Question About Equinox Manual Ground Balance

[Dubious]

I'm not sure how intelligent the auto noise cancel is on the Nox--almost seems to give a random change each time, if you do it more than once.  Some advise pointing the coil in the direction of the suspected EMI source while doing the auto noise cancel.  On the whole, I've had fewer problems with EMI on the Nox than with my Etrac.

[EL NINO77]

I think the automatic noise canceling could take 2x-3x longer, better would eliminate the non-linear EMI ..

[Chase Goldman]

On 11/1/2018 at 10:23 AM, Tnsharpshooter said:

Correct, higher mineral soil GB is key for depth using Equinox.

Tracking system on Equinox is too slow for some areas where ground changes faster.  Been there and done that.  Equinox runners when sweeping, you start hearing what I call little canary sounds in the background, check your GB.

BTW,  proper GB for depth more critical on higher conductors vs lower conductors using Nox.

FWIW, I have personally not found GB tracking on the Equinox to be too slow for proper tracking in rapidly changing ground phase conditions of high mineralization sites (e.g., Culpeper, VA).  It is designed to handle fairly rapid changes in ground balance due to both rapid salinity level changes and varable levels of high mineralization from what I can tell as ML recommends using tracking in salt surf detecting and tracking is the default GB mode for the Gold modes which presume you are in areas of high mineralization which is typically (but not always) the type of ground where natural gold is found.  In other words, if you are finding that you are constantly having to re GB the detector at a site, do not be afraid to use tracking GB.

That being said, I don't doubt that TNSS has found particularly nasty ground situations where tracking was not ideal.  As always there are limitations in the responsiveness of any automatic control system that relies on feedback from sensed conditions.  However, even if auto tracking is laggy, Equinox Multi IQ algorithms do an excellent job of compensating detector performance for less than ideal ground balance settings so the result is typically not loss of depth performance as you might typically see with other detectors but increased ground noise when in all metal (the canary sounds TNSS refers to) which show up as rapidly changing high negative numbers on sweeps.  That is why ML suggests you only need to ground balance if you are picking up ground noise (i.e., it is not a "required" quick start step if you refer to p. 11 of the manual).  So what I am saying is that the downside to using tacking GB in most situations is minimal.

Bottom line, for me, I often use tracking GB if there is some level of moderate mineralization present which I determine using my Deus as it has a mineralization bargraph or site familiarization.   Note that you cannot directly infer site ground mineralization solely by the ground balance readings on the Equinox, though high numbers can roughly correlate to high mineralization, without a mineralization meter you cannot be totally sure.  I would only advise against using tracking on non-mkberalized ground like white sand beaches as auto tracking algorithms typically work by continuously sensing changes in ground mineralization.  If there is no mineralization present, tracking will not work well or may give erratic readings under those conditions so I typically just use the default GB setting or do a quick auto GB.  As always with such things, YMMV.

Another thing, as Multi IQ is what facilitates the ability to detect with minimal degradation in performance with a less than ideal GB, I do recommend doing a manual/auto GB whenever operating in single frequency mode.

HTH

 

[Guest Tnsharpshooter]

34 minutes ago, Chase Goldman said:

FWIW, I have personally not found GB tracking on the Equinox to be too slow for proper tracking in rapidly changing ground phase conditions of high mineralization sites (e.g., Culpeper, VA).  It is designed to handle fairly rapid changes in ground balance due to both rapid salinity level changes and varable levels of high mineralization from what I can tell as ML recommends using tracking in salt surf detecting and tracking is the default GB mode for the Gold modes which presume you are in areas of high mineralization which is typically (but not always) the type of ground where natural gold is found.  In other words, if you are finding that you are constantly having to re GB the detector at a site, do not be afraid to use tracking GB.

That being said, I don't doubt that TNSS has found particularly nasty ground situations where tracking was not ideal.  As always there are limitations in the responsiveness of any automatic control system that relies on feedback from sensed conditions.  However, even if auto tracking is laggy, Equinox Multi IQ algorithms do an excellent job of compensating detector performance for less than ideal ground balance settings so the result is typically not loss of depth performance as you might typically see with other detectors but increased ground noise when in all metal (the canary sounds TNSS refers to) which show up as rapidly changing high negative numbers on sweeps.  That is why ML suggests you only need to ground balance if you are picking up ground noise (i.e., it is not a "required" quick start step if you refer to p. 11 of the manual).  So what I am saying is that the downside to using tacking GB in most situations is minimal.

