Jump to content

Recovery Speed & The Conveyor Belt


Recommended Posts


A very good analogy and explanation.  Makes me wonder if I should trade my Equinox 600 in on the 800 at some point. The 600's speed scale is 1-3, and I believe 3 corresponds to 6 on the 800's 1-8 scale, so I'm missing the highest speed settings.  That said, I haven't noticed that I'm missing anything.  One of the things that immediately struck me about the Equinox is that, when I used it on a very trashy spot I've gone over multiple times with the Etrac, it was seeing a lot more stuff down there that the Etrac had been unable to separate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My Recovery Speed (Detect Speed) setting is at 6 nearly all the time. I might go to 7 in really dense trash. I see no real need for 8 - it's just there as an extreme "just in case" for some rare use. I sometimes drop to 5 and maybe 4 if I ever see low mineral ground with sparse targets. I don't see much added benefit to extra low speeds below 4 (2) and in fact I think they negate the whole reason why I have an Equinox. In high mineral ground lower recovery speeds may cause you to lose depth, not gain it.

For the 600 I would stay at 3 and only ever drop to 2 for the rarest of occasions. 6 (3) is where I would glue the control if I had to pick one setting.

minelab-equinox-detect-speed-settings-600-800.jpg

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good question Dubious.  I think Steve covered it above, but regarding the differences between the 600 and 800 a lot of folks latch on to the obvious missing Gold mode and dismiss that mode as a prospecting mode that is not something they need or want (I personally disagree with this logic because I think Gold Mode can be used in relic hunting due to its ability to perform in highly mineralized soil conditions, but that is not the point of this thread) and completely overlook what I think are two key features one is performance based and the other is user interface based that are different between the 600 and 800.  The key performance-based feature is the recovery speed adjustment and the lack of the two high-end recovery speed settings on the 600.  (The user interface feature I think is the second most important "missing" feature from the 600 is the ability to adjust non-ferrous tone breaks, volumes, and pitch).  Are you missing much without those two highest setting?  Perhaps only in highly trash laden or iron infested sites so depending on how frequently you encounter those sites, you may want to consider the 800.  Also, if you can possibly afford it, I would recommend hanging on to the 600 as a capable backup if you indeed decide to ultimately purchase the 800.  I also want to re-emphasize that although I talk in terms of features "missing" from the 600, this does not mean that the 600 is not a good detector.  What it means is that while the 600 lacks some features compared to the 800, that is the wrong comparison.  The 600 represents a great value when its performance is compared to other detectors in its price range.  Pretty much unbeatable.  ML has given detectorists a value-based choice or a performance-based choice.  Steve covered this in detail in his 600 vs. 800 blog post.

 

55 minutes ago, Steve Herschbach said:

My Recovery Speed (Detect Speed) setting is at 6 nearly all the time. I might go to 7 in really desne trash. I see no real need for 8 - it's just there as an extreme "just in case" for some rare use. I sometimes drop to 5 and maybe 4 if I ever see low mineral ground with sparse targets. I don't see much added benefit to extra low speeds below 4 (2) and in fact I think they negate the whole reason why I have an Equinox. In high mineral ground lower recovery speeds will cause you to lose depth, not gain it.

I liked and agreed with your conveyor belt analogy especially with regards to "depth" (more on that below).  But I am really glad you wrote the above  because I have been struggling with determining when I would ever invoke the lowest recovery speeds.  In fact, I was a little confused by the following statement in the manual (p. 26) regarding the default recovery speed setting for Gold 2 which is supposed to be geared towards maximizing performance under highly mineralized soil conditions but also happens to have the lowest default recovery speed that ML attempted to explain below (bold text added by me):

"Gold 2: Difficult Ground
Gold 2 is best for searching for deeper gold nuggets
in ‘difficult’ ground conditions. Gold 2 has a lower
Recovery Speed, which will increase detection depth. However,
more ground noise in more heavily mineralised grounds may
result.
Tracking Ground Balance is the default setting. Target Tone is
set to 1 and the audio is optimised for hunting for gold nuggets.
Gold 2 Multi-IQ processes a high frequency weighted multifrequency
signal, while ground balancing for mineralised soil."

