Jump to content
goldbrick

Equinox Vs Tarsacci. Does This Equal More Nuggets?

Recommended Posts

I am copying part of a post by Badger in NH on the Dankowski forum. Will this beach performance transfer over to hot dirt and more nuggets? I don't know but this guys results are certainly interesting.


For the depth testing I had a silver quarter, a silver dime and a medium sized mans 14k gold ring. I had drilled tiny holes in the center of the coins, ran a nylon string through each one and tied a knot on the end. This is to ensure that coins stay flat when buried. I would bury the coin at 15 inches and slowly pull the coin towards the surface a little at a time until it just came into detection range. When I reached the edge of the max depth that the coin could be detected, I grabbed the string where it came out of the sand, pulled up the coin and measured the length of the string. It worked perfectly. The gold ring is attached to the end of a fabric measuring tape. 

I tested the Tarsacci MDT 8000 against the Minelab Equinox 800. 

Settings were - 

Tarsacci - GB 600, SB 26-30 depending on Freq, Sense 7, Threshold 0, Disc 0, Mix mode. 

Equinox - Beach 1, Sense 23, 2 tones, AM on, recovery 6. 

To achieve a max depth designation, the detector must have a clear repeatable non-ferrous tone and reasonably accurate numerical ID. 

Tarsacci max depth on the silver Quarter was 13". 

Equinox was 10". 

Tarsacci max depth on the silver Dime was 12.5". 

Equinox was 9". 

(All the Tarsacci frequencies picked up the coins at max depth but 6.4 kHz sounded best.) 

Tarsacci max depth on the gold ring was 13". (All freqs picked it up but 18 kHz sounded best) 

Equinox had an iffy signal at 11" and 10" but only got a decent tone and ID at 9". 

I tried radically changing the GB number on the Tarsacci to see what that would do but came back to 600 because it got the best depth. I forgot to test Black Sand mode but will do that another time. 

So the Tarsacci wins the depth test by a large margin. I am extremely happy with it. 
 

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  I value a detector comparison test over a known target only slightly more than an air test. The test does prove, however, that the Tarsacci will find coins with holes and strings tied to them buried for less than 15 minutes better than an equinox.  But it is good to see Minelab getting some strong competition.

 The real test will be to see which will withstand a day of being transported in a wildly out of control Polaris Razor.

  • Like 3
  • Haha 2
  • Oh my! 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Klunker, I probably won't ask you to drive my RZR when I have my Tarsacci in it so we should be OK. LOL

p.s. did you buy an Equinox?

Signed,

An early adopter......

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I got you a bumper sticker for the Razor...it's the closest thing I could find....

 

I_LOVE_TERIYAKI_Bumper_Sticker_300x300.jpg

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Strick, your killin me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While folks are screwing around with tests, I'm out banging in nuggets, so I say go for it, a detector is only as good as the persons research using it...hehe....

IMG_1469.JPG

  • Like 8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, alaskaseeker said:

While folks are screwing around with tests, I'm out banging in nuggets, so I say go for it, a detector is only as good as the persons research using it...hehe....

IMG_1469.JPG

Agreed, but in some conditions especially ones with extreme trash new technologies may be more helpful in picking out the good targets from digging out iron all day. I love my Minelab 4500 P.I. but all the spots I hunt now are literally full of iron..sometimes you just want to cheery pick the non ferrous. If the Tarsacci does a better job of it than other MD available I am willing to at least give it my ear.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe it would be best to take a look at the cost of each detector first before doing a comparison.

 You said the Tar. got 13” on the quarter and the Nox hit it at 10”

  Let’s look at it this way the cost of the Nox is 899.00 divided by 10”= 89.90

 It cost you 89.90 per inch on the Nox to detect that quarter 

 What’s the cost of the Tar. about 1500.00

1500 divided by 13”=115.38

cost you 115,38 per inch on the Tar.

 The thing is the Tar cost lots more and for your money you should be getting more depth,

 This based on what was said the original cost of the Tar.

 Chuck 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A $20.00 gold piece at 12" would knock t' 'ell outa that theorem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On the Dankowski forum about a month ago, 2 guys were testing a Tarsacci in the Tennessee red dirt, and it did not do well at all. 

I would wait for more testing before I would part with $1500 .  Now maybe they did not have it set up right, or the machine was defective, , or it does not do well in mineralized dirt?  It seems to do well in salt environments.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×