Minelab Multi-frequency

[MCH2]

Last night I was reading a thread/discussion on the Equinox's multi-frequency parameters. 

Has the thread gone south, or am I just not finding it?

[Steve Herschbach]

Nothing has gone missing, but there are so many threads that discuss Multi-IQ that I have no idea which one you are referring to.

 

[Chase Goldman]

There is also a discussion on Equinox multifrequency in this thread in the Detector Advice and Comparisons forum.

[Dubious]

Look for the posts by Geotech, an engineer who actually examined the signals produced by the Nox on a scope.  Bottom line, the Equinox apparently transmits in only two frequencies at a time, like the FBS machines before it, not five.  Its five available frequencies include higher frequencies than FBS (particularly 40khz), so it can do a better job on low conductors; otherwise, "Multi-IQ" is looking a lot like "FBS3."  Irritating to be misled as to the five "simultaneous" frequencies; but, applying the "proof of the pudding is in the eating" test, the Nox still passes, bringing the same advantages at a mid-level price point--fast electronics, light weight, wireless, great screen, waterproof, good performance in a range of environments, etc.

[Chase Goldman]

Not really FBS3.  Focusing on the frequency combos is only half the story of Multi IQ (perhaps even less than half).  The real focus should be on how the received signal is processed, and ML is not spilling the beans on how they do that.  Frankly, anyone who relies on ML's or any other manufacturer's marketing stuff (and that INCLUDES the stuff put into the instruction manuals) as their sole source of technical information about how detectors work without doing any other research are doomed to fooled.  It helps to know certain technical characteristics of a metal detector (such as operating frequency) and how a parameter like that affects your ability to find certain types of targets and the difference performance characteristics of different types of coils, but beyond that, what really matters is learning how your machine behaves and the language it uses and that simply comes from getting a lot of swing hours in and digging junk as well as keepers.  I don't blame ML's marketing department they need to balance the complex technical truth against conveying concepts in a manner that can be understood by non-engineers while trying to sell detectors at the same time.  The result is usually something that has some underlying truth but a lot of artistic license, as well.  I mainly ignore it unless I want a chuckle and use my knowledge of engineering and physics to throw the BS flag when necessary, otherwise, I just go out and learn the detector by swinging it and don't lose sleep or even get irritated over 2 vs. 5 vs.28 simultaneous frequencies, quite frankly.

[MCH2]

4 hours ago, Chase Goldman said:

There is also a discussion on Equinox multifrequency in this thread in the Detector Advice and Comparisons forum.

Yes, that is the link/thread.  I only got part way through it when the site went down for me anyway last night.  It is an interesting read.  Thank you.

[Dubious]

I didn't say Multi-IQ is FBS3 (whatever that would be), just that it is looking more like it than before. As for how different "Multi-IQ" is from FBS2, as you point out, we don't entirely know; but, if it's true that the Nox uses only two frequencies simultaneously, we do now know that it isn't as different as we had earlier believed.  Of course, it's the end result that matters most to us; but I don't like to be misled along the way, either.  

There's a legal difference between advertising puffery--"our detector is superior to all other detectors," "our machine obsoletes all single-frequency detectors," etc.--and a representation as to a technical specification, here, the number of frequencies that the detector transmits "simultaneously."  We all know that advertising puffery is not to be taken literally; but, I think most of us expect representations as to a technical specification, especially something as concrete as the number of frequencies used simultaneously, to be true.  Now you could argue semantics--the ambiguity in some of the wording--but I think Minelab loses on that one.  And I just don't see how it can be explained as a case of marketing people trying to describe complex technical things to non-engineers.  How hard is it to say, "two out of five"?

Given the many accurate positive things that can be said about the Nox, I really don't understand the "why" of this.  I'm still half expecting someone to step forward to say it's all been a misunderstanding, and if you set up the test differently, a scope or spectrum analyzer will show definitively that it really does use all five frequencies at once, and here are the screen shots...

[Chase Goldman]

1 hour ago, Dubious said:

I didn't say Multi-IQ is FBS3 (whatever that would be), just that it is looking more like it than before. As for how different "Multi-IQ" is from FBS2, as you point out, we don't entirely know; but, if it's true that the Nox uses only two frequencies simultaneously, we do now know that it isn't as different as we had earlier believed.  Of course, it's the end result that matters most to us; but I don't like to be misled along the way, either.  

There's a legal difference between advertising puffery--"our detector is superior to all other detectors," "our machine obsoletes all single-frequency detectors," etc.--and a representation as to a technical specification, here, the number of frequencies that the detector transmits "simultaneously."  We all know that advertising puffery is not to be taken literally; but, I think most of us expect representations as to a technical specification, especially something as concrete as the number of frequencies used simultaneously, to be true.  Now you could argue semantics--the ambiguity in some of the wording--but I think Minelab loses on that one.  And I just don't see how it can be explained as a case of marketing people trying to describe complex technical things to non-engineers.  How hard is it to say, "two out of five"?

Given the many accurate positive things that can be said about the Nox, I really don't understand the "why" of this.  I'm still half expecting someone to step forward to say it's all been a misunderstanding, and if you set up the test differently, a scope or spectrum analyzer will show definitively that it really does use all five frequencies at once, and here are the screen shots...

I think the key is how many frequencies ML is monitoring (i.e., receiving) vs. how many it is transmitting at one time, especially since ML never once mentions that it is transmitting all 5 frequencies simultaneously, only that it utilizes a different group of base frequencies than BBS/FBS.  In the article linked by Steve above and also referenced in the other thread, ML also alludes to the fact that it minimizes the number of simultaneous frequencies transmitted to the extent needed to achieve the desired transmit spectrum.  That was their chance to say we use 5 frequencies but instead they implied that they use less than 4.  ML also has to get the point across that it has incorporated 5 (or 3 in the case of the 600) single base frequencies to be used for single frequency operation.  So naturally, less technically inclined folks tend to conflate those two separate features (Multi IQ and switchable single frequency) which helps up the confusion factor.  Look, I am not giving ML a free pass on this because they probably relish the ambiguity, misinterpretation, and confusion this fairly complex concept generates on its own in their customer base because it works to their advantage.  On the other hand, I am not seeing any outright lies and deception either, I think they are letting the complexity of the truthful description of their technology do the selling for them. It is a razor thin distinction between truth and marketing hyperbole, but an important distinction that keeps them legally out of hot water but also protects their intellectual property from the competition. IMO.

[Dubious]

If the Nox really uses only two frequencies simultaneously, the deception fooled only consumers like us and protected nothing.  Minelab's competitors knew what was going on as soon as they got an Equinox into their labs.  And Minelab's statements are unmistakable.  "With EQUINOX you can operate across the full spectrum of frequencies simultaneously for maximum results."  https://www.minelab.com/knowledge-base/key-technologies#321586. The illustration under the text makes the meaning even clearer. And Minelab makes the same representation in many other places.

[Goldpick]

I don't think Minelab are about to reveal full details of how their tech truly works, though the devil is in the detail - their multifrequency detectors may well transmit a full spectrum of frequencies, though in reality how many are actually utilised in the actual signal processing. 

Given that some of the programs on the Nox are weighted more towards higher conductors whilst others are weighted more to lower conductors, I doubt whether a full spectrum of frequencies is utilised 100% of the time.  Probably a good thing if it results in faster processing and recovery speeds etc.