I guess ML hedges their bets by saying that there is essentially no free lunch because although the lower recovery speed setting will "increase detection depth"  more ground noise may be present in more heavily mineralized grounds obviating the advantage which is somewhat consistent with what you were saying above about "losing" depth.

On a separate note, for the Equinox, I think of recovery speed less in the context of trading "target depth" for "target separation" but instead, trading "the most accurate target ID at depth" for "target separation".  In other words just knowing a non-ferrous target is there amongst the iron (even if you don't have a stable ID) is often an advantage vs. slower machines that will not register an ID at all.

So I guess I don't really have a question other than wondering whether ML hit the mark with their Gold 2 explanation on recovery speed.

Thanks.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The statements in the manual are nothing more than generalities and how well they match with reality just depends on ground conditions and target mix. Even my own statements are generalizations only and have to be taken with a grain or even a lump of salt.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for posting that I wondered what your lowest speed was. I ran it in 5 in clean ground the other day and 6 and 7 in the iron the other day. I saw some dropping it to 1 or 2 on the other forum. 6 is probably gonna be my sweet spot for general relic hunting... hmmm think that's the default in park 2.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You have probably already seen it Scott. Find a deep target and test, and increasing recovery speed causes almost no discernible loss of depth. The target sound gets shorter, but that is about it until you get to 8, where it can shorten out of existence. In my ground anyway lowering recovery speed adds no depth worth noting but significantly increases the risk of masking. In my opinion any extra targets gained by any minimal depth increase at lower recovery speeds is vastly outweighed by the risk of targets lost due to masking. In bad ground a lower recovery speed increases ground noise, again making any real useable depth gain debatable. In my worst ground (and it’s Really bad) I am just not seeing it.

More to the point, aren’t people trying to pull targets out of ground already pounded with BBS/FBS detectors? If so, then where is the reason in trying to turn Equinox into BBS/FBS if those machines have already been used and can find no more? Remaining targets, if any exist, will be there due to masking. Even ground with low trash still has trash and that trash can mask stuff. And there really is more to Multi-IQ than just speed and masking. I can’t put my finger on it but I know it’s there. It sees stuff other machines don’t see, plain and simple as that.

People really need to let Equinox be Equinox. Trust that the defaults are close to what you really want, no matter what, for at least the first week or two. Immediately dropping to recovery speed 1 or 2 when the default is 6 and the user has no prior experience with the machine is really just kind of nuts. I think most poor results people are having is trying to outthink the engineers. Trust me, they are way, way smarter than any of us when it comes to what makes Multi-IQ tick and what settings are best.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
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
  • Similar Content

