Bad 2 Directional Falses After Upgrade With 6" Coil In Iron

[GB_Amateur]

1 hour ago, Steve Herschbach said:

Use identical settings but two different firmware setups, and test in the field on objects found in the ground.

 

1 hour ago, Steve Herschbach said:

Same machine, two different targets on two different days? That’s just a contest of perceptions.

I think a lot of people were thinking along these lines but for whatever reason (on my part, lack of guts for one thing but also lack of confidence in my detecting ability/experience) kept it from being said.  Well stated, Steve.  Actually the same holds true (IMO) in many of the reported differences in the two firmwares we've been reading from day 1.  I'm still unsure I can see/feel/hear any differences between the two other than the depth indicator change (which I hardly ever used before nor since).  I certainly have my own perception of (minor) differences but haven't done the diligent testing required to be able to report with confidence.

One thing this thread has emphasized to me is how difficult it must be for engineers to 1) sort through customer bug reports, and 2) apply a change which addresses concerns without messing up something else.  On the Equinox there are so many different combinations of settings made available to the user and and way more (with software change 'knobs') to the engineer.  I can see why it's apparently the exception for manufacturers to issue software upgrades.  (This seems to be deja vu when compared to the Fisher F75 issues First Texas had to deal with, and customer complaints afterward saying it was better before the change.)

 

[Chase Goldman]

3 hours ago, Steve Herschbach said:

Personally I think the testing methodology here is flawed. The only way to test is with two detectors, each set up with 6” coil. Use identical settings but two different firmware setups, and test in the field on objects found in the ground. Going to a park one day with one firmware version and the next day with another version proves very little. I would consider such testing to be a waste of my time personally. I either drag two or more machines around when testing or I don’t bother.

Requiring a second machine may seem too much of a burden to ask of most people, but that’s the way I test for manufacturers for whatever it’s worth. If have to see it with my own eyes, two machines on the same “found target”, for it to be useful information. Same machine, two different targets on two different days? That’s just a contest of perceptions.

My Testing Methodology

Agree with that.  I have wanted to do this owning two Equinoxes and I intentionally kept one rolled back to the original firmware.  The difficulty for me lies in the fact that I only have one 6 inch coil and two different shaft systems (Anderson and the OEM shaft) so even switching back and forth with a dedicated lower shaft is difficult.  The best I can do right now is compare the two with the 11" coil.  I have done that and am analyizing the video I took of that test to see if I can come up with some conclusions.  Thing is, it won't shed much light on falsing because I did the comparison testing on neutral beach sand because I was looking for target ID stability, depth, and audio quality.  Maybe I can run some tests with the 6" before things freeze up.

[Steve Herschbach]

This all made me want to get another 6" coil but with snow on the ground best if I just sit this one out. The ferrous thing is not so much on my radar, but testing between the two versions on the tiniest of gold nuggets has my interest. In theory the new version that tends to spark more on ferrous is where I would place my bet for which would do best on the tiniest gold. Usually suppressing ferrous is very dangerous for the tiny nugget hunter, which is why I prefer still to run with iron bias set at zero when nugget detecting. But really, the only way to do it right needs that second 6" coil, so I guess that's on my wish list now.