-frequency machines have failed.  Now I understand their advertising theme more clearly.

 

Share this post


Link to post
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

  • Similar Content

    • By mn90403
      We've spent a lot of time here lately on whether to X or whether to CoilTek. 
      We don't know if we should Z or Q. 
      We have so many choices we don't know what to do.
      Make life simple and get the app:
      This might be easier.  Forget the coils and forget the manufacturer.  😁
      https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.gamma.metaldetector&hl=en_US
    • By uncle Scrooge
      The black stone is pure magnetite. The purpose of this prototype is discrimination that can indicates very deep targets such as for digging . So far all very deep targets were missed , as well as non-magnetic targets are indicated by discrimination like magnetic (iron ) . The prototype was tested on sand of pure magnetite and can be used to search for golden nuggets , while at the same time rejects the shallow iron objects . In tests on different soils shows very low soil noises , and almost complete absence of false signals . There is a video with the same prototype in youtube , from October 2018 .
    • By Jasonj
      I’ve been hunting a good site using the Deus and Equinox which has nails and small iron mixed in with good targets, some good targets being deep, but near or in the iron. My question is, will a GPX with Iron Discrimination turned up and the smallest DD coil pull out the deeper, non-ferrous items amongst heavy iron? Has anyone had any experience with this? I think for shallow targets the Equinox or Deus works better for shallow targets in this “machine gun iron”, but would like to see what others may have insight on for using the GPX. I’m assuming the fast setting and special soil timing may need to be adjusted as well. Thank you in advance.
    • By Skookum
      Good evening,
      I’m venturing into the spotlight here with my first post to ask what likely amounts to a novice’s question.  
      It stems from an experience I had about a year ago with finding my largest nugget. The location was in a small creek bed, which had been conveniently cleared of cobbles and overburden down to a small patch of bedrock surrounded by smooth, silty clay by a dredger.
      Using a GM 1000, I had detected out several small nuggets from within the bedrock cracks that had been exposed, but not properly crevassed by the prior prospector.  However, the thick clay surrounding the exposed bedrock had pockets of varying degrees of moisture.
      This was providing me a bit of challenge since the wetter spots seemed to be behaving just like hot spots. After an extended wrestling match with the wetter signals and the available settings, I gave up.  
      However, by the time the next weekend came around, I just couldn’t get those wet spots out of my mind.  With the heat of the summer and record drought conditions, I guessed those spots may have dried just enough to deserve one final pass.
      Within minutes of returning, I had found a solid, repeatable, 2 bar non-ferrous signal in the deepest clay pocket on the upstream side of the rock. (This exact spot had seemed masked the week before.)  Digging 4-5 inches down into the smooth clay I found a “rock” that made my detector sing.  Cleaning it off revealed a beautiful 1/3 ozt. nugget. Call it beginner’s luck—because I do. 
      Now for my question. Were those wet spots of clay giving me fits because of greater relative mineralization, heterogeneity of moisture, or VLF technology?  Perhaps it was some of each?  
      Part of my curiosity stems from never having used a PI detector.  For those of you with plenty of PI experience, do you also struggle with wet spots or mud spots for lack of a better term?  And, if so, are certain PI detectors more resistant to the struggle?
      Thanks for any input you might spare.
    • By Dan Fox
      I believe there is not much more they can squeeze out of VLF technology, even multiple frequency has it's limits and is really only 2 frequencies.
      Are manufactures better off concentrating on coil design rather than just tweaking an existing design adding a letter or two to the name?
       