    • By Gerry in Idaho
      I thought I was pretty damn good, but this technology has me beat.
      https://www.nbcnews.com/science/environment/mining-gap-companies-push-find-raw-materials-electric-vehicle-boom-rcna5077
      Might be time to invest?
    • By mcjtom
      Metal detectors often seem to have a 'Depth Gauge'.  How is it calculated? Is it the strength (or inverse of it) of the amplitude of the return signal?  So, for instance, everything else being equal, the 'deep' target would mean either a stronger target at greater depth or a weaker shallow target?
    • By GB_Amateur
      While we're all abuzz with the announcement and advertised feature and performance characteristics of the XP Deus II, I'm wondering about tests that distinguish between detectors' target separation abilities.  'Word on the street' is that in trashy iron sites, the original Deus is still the best available.  Presumably those reports are based upon in-field testing, which of course is the real proof.  But the downside is, (AFAIK) these are qualitative observations, not quantitative.  Subjectivity involved?  Unfortunately, yes.
      We do have Monte's Nail Board Test for a special case -- iron nails near a single coin, all in the same plane and typically all on the surface of the ground.  Add depth combined with some mineralization (burying the MNB) and you've included another real world dimension.  But in the field, multiple nearby targets are seldom in the same plane.
      So you hopefully see the purpose of this post.  Has anyone seen/tried other methods to better simulate actual in-field conditions to differentiate between competing detectors to best be able to handle trashy sites?
    • By Rick N. MI
      I mostly hunt in lakes and the bottoms are mostly all sand. A test on a sandy beach with the Equinox 800 and Xp Orx, both hit hard on a 14k 3.7 gram gold ring buried at 14". For mild ground I don't see a need for multi frequency. I do like the multiple frequencies on the Orx.
      Is there an advantage to multi frequency in mild ground?
    • By Steve Herschbach
      We have the Deus 2 just announced, Nokta/Makro Multi on the way, possibly the next generation Equinox from Minelab, and maybe even another Garrett multifrequency model to follow Apex, all coming in 2022. I guess we should even toss First Texas in there, as they just officially discontinued the CZ-3D, with the possibility something new will replace it soon. If this does not mean we are moving past single frequency, I don’t know what does. Or are we? There will no doubt always be a place for a finely tuned single frequency detector. However, if you consider Deus as selectable frequency, and Equinox as selectable/multi, then very many of us have already moved past a simple single frequency detector as our primary detectors.
      This is the thread to speculate on what is coming, where we are, and where we are headed. 2022 is shaping up as the year SMF (simultaneous multifrequency) finally takes off for real. In some detectors, it’s just companies chasing the latest marketing catchword. Multifrequency is only as good as the way it is implemented, otherwise we’d all have been swinging White’s DFX ages ago. It’s not enough to make a SMF detector, it also has to have genuine performance advantages. About the only given is that any multifrequency machine will outperform a single frequency on a saltwater beach. The rest, however, is very much up in the air.
      For some detailed explanation of the technology, and a history of past selectable and simultaneous multifrequency detectors, see my write up on Selectable Frequency And Multiple Frequency
      Where it all started, Fisher CZ-6 and Minelab Sovereign, both released in 1991. I think Fisher wins claim to being first, since Minelab takes a swipe at them in their Sovereign introduction. Notice how the misdirection on transmitted versus received and processed started on day one. 

      Fisher CZ-6 Quicksilver. The technology: Dual frequency Fourier Domain Signal Analysis. Patented state-of-the-art analog/digital electronics transmit two VLF signals (one 5 kHz, one at 15 kHz) deep into mineralized soil. The receiver circuitry had two ground compensated target signals to analyze, compare and identify. The result? Deeper targets, more accurate target identification. Wet sand is no problem for the CZ-6, it compensates for salt and ground mineralization simultaneously! Source Fisher CZ-6 Datasheet
       
       

      "The Sovereign" is the first of the latest generation of metal detectors from Minelab featuring Minelab's new technology called Broad Band Spectrum or BBS for short. This revolutionary new technology which is unique to Minelab has already been awarded patents in the USA, Canada and Australia and has several pending. Unlike other metal detectors which operate at just one frequency, or even the "newest" two frequency machines, "The Sovereign" actually transmits over a wide spectrum of frequencies. The resulting signal that is received from a target buried in the ground is processed by a microprocessor that removes interference caused by ground mineralization which limits the depth at which targets can be found, and often results in inaccurate target identification. The remaining signal can then be analysed to determine the actual composition of targets even if they are deeply buried, or if the ground is mineralized or salt water is present. Thus it is the only detector that can simultaneously reject both salt and mineralization while at the same time accurately discriminating the target, making it ideal for black sand beaches and many desert areas. In many areas that are highly mineralized and have been heavily searched in the past, "The Sovereign" will prove that many of the valuable targets are still there waiting for a Treasure Hunter with the proper detector to locate them. Source Minelab Sovereign Instruction Manual
    • By mh9162013
      I love coinshooting, and I'm often in my local parks or private permissions searching for clad and silver coins. But I noticed that when digging up shallow clad coins (3 inches or less), my AT Max with the stock coil would say the coin is 6 inches down. Sometimes, a surface coin would read at being 4 inches deep. I didn't think this was that big of a deal, b/c I could always pull out my F-Pulse and see if the assumed coin target was truly shallow or not. Also, the incorrect depth reading wasn't keeping me from digging a desired target.
      Tonight, I read:
       and
      http://www.fisherlab.com/hobby/davejohnson/SearchcoilfieldshapeApril2012.pdf
      Both of these mentioned anomolies or issues with DD coils and shallow targets. Is what I'm experiencing with my shallow coins and AT Max one of these anomolies? Or is there something else going on?
×
×
  • Create New...