Minelab Multi-frequency

[Geotech]

1 hour ago, Cal_Cobra said:

Carl how's that slow ship turning? 

I hope it's going to dock some time in 2019?

Rudder is often stuck or unresponsive. But I see a lighthouse, hope it's the port and not the rocks.

[Chase Goldman]

Can't wait to see that ship come in.  Should be interesting.

[Cal_Cobra]

So long as the ship isn't sinking, things are progressing. 

[Mark Gillespie]

To start with I have nothing to gain from either Minelab or 1st Texas by any statements mentioned in the following post.

Let’s take a moment and state the known facts:

Minelab has been in the business of developing and manufacturing metal detectors for 33+ years.

Minelab is a major competitor of 1st Texas metal detecting products.

They're several people on this forum, that are regular testers for 1st Texas products, who will jump at a chance to accuse their competitors for possible gain, which in turns causes damage to the competition.

Minelab has developed many new detecting technologies which has increase the demand for their detectors, as other companies.

With each new technologies developed, more and more hunted out sites come back to life, as other companies.

They strive to provide its customers with what they ask for, as do other companies.

They strive to improve on each machine release based on customer complaints and concerns, as do other companies.

They make good quality equipment, as do other companies.

Minelab employs some very bright and well educated engineers, as do other companies.

 

Now let’s explore any possible assumptions:

We are assuming that Minelab have purposely deceived the public with the Equinox’s claims of multi-frequency transmission, but multi merely means, more than one or at least two or more.

I must assume there is a lot going on in the internal signal processing of the Equinox that the general public will never know.

I must assume the engineers were not naive enough to believe, that if they tried to fool the public, someone would reveal their deceptive tactics.

 

Conclusion, my opinions:

Not sure scoping the output of the equinox is enough to come to the 2 frequency conclusion

The interaction of the system attached to the coil may be necessary to have a true picture of what is actually going on with the Equinox.

I have tested and tested the different program functions many times over and know for sure the Multi-IQ is better than any of the  single frequency choices on the Equinox.

It provides the most accurate ID of any single frequency machine I’ve owned.

Case in point.

I have many different coins buried in my test garden of 10+ years and will confess the Equinox is the only detector to accurately ID my deepest targets.

Hats off the Minelab for a job well done.

Mark Gillespie

 

 

[Chase Goldman]

22 hours ago, Mark Gillespie said:

Not sure scoping the output of the equinox is enough to come to the 2 frequency conclusion

I too do not believe ML is out to egregiously deceive on how many frequencies are combined at any one time but I also do not doubt Carl's O scope measurements showing two frequencies are combined.  I think both claims, statements, and findings can coexist especially when considering the physics-based disadvantages of combining 3 or more frequencies at once and ML's own statements as previously posted by Steve H:

"'How many simultaneous frequencies?' you may ask, wondering if this is a critical parameter. Minelab has been carrying out detailed investigations into this in recent years. Just as you can color in a map with many colors, the minimum number to differentiate between adjacent countries is only 4 – a tough problem for mathematicians to prove, over many years. Similar to the map problem, it’s perhaps not the maximum number of frequencies needed to achieve an optimum result, but the minimum number that is more interesting. When it comes to frequencies in a detector, to cover all target types, how the frequencies are combined AND processed is now more important, with the latest detectors, than how many frequencies, for achieving even better results."

In other words, I agree with your general conclusions, except for the first one.  But regardless, how many frequencies are actually transmitted simultaneously is actually less important than the signal processing ML uses to interrogate and extract useful information from the received signal signature.  And I agree with you on that point.  Stated another way, folks may be focusing in on the aspect of Multi IQ that matters least (number of combined frequencies) simply because it IS something that can be measured, while the true secret sauce, the signal processing source code, will remain a mystery unless someone hacks ML's firmware.

But what matters most overall, as you've stated, is the detector's performance.  I think that most reasonable folks would have trouble refuting that Equinox is a game changer in the hobby based on performance, value, and resulting popularity.

[Rick K - First Member]

Folks focus on the details of the number of frequencies exactly because Minelab has been letting their marketing department write stuff which sounded like technical detail - but wasn’t - .

Lots of blame to go around in the metal detector industry, but the confusion didn’t just “happen”.

Hopefully public discussion like this will encourage manufacturers to stop telling marketing fairytales and making them sound like technical data.

[Steve Herschbach]

The entire Multi-IQ discussion published by Minelab was written by engineers and is quite full of technical detail. Far more technical detail then I have seen from some others lately. Try explaining complexity to laymen while protecting proprietary information and not come across as if you are obscuring details. Honestly Rick, you let the partisan stuff get the best of you sometimes. I just want to set the record straight.

[Rick K - First Member]

I agree that the recent stuff on multi IQ has been much more informative. But the whole 28 frequency malarkey went on far too long - for decades I think.

Of course it started in a time when the “magic” of metal detectors was very much what was selling them to the hopeful, but about the same time Whites was publishing their engineering white papers on their new units.

It’s not partisan - just pointing out that folks who want to actually know what is going on - and who recognize the need to protect proprietary information - have historically had a very hard time getting decent technical information on which to base their purchasing decisions.

 

[Geotech]

2 hours ago, Steve Herschbach said:

The entire Multi-IQ discussion published by Minelab was written by engineers...

That's disappointing to hear. I assumed it was written by marketing.

[dewcon4414]

Having discussed some of this with marketing...... even about the Nox..... they have a pretty large part of what gets to us and how its worded and even how the machine will perform out of the box.  What the engineers produce isnt always whats best for sales according to marketing. They kind of put out the info..... or sometimes mis-info and allow us to run with the ball.   Marketing was a big player in the Nox release..... BUT..... i give credit where credit is do..... they sure have turned around repairs and on the Nox gone above and beyond on fixing EVERYTHING.   Most of these problems were all sent back to AU land to look at.

Multi freq and how many and even the channels freqs have been talked about for years now........ its like Santa..... some believe and some dont lol.