      After market coils quite often improve a detectors performance, so shouldn't manufactures be looking in this area rather than using the same coil designed years ago?
      Would like your thoughts
    • By Steve Herschbach
      I do what I can to foster competition that develops alternatives to the all too common VLF detector. There are plenty of options out there, but in my opinion they all weigh too much or cost too much. Usually both.   I envision people out there with a popular VLF metal detector for beach, relic, or gold detecting. These machines all sell for around $700 and weigh 2.5 - 3.9 lbs. Perhaps they would like to add a ground balancing PI (GBPI) to what they have. I think that for "normal people" with normal budgets a machine under $2K and under four pounds just makes sense. It would be more than twice what they spent for their VLF, and in this day and age there is no reason why a decent PI should weigh over 4 lbs.   To clarify what I am talking about here, I should say that for many people a $700 VLF detector is a great place to start and in many cases is all a person ever needs. However, there are places where extreme ground mineralization and mineralized rocks (hot rocks) severely impede the performance and use of VLF detectors. Alternative technology to deal with these conditions has been developed, by far the most familiar being the Minelab ground balancing PI (GBPI) detectors. These differ from common PI detectors by having the ability to ground balance. Other brands have offered the Garrett Infinium (discontinued) plus Garrett ATX and the White's TDI models.   These detectors are used not just for gold prospecting but also by relic hunters, beach detectorists, and others who face challenges regarding ground mineralization and VLF detectors.   Frankly, in my opinion GBPI technology is largely maxed out. The main room for improvement comes now in better ergonomics at lower prices. This challenge therefore limits detectors to those that weigh under 4 pounds with battery included, and which sell brand new with warranty after discounts for under US$2000. Detectors need not be ground balancing PI models, but must offer similar ability to ignore mineralized ground and hot rocks that trouble VLF detectors. I am going to rate detectors as to their relative performance using what I call the "Minelab Rating Scale. Details here.
      1. Minelab SD 2000 - crude first version, very poor on small gold, excellent on large deep gold
      2. Minelab SD 2100 - vastly refined version of SD 2000
      3. Minelab SD 2200 (all versions) - adds crude iron disc, ground tracking
      4. Minelab GP Extreme - adds greatly improved sensitivity to small gold, overall performance boost.
      5. Minelab GP 3000 - Refined GP Extreme
      6.  Minelab GP 3500 - Greatly refined GP 3000, last and best of analog models
      7. Minelab GPX 4000 - First digital interface, rock solid threshold
      8. Minelab GPX 4500 - Refined GPX 4000, solid performer
      9. Minelab GPX 4800 - Released at same time as GPX 5000 as watered down version
      10. Minelab GPX 5000 - Culmination of the series, current pinnacle of GBPI prospecting machine technology.
      All Minelab models leverage an existing base of over 100 coil options from tiny to huge.
      I am a very practical person when it comes to detecting. I know all the existing models and options by all brands very well, perhaps better than almost anyone. This is the way I look at it is this. If I personally were to spend a lot of money to go gold prospecting for one month, and needed a GBPI detector, considering machines past and present, what would I get and in what order of choice? Put aside concerns of age, warranty, etc. just assume functioning detectors.
      Here is the issue in a nutshell. On the Minelab scale of one to ten as listed above, I would be generous in rating the White's TDI SL as a 2. Same with the Garrett Infinium which I will mention in passing as it is no longer being made. If I was going to spend a month of my time and a lot of money going on a prospecting trip, I would choose a TDI in any version over the SD 2000. I might go with a TDI Pro over a SD 2100 but I would have to think real hard about that, and when push comes to shove I would go SD 2100 were it not for the realities of age I said to ignore. A newer TDI Pro might be a better bet than a very old SD 2100 from a reliability standpoint, but again, this would be a tough choice. The TDI SL not really. In my opinion I would be shooting myself in the foot to go on this hypothetical trip with a TDI SL instead of a SD 2100.
      You see the problem now?
      The Garrett ATX fares better. I would rate it a 3, roughly analogous to the SD 2200 variants. Still an agonizing choice really and the ATX being new versus SD 2200 being old might again be the tipping point, but from a pure prospecting options perspective the case can be made that the SD 2200 might be the better way to go. The problem for this challenge is the ATX weighs way over 4 lbs and sells for slightly over $2000. The price is close enough really but the 7 lb weight is way off.
      That's it folks. That is reality. The best of the best that the competition can offer can only go solidly up against models Minelab has not made in years. I am not saying that to be mean or as some kind of Minelab toadie, that is my pure unvarnished opinion as a guy who is pretty well versed on the subject.
      Let's bring it all home. This person with the $700 machine really, really wants that under 4 lb, under $2K GBPI machine, but if they do their homework they discover that truthfully, they would be better off shopping for a used Minelab than what the competition offers new. With the TDI SL rated as a 2 the ATX in a much lighter box at under $2K is a solid win as a 3. A well designed ATX with standard dry land coils would look very enticing as compared to the GP series Minelabs. But Garrett refuses to budge!
      White's can certainly do something, anything to improve the TDI SL. A battery that lasts all day would be a good start. In the end they are limited by the basic single channel design of the machine. The SD 2000 dual channel design was literally the answer to and the improvement on the single channel technology used in the TDI, the basics of which predate the SD 2000. Still, White's currently owns the under 4 lb under $2K GBPI category so they have the first out of the starting gate advantage. Anything they do would at the very least just show they have not given up.
      The Minelab MPS patent that formed the basis of the SD series has expired. Not sure about DVT, which formed the basis of the GP series. Where is the competition? What the heck is going on here? Much gnashing of teeth and pulling of hair is going on here, that's what!!!
      That is my challenge to the manufacturers. Under 4 lbs, under $2K, on the 1-10 scale I am offering, what is the best you can do?
      The TDI SL as a 2? Really? Yes, really, that is currently the best of the best in the brand new ground balancing PI, full warranty, under 4 lb, under $2k category. You can pick up a 3.5 lb TDI SL right now brand new for $1049. The White's TDI SL takes the crown.
      Hopefully we will see more competition in this wide open category soon. I have been beating this drum for years to no avail, but I do have reason to believe we are finally going to see more alternatives soon. I hope.

×
×
  • Create New...