Bottom line, for me, I often use tracking GB if there is some level of moderate mineralization present which I determine using my Deus as it has a mineralization bargraph or site familiarization.   Note that you cannot directly infer site ground mineralization solely by the ground balance readings on the Equinox, though high numbers can roughly correlate to high mineralization, without a mineralization meter you cannot be totally sure.  I would only advise against using tracking on non-mkberalized ground like white sand beaches as auto tracking algorithms typically work by continuously sensing changes in ground mineralization.  If there is no mineralization present, tracking will not work well or may give erratic readings under those conditions so I typically just use the default GB setting or do a quick auto GB.  As always with such things, YMMV.

Another thing, as Multi IQ is what facilitates the ability to detect with minimal degradation in performance with a less than ideal GB, I do recommend doing a manual/auto GB whenever operating in single frequency mode.

HTH

 

Try the following experiment.

First check your ground doing a manual GB (preferably in medium mineralized ground).

Note number in window when balancing is complete.

Next Manual dial in 0 GB.

Select tracking and start sweeping your coil in area where you balanced above over clean ground.  Do this for 2-3 minutes and then go check what Equinox GB is reflecting in window.

I posted about this when I first got my Equinox.

Now, could higher mineralization ground levels make Equinox track faster?

I haven’t checked.

see this link page 5 where I comment on this.

I will check again today and compare to a few other detectors.

May have to post in detectors comparisons subforum though.

 

Your comment about using tracking using gold modes have merit.

One thing though.

Gold modes can be killer modes to use even in milder ground especially seeking relics in ferrous and even deeper.

Folks should remember Imo less filtering is happening therefore a more spot on GB is necessary in order for Equinox to identify tonally ferrous vs nonferrous.  Definitley more latitude here using more typical detect modes on Equinox.  I use gold modes quite a bit especially in already hard hunted sites.

[Chase Goldman]

57 minutes ago, Tnsharpshooter said:

Try the following experiment.

First check your ground doing a manual GB (preferably in medium mineralized ground).

Note number in window when balancing is complete.

Next Manual dial in 0 GB.

Select tracking and start sweeping your coil in area where you balanced above over clean ground.  Do this for 2-3 minutes and then go check what Equinox GB is reflecting in window.

I posted about this when I first got my Equinox.

Now, could higher mineralization ground levels make Equinox track faster?

I haven’t checked.

see this link page 5 where I comment on this.

I will check again today and compare to a few other detectors.

May have to post in detectors comparisons subforum though.

 

Your comment about using tracking using gold modes have merit.

One thing though.

Gold modes can be killer modes to use even in milder ground especially seeking relics in ferrous and even deeper.

Folks should remember Imo less filtering is happening therefore a more spot on GB is necessary in order for Equinox to identify tonally ferrous vs nonferrous.  Definitley more latitude here using more typical detect modes on Equinox.  I use gold modes quite a bit especially in already hard hunted sites.

David, thanks for linking back and reminding me about your original test thread.  Good info.

I think it is a good reminder that if you are going to use tracking GB at a site, be mindful of where GB is initially set in the mode that you are going to use as it may indeed take awhile for tracking GB to "catch up" if there is a huge disparity in the actual ground balance vs. the setting when you start to swing.  So it DOES make sense to always do a manual GB before you start if you are using tracking just to make sure tracking starts at a number near the actual ground phase for the site you are detecting.

But as long as you start tracking near the actual ground phase reading, even in highly mineralized ground, I have not seen huge swings in ground phase that would result in the inability of tracking to keep up.  I base this on two experiences.  I rarely get canary noises or ground noise grunts (in All Metal) when using tracking in mineralized ground. If I forget to use tracking in mineralized ground I do start to get the ground grunts or canary sounds, switching into tracking gives me a much smoother "ride" and keeps me from having to constantly rebalance.

