Jump to content

Park 1 Vs Field 1


Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, Rich (Utah) said:

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)

 

Rich, ground balance (a setting to ignore the ground) is *always* "on" in any VLF machine. Think more of a ground balance of "0" as the same as a general ground balance set in a Tesoro machine. It is a fixed average, determined by the Minelab engineers. The way they analyze the target in software, they think they know how to separate ground noise - and well they may in many conditions. In many of their machines, Tesoro simply set a fixed "average" value  (whatever that is) for mineralization. This would be akin to Minelab's "0" ground balance. Some of Tesoro's machines had an external control, many were "fixed" internally. I think it was a selling point - simplification for the user! You *can* get away without exact ground balance, but you lose that little bit of extra sensitivity. Another classic (so to speak ? ) case is the Classic series from Whites. There was no ground balance control (actually there was a trim pot located under the American flag sticker that you could adjust)  - it was set internally (with that trimmer) to some "average" value. Mr. Bill's modification added a ground balance control knob to that unit, which improved sensitivity. Ironic, since I just completed that mod myself on a Classic III today! I'll show it to you in Nevada.

I was doing some testing with my 800 today. A ground balance of "0" results is a big positive signal when the coil is lowered to my moderately mineralized test bed. If I do an auto balance, it ends up on "6". Then when in all metal/pinpoint, there is no change in tone when the coil is lowered to the ground. That, to me, is the proper way to set up a detector.

I downloaded and read that CT-3030 manual. I noticed there is no mention of ground "tracking" in it. I believe their 2 settings, "Start ground balance" and "enable ground" on, refer to manually ground balancing, and when enabled, ground TRACKING. That's why it would not be recommended in lightly mineralized soils. I NEVER use tracking. Don't trust it. I sweep over a target fast+slow+ and every which way, zeroing in on it. There's too much chance of "tracking out" a weak target. The reason it is default in the gold modes, is that the ground in gold areas is usually heavily mineralized and varying, such that you have to track in order to eliminate ground noise and pick up those little "pickers". I admit, I've never done nugget hunting, but I understand the principles.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites


5 hours ago, Rich (Utah) said:

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.

Rich - that is a very interesting interpretation but I have found nothing in ML's user manual or the ML Treasure Talk Equinox articles, including the 4 part Multi IQ series that corrobrates that:

  • Signal analytics to separate targets from the ground signal is ONLY active when GB is set to 0 
  • That GB = 0 means that "standard GB" is OFF.

So I would appreciate reading more about this if you have a reference. 

I interpret from reading the Multi IQ series of articles that the signal analytics ground compensation processing is ALWAYS on in multi and that the detector is merely setting the GB reference starting point more accurately by doing a manual/auto GB from which the ground signal can be be better compensated/interpolated using the Multi IQ signal analytics. 

I also don't really know what you mean by the term "standard GB" as that is never used by ML in the context of the Equinox.  Also, since manual GB is fully adjustsble from -9 to 99, it seems strange to me ML would a assign a different GB behavior to "0" vs. any other setting.  In other words, by your interpretation, if a manual/Auto GB did just happen to give you a "0", then the "standard GB" you thought you were getting would be OFF?  That seems like it would be really confusing to the user and would warrant a mention in the user guide.

In any event, I admit that I cannot prove my interpretation definitively based soley on the vague information ML has put out but it seems reasonable to me that ML would design it the way I describe.

Regarding signal analytics being superior or just leaving GP at 0, I find it interesting that ML writes:  "When Tracking Ground Balance is active, the detector continuously adjusts the Ground Balance automatically during detecting.  This ensures that Ground Balance is always set correctly." - p  41 of the User Guide.  So yeah, at some unknown point, 0 is just not good enough but ML never says when, just the vague repeated reference to excess ground noise.  ML also refers to ground noise in the context of recovery speed and swing speed, implying a lower usable limit on recovery speed setting because ground noise will tend to dominate at slowe mr sweep speeds.  I think we both know that proper coil control is key to success with Equinox.

5 hours ago, Rich (Utah) said:

A Ground Balance setting of '0' is not a 'Dummy Setting' for noobs.

Don't know who said that (you put it quotes so you must be quoting someone).  As I stated in my previous post, that default setting is a great starting point for the entire gamut of detectorist skill levels and Multi IQ certainly allows detecting success without having to make adjustments from 0 with little penalty for MOST detecting situations.  Keeping it simple for the less experienced detectorist yet providing more precise control for the advanced detectorist appears to be inherent in the Equinox design philosophy.  But if you thought I was saying it is a setting suitable only for less experienced detectorists in my previous post you really misinterpreted my meaning and I personally do not appreciate the negative coonotation of the terms used in your post to be directly or indirectly attributed to me to make it sound as if I was dispariging inexperienced or even advanced detectorists who do use the default settings.  It is not something I would ever do or tolerate and is 180 degrees opposite of my typical interaction on this board.   Any detectorist new to detecting or the Equinox that I have helped with my advice can attest to that.  If that was not your intent, then I sincerely apologize.

5 hours ago, Rich (Utah) said:

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

I typically run without disc a high percentage of the time I detect with Equinox and am fully aware of the advantage of doing so.  However, I rekon that most do not run wide open, so I was generalizing to the more common configuration which is using the default disc settings.

Thanks for the reply, this has been a great discussion and like the "how many frequencies are transmitted" question cannot really be resolved in the absence of more explicit details from ML.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, glabelle said:

 

I downloaded and read that CT-3030 manual. I noticed there is no mention of ground "tracking" in it. I believe their 2 settings, "Start ground balance" and "enable ground" on, refer to manually ground balancing, and when enabled, ground TRACKING. 

That's what I thought ML was saying also (and stated that in a previous post), but not having familiarity with the CTX...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

An explanation of how VLF detectors work may be in order.

When a target upsets the null between the Tx and Rx coils, there is a signal read which has a phase shift and an amplitude amount. It is the ratio between this phase shift and amplitude that is used to analyze what that target may be. A clad penny, or a silver dime, or a nickel, always has the same ratio. The ground also has a ratio - this is why you "ground balance". To ignore this particular ratio, given what environment you are in.

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, glabelle said:

An explanation of how VLF detectors work may be in order.

When a target upsets the null between the Tx and Rx coils, there is a signal read which has a phase shift and an amplitude amount. It is the ratio between this phase shift and amplitude that is used to analyze what that target may be. A clad penny, or a silver dime, or a nickel, always has the same ratio. The ground also has a ratio - this is why you "ground balance". To ignore this particular ratio, given what environment you are in.

 

 

 

 

True, but a multifrequency detector has the added advantage of determining (in real time) the change in target and ground ratios with frequency and, as a result, can better compensate for a lack of a perfect ground balance by identifying the different frequency response of the target vs. the ground ratios (more precisely reactance X (phase component) vs. Resistance R (amplitude component).  