Park 1 Vs Field 1

[aygore]

Horst and Rich, 

thanks a lot for the additional helpful feedback. 

You have no idea how it helps to make my mind about next setup I am going to test.

It's a great feeling to uncover the potential of the device while being guided by others who are more experienced. 

 

[aygore]

Hello,

 

I just want to report back that I had a fruitful weekend in the woods ?

I ended up using Park 1, Recovery 6, Iron Bias 2, Ground Balance 0.

I experimented with the field 1 a bit, but the place I was hunting had some amount of modern thrash.

Next time I am going to experiment more with FIeld 1, but I am going to set it to 5 tones.

I've been wondering if I set Field 1 the same way as I have for Park 1 (5 tones, Recovery 6, Iron Bias 2, Ground Balance 0) is it going to behave the same way as Park 1?

 

Regards, 

Igor

 

[Chase Goldman]

 

4 hours ago, aygore said:

I've been wondering if I set Field 1 the same way as I have for Park 1 (5 tones, Recovery 6, Iron Bias 2, Ground Balance 0) is it going to behave the same way as Park 1?

Most likely it will behave very similar if all the user parameters are set up identically between Park 1 and Field 1.  Regarding GB 0, don't automatically assume GB 0 is the right setting based on mode, it needs to be set according to the local site conditions (i.e., if you are getting a lot of ground feedback in all metal, then GB) similar to noise cancel.  Also not sure why people don't take the 5 seconds it takes to get an optimal Auto GB, regardless, but that's just me and my OCD, I guess - lol.  An interesting test would be to see if after you have set up Park 1 and Field 1 identically, that if you do a GB on each one to see if the GB readings are similar between the 2 modes (GB is mode dependent because of the different Multi IQ profiles on the Equinox and if you do GB, each mode should be balanced individually).

[aygore]

To be honest I used to GB everytime. However I've read that this is not really necessary in low/med mineralised ground and only required if there is a lot of puttering in -9 area. I left GB at 0 a few times and I haven't seen any noticable decrease in performance. Although I have a feeling, that GB, even when performed in low/med mineralised ground gives additional edge. I recall one hunt when I took some time to GB and the detecor performed extremely well. Maybe the overall soil conditions were good. Maybe it was because of GB. 

[DeltaDigger]

I use Field 1 all the time relic hunting. It's very quite even when increasing my sensitivity up to 22/23. I manually GB and run 2 tones most of the time.

[Horst]

I do totally agree with Rich except for that one point leaving GB at 0. It does not make much sense from my point of view. The machine gives you the option to match the ground perfectly by doing a manual GB(pumping the coil over a clean spot with no signal) so why should I NOT do this? I use every single bit of technical help to run my machine as quiet as possible.

[UtahRich]

On 5/14/2019 at 2:02 AM, Horst said:

I do totally agree with Rich except for that one point leaving GB at 0. It does not make much sense from my point of view. The machine gives you the option to match the ground perfectly by doing a manual GB(pumping the coil over a clean spot with no signal) so why should I NOT do this? I use every single bit of technical help to run my machine as quiet as possible.

Why do I leave the ground balance at 0 ?   Let's see what Minelab has to say about it ?? Let's read from page 40 of the owner's manual.

"The default Ground Balance setting of 0 is recommended for Park, Field and Beach Modes because these locations typically have less mineralisation than goldfields.

However, if the ground is generating many noise signals (and/or the Sensitivity level is set very low), then using Auto Ground Balance is recommended."

That is why I leave it on '0', Minelab recommends it.  The majority of places I hunt have moderate mineralization or less and I don't get ground noise.

Second, coming from 17 years of using Minelab FBS detectors, the Explorer XS and the Etrac, there is NOT a ground balance function. Separating the ground signal from possible targets is done using the signal response from the different Tx frequencies. Part of the mystery of how Minelab processes the signal.

Keep in mind that I do have the option of switching frequencies from Multi, to 5kHz, 10kHz, 15kHz, 20kHz and 40kHz. I believe when using a single frequency that it would be to my benefit to have the detector ground balanced as the system doesn't have the benefit of being able to use the multi-frequencies to separate targets from ground signal.

I believe that Minelab first added a ground balance function to their FBS2 detector, the CTX3030, for use in HIGH MINERALIZATION areas. 

From the CTX3030 manual, page 21, it states:

"Ground Balance (GB) allows you to easily adjust the detector to suit detecting in highly mineralized ground. In these conditions, correctly adjusted Ground Balance will help to find deeper targets that might be hidden by ground noise, as well as helping to stabilize target IDs. Ground Balance is best used in conjunction with Coin-Ground Target Separation. Ground Balance should not be enabled in most detecting conditions where ground mineralization is mild. This includes most beaches, parks and sports grounds."