Your experiment and test results also made me think of a lot of questions:

1) I know that we have always treated each of the search modes like a separate detector (requiring us to EMI noise cancel and ground balance each search mode separately when using at a site) particularly, as evidenced by the different ground phase readings each mode generates on the same plot of ground when doing a manual/auto ground balance (e.g., Park 1 may generate a 10 while Field 2 may generate a 35 when GB on the same patch of ground).  That tells me that the Multi IQ  "personalities" may have some effect on the GB algorithm either due to the unique mode signal processing algorithms or the frequency weightings, so I wonder if tracking works "better" on certain modes vs. others.

2) I wonder why it takes so long for GB tracking to catch up the "real" GB number if there is a huge, say 50+ point< difference in real and "starting" GB number while auto GB seems to be able to readjust after just a few pumps.

3)  I wonder if recovery speed has any effect on GB tracking responsiveness.

4) Finally, I wonder if tracking performance is affected by single frequency ops.

Might have to try some experiments and welcome your thoughts.

But as far as tracking is concerned, in general, under real life conditions in mild to hot soil, I have found it to work out just fine. I think it is prudent to always do a manual/auto GB before starting out in tracking to normalize your initial GB setting close to the actual site conditions. Thanks!

 

[Guest Tnsharpshooter]

8 hours ago, Chase Goldman said:

David, thanks for linking back and reminding me about your original test thread.  Good info.

I think it is a good reminder that if you are going to use tracking GB at a site, be mindful of where GB is initially set in the mode that you are going to use as it may indeed take awhile for tracking GB to "catch up" if there is a huge disparity in the actual ground balance vs. the setting when you start to swing.  So it DOES make sense to always do a manual GB before you start if you are using tracking just to make sure tracking starts at a number near the actual ground phase for the site you are detecting.

But as long as you start tracking near the actual ground phase reading, even in highly mineralized ground, I have not seen huge swings in ground phase that would result in the inability of tracking to keep up.  I base this on two experiences.  I rarely get canary noises or ground noise grunts (in All Metal) when using tracking in mineralized ground. If I forget to use tracking in mineralized ground I do start to get the ground grunts or canary sounds, switching into tracking gives me a much smoother "ride" and keeps me from having to constantly rebalance.

Your experiment and test results also made me think of a lot of questions:

1) I know that we have always treated each of the search modes like a separate detector (requiring us to EMI noise cancel and ground balance each search mode separately when using at a site) particularly, as evidenced by the different ground phase readings each mode generates on the same plot of ground when doing a manual/auto ground balance (e.g., Park 1 may generate a 10 while Field 2 may generate a 35 when GB on the same patch of ground).  That tells me that the Multi IQ  "personalities" may have some effect on the GB algorithm either due to the unique mode signal processing algorithms or the frequency weightings, so I wonder if tracking works "better" on certain modes vs. others.

2) I wonder why it takes so long for GB tracking to catch up the "real" GB number if there is a huge, say 50+ point< difference in real and "starting" GB number while auto GB seems to be able to readjust after just a few pumps.

3)  I wonder if recovery speed has any effect on GB tracking responsiveness.

4) Finally, I wonder if tracking performance is affected by single frequency ops.

Might have to try some experiments and welcome your thoughts.

But as far as tracking is concerned, in general, under real life conditions in mild to hot soil, I have found it to work out just fine. I think it is prudent to always do a manual/auto GB before starting out in tracking to normalize your initial GB setting close to the actual site conditions. Thanks!

 

See this thread.

 

[EL NINO77]

...Today in deep tests 3 Equinox coils on Park 2 I found that I changed very strongly the values of phases at Ground balance ,,, - it was shown to happen when changing recovery speed .., so I checked it-tested: program Park2, sens 20: ..recovery speed1 -number Gb-47, ..recovery speed4 .. number Gb-37, ..recovery speed 6 ..- number Gb-32, ..recovery speed 8.-number Gb-22 ... So I recommend to change the recovery speed,.. make  a new Ground balance...
 

[dewcon4414]

So.....are we to assume perhaps that adjusting the recovery can be adjusting the filters....thus the GB?   More/faster recovery looses depth seeing less minerals....like here our our GB reads somewhere around 17 on dry sand.

[EL NINO77]

Yes, setting recovery speed to impact on Ground balance the  Equinox, keep in mind that recovery speed is more or less perfect electronic replacement of coil sizes .. -to a certain extent...

[Cal_Cobra]

Equinox ground balance, what's that?