Really!!!! 600 Vs 800 Depth Comparison On Youtube

[CliveHamy]

I'm sorry but I do not regard the Video as a scientific test. For start has anyone noticed that he is using a metallic pen to write down the results and he leaves it within range of the detector! The pen is not there for the first 800 test, then its placed to the side but within range for the second 800 test, then it is even closer/more central for both 600 tests, and he also moves the coil a bit for the 600 test. (Is there any metal under the table?)  You can hear the detectors bleeping as he writes! Who knows what influence it has, a bit like having some iron near a finder. Each time the pen is in a slightly different position! Laugh out Loud.  

[GB_Amateur]

10 hours ago, Jeff McClendon said:

the only setting difference between default Park 1(if both detectors were in default Park 1?) is the recovery speed.

Actually the default Iron Biases are also different (manual page 52):  for Park 1, value is 6 on the Eqx 800 and 2 (equivalent to Eqx value of 4) on the Eqx 600.

I don't know the effect of this for air test 'depth', but doubt it is completely neutral.

 

[GB_Amateur]

7 hours ago, dewcon4414 said:

Makes you wonder because i didnt notice the falsing on the 600 like i did with the 800 when that coil was moving...... so was it set up the same?

I watched the video after reading your comment and I agree that there's a big difference between the 'chatty' Eqx 800 response and the quiet Exq 600 in the video.  That got me thinking....

Suppose you had two of the same model and set up everything identically as far as numbers entered into the interfaces.  Will the performances be identical?  It's pretty easy (well, for the engineers and technicians) to load identical software, but there are tolerances on hardware components which vary from one device to the next.  Typically (I'm talking very general -- I don't know what goes on at the Minelab factory) there are 'trimmer' components (for example, variable resistors and capacitors) which allow the assembly techs to calibrate a unit to some standard, but even then I doubt they can match the performance for every situation.

One possible explanation of the difference between the two detectors in the video is that the gains ('sensitivities') aren't the same.  Sure, he shows both set to 20, but (see above) one detector's 20 may not be the same as another's, even if they were identical models.

Another thing I just thought of -- are the two units using the same software release??

 

[EL NINO77]

this Equinox 800 and Equinox 600 test does not look very accomplished,-no detector settings are visible,,, especially if you look at his other tests..

[Jeff McClendon]

Hi and hopefully happy holidays to all of you.......

Before most of you go too far into conspiracy theory land, I did the test that I promised. First of all there is nothing in the manual concerning depth loss or gain by using different iron bias settings unless I missed something. I did not change the iron bias in default Park 1 for this test. So I luckily have both detectors. I air tested them with the stock 11" coil and the 6" coil in my backyard.  

First I tested both the 800 and 600 with the 11" coil in default Park 1 except for sensitivity which I had to lower on both detectors to 16 due to massive amounts of EMI today, I used the same settings as in the Youtube video in question.  I used a 1982 US quarter. I recorded the farthest distance from the coil with matching beeps in both directions.

The 800 in default Park 1 detected the quarter 1 inch further than the 600 in default  Park 1.  

I changed the recovery speed of the 800 to 6 (up from 5) and the test results were exactly the same on both detectors = 8.5"

I put on the 6" coil (it was a lot quieter as it should have been!) and left the sensitivity at 16 on both detectors.

In default Park 1 (recovery speed 5 for the 800) the 800 detected the quarter 1 inch further than the 600 in default Park 1.

I changed the recovery speed to 6 on the 800 and the results were exactly the same = 6".

 

I think I will keep my Nox 600 for now.....

Jeff

 

 

[Steve Herschbach]

600 is the same as 800 but with fewer settings. No tests will change that. Variations occur between two exact same detector models also if people want to go have fun testing for that sort of thing.

The 600 is the killer value proposition for most users, but most will get an 800 anyway.

Equinox 600 Versus Equinox 800 

[GB_Amateur]

2 hours ago, Jeff McClendon said:

I did the test that I promised.

(With 11 inch diameter DD 'stock' coil on both:)

The 800 in default Park 1 detected the quarter 1 inch further than the 600 in default  Park 1.  I changed the recovery speed of the 800 to 6 (up from 5) and the test results were exactly the same on both detectors = 8.5"

I put on the 6" coil (it was a lot quieter as it should have been!) and left the sensitivity at 16 on both detectors.

In default Park 1 (recovery speed 5 for the 800) the 800 detected the quarter 1 inch further than the 600 in default Park 1.  I changed the recovery speed to 6 on the 800 and the results were exactly the same = 7".

Excellent test.  Your hypothesis that the recovery speed difference (based on the default recovery speeds of each detector) was the cause of the difference in air test depth was confirmed.  Well done with your hypothesis and even better for doing the experiment.  You get an A+ in my experimental science class!

[Happa54]

Whew!!!! Now I am at ease again everyone. The 600 has become an extension of my arm and I didn't want it to be second fiddle to the 800 when it comes to depth. 

Jeff, your testing very well done, I'm impressed....thank you very much for that.  I had long ago been convinced that the 600 was every bit as deep as the 800 minus a few settings that I don't need. 

Onward......

[Chase Goldman]

22 hours ago, Bob'ke said:

It is only another hoax, just like "the Equinox only uses two frequencies in a mode", as opposed to 5, like the manual says.

Actually, that is not a hoax but probably true.  But truly knowing "How" doesn't really matter in the grand scheme of things as discussed at length here , as what matters is that it tangibly benefits your detecting performance.

Regarding the subject video - not going to rehash all the points of the previous posters regarding poor setup, execution, apparent disregard for or lack of knowledge of key parameters that could affect results, etc.  I will just say that it is 4 minutes and 16 seconds of my life I wish I could get back.