Seems that both of these instructions are eerily similar.  What do I gather from the two statements by Minelab?  That their processing of the multi-frequency signal is MORE effective at separating possible targets from the ground signal than the standard method of ground balancing. That's what I think.

Most have a difficult time with NOT ground balancing every time they put a coil to the soil if they've come from the 'ground balancing' world into the world of Minelab. Understandable.  I used a Fisher CZ-6a prior to picking up my Explorer XS. I had a hard time.  I got over it.  Now, it feels weird when I pick up another brand of detector that requires ground balancing at the start of each outing and perhaps periodically during the hunt. 

Still, this is my take on how Minelab has presented these things and it is how I go about my hunting. If ya'll think I'm up in the night, no worries. I still like you guys and don't have a problem with people hunting different than me. An inquiry was made and I've offered some of my thoughts and how I came to my conclusions.

That said, I do reserve the right to change my mind and learn as I go along. Hope nobody has a problem with that. 

Good hunting to all of you.

Rich (Utah)

 

[Chase Goldman]

Rich - the following is just a counterpoint addressing the ML p. 40 statements directly and not meant to be an I'm right and you are wrong thing.  Nor am I advocating that YOU should change the way YOU do business.  I know you quoted Horst but I too was in the camp of why not just do a GB so that is why I am responding.

Your position is valid because Multi IQ on Equinox does afford a lot of forgiveness when detecting without an optimal Ground Balance point set, I better understand your GB=0 position and just wanted to state why I do GB on regular basis as part of my startup routine (except for one situation) regardless of the soil condition and why I think I too am not violating anything ML has stated on p. 40.  And again even though I have a difference of opinion, I also agree it does not mean you should in any way change the way you do it because it works for you to swing at the GB default.  Anyway, with that out of the way...

I interpret p. 40 a little differently but again, that does not mean my interpretation is right for everyone, here is my take.

Fact - Multi IQ and multi frequency machines in general do have the advantage of being able to separate the ground signal by benefit of getting real-time reactance and resistance readings from the ground at different frequencies.  That means that UP TO A POINT, the machine can readily compensate for a non-zero ground phase condition.  The question is, at what point do does it start having an issue.  Minelab gave us the answer on p. 40 as well as on page p. 11 which refers you to the GB procedure on p. 40 if you are experiencing excessive ground noise after conducting the quick start steps.    The problem is you do not know if you are experiencing excessive ground noise unless you have removed all discrimination (horseshoe button) and furthermore, you do not know how much the ground noise is affecting detector performance up until the point you notice it though I am sure that in the grand spectrum of effects, on Equinox not having a precise GB in Multi IQ has at worst, a relatively small effect even at large ground phase discrepancies.

My Opinion/Philosophy/Take on GB with Equinox - In my region I am subject to a WIDE range of soil conditions.  No site, except the dry sand beaches I go to, is completely free of mineralization and also baseline ground phase readings vary greatly from site to site and mineralization is only ONE factor that determines a non-zero reading. I usually use more than one detector at a site and go with the hot hand.  Unlike the Equinox, my other primary detector has a mineralization (Fe3O4) meter and I have seen Equinox ring up with some very high Ground Phase numbers even on low mineralized soil (Side note: unless you have a detector that can explicitly read out mineralization level, you cannot tell the level of mineralization at your site if all you have the Equinox ground phase reading because high GP number does not necessarily correlate to a high mineralization level).  Furthermore, I have found that Equinox will ring up with significantly different Ground Phase readings on the same patch of ground depending on what mode I have selected.  Finally, if I am not searching in AM mode, I may not have any idea if I am experiencing ground noise because that usually shows up as a constant -9, -8, -7 variable chatter and just because I don't hear it in the NF target region does not mean it is not affecting my NF target detection capability.  Even on sand beaches, I have NEVER been to a site that has given my "0" on an AUTO GB.  Since I have no way of knowing what the GP reading is going to be and at what point a non-zero reading is going to affect detectability, I just do the auto pump as part of my startup routine and swing away.   

So let's go to what ML said on p. 40 again. 

"The default Ground Balance setting of 0 is recommended for Park, Field and Beach Modes because these locations typically have less mineralisation than goldfields.

However, if the ground is generating many noise signals (and/or the Sensitivity level is set very low), then using Auto Ground Balance is recommended."

My take (just my speculation and opinion again, not proven fact) is that ML was really pointing out why they chose 0 and NON-TRACKING as the DEFAULT GB setting vs. TRACKING as the DEFAULT for the Gold Modes and was trying to keep things simple for detectorists of all skill levels by not REQUIRING a GB for most situations because it should really not affect detecting experience all that much, especially with the Multi IQ advantage.  Many low end detectors do not have anything other than a preset ground phase reference point, and that suffices for most situations and people do just fine with them.  However, I am surprised that ML is linking Ground Phase solely to mineralization, as mineralization is not the only (though it is probably the most dominant) factor in determining ground phase reading.  Furthermore, in the CTX words I am especially surprised that ML said "Ground Balance should not be enabled in most detecting conditions where ground mineralization is mild."   "Should not" is pretty strong language and is incongruent with them throwing in the qualifier "most detecting conditions" later in the statement.  So what are those outlier conditions when you "should" GB in mild mineralization?  Also, not being familiar with CTX, some of the nomenclature is also unfamiliar to me - what does "enable" ground balance mean in the context of CTX - is that some sort of tracking GB mode?  If so, I fully understand why you would preferably not want to use a tracking GB feature in mild mineralization and address that below.  Bottom line, I don't think ML is saying don't do a GB under mild soil confitions with Equinox, only pointing out the basis for their default settings.

As far as I am concerned, if I am getting something other than 0 (and the only way to know that is to go into GB and pump or listen for Ground Noise in AM) then why wait to see if you are getting ground noise just head things off at the pass and start off with a ground balance point that most closely matches the site condition, regardless of whether that is 0 or some other number.  There certainly is no down side to always doing an Manual/Auto GB at as part of a startup routine other than the 5 seconds it takes to do it and since that GB reading sticks from the last session, it is prudent for me to do it anyway since if it is not zero, then it can be WAY OFF for the new site.  I also noise cancel and GB separately for each mode I use at a site.  Since it is now just a routine thing, I even do it at the beach.  

My bottom line - Even though ML "recommends the default ... setting of 0", I do not think they are saying you "should not" do a GB, either.  Unless I am missing something, there is no real downside to doing a GB routinely at the start of a detecting session regardless of the site and on the flip side there is probably very little penalty to NOT doing a GB at most sites and just sticking with the default of 0 (but make sure it really is at 0, especially if you did a manual/auto GB or used tracking at your last site).  But regardless how small the penalty is, I see no reason to incur it when it is easily remedied.

If I am mistaken regarding the "no downside" statement on routinely doing a GB, I would like to know.

The philosophy of using tracking GB is a whole separate subject, especially considering the fact that there may indeed be downsides to using tracking GB, especially at low mineralized sites, because tracking relies on changes in mineralization to trigger a GP reading and rebalance and I don't want to get into that here.

Thanks for reading and welcome feedback, especially if I am missing something that would indicate doing a routine GB is somehow detrimental or even non-optimal.  Thx.

[glabelle]

I completely agree with Chase. Unless you have "0" ground condition, it cannot hurt to ground balance to obtain the maximum sensitivity to a target other than the ground. It also helps when pinpointing - especially a very weak target. When you pinpoint, you should hear no signal when the coil approaches the ground. If the GB is not correct, you could lose a weak target, either by getting a positive or a negative signal from the ground.

[UtahRich]

Chase, 

Some good thoughts. 

Recapping / Rewording of some of my thoughts. 

A Ground Balance Setting of 0 = The standard Ground balance is OFF and the detector is using Minelabs' signal analytics to separate targets from the ground signal.  As I read it, Minelab believes this method provides SUPERIOR performance  when compared to the standard Ground Balancing Method.

Second, AT SOME POINT when the ground signal is too great, that advantage is LOST and Minelab recommends that you engage the standard ground balance system by changing the Ground Balance number to anything other than 0.

Minelab does not tell us the exact point where their system is no longer superior, (i.e. a ground balance of number of 80 or 85 or 90) but simply tells us that we will recognize it when we begin to get Ground Noise.  Rather vague.  It would be nice to know where this transition occurs. Still, I have yet to experience ground noise while using my 800 and I live out West. 

A Ground Balance setting of '0' is not a 'Dummy Setting' for noobs. It is not what we might compare to a detector with a factory SET ground balance level that works pretty good in MOST situations. A Ground balance setting of '0' simply means the Equinox is using Minelabs' signal analytics to separate the ground signal from possible targets.

An additional thought here that you brought up about hunting with the HORSESHOE or 'No Discrimination' engaged.  Earlier in the year, MKUS from the findmall forum was praising using this for the majority of his hunting and suggested those reading his post to give it a try.  I believe his thoughts are worth a look. 

 

Again, best of luck to all of you in the field. 

 

Rich (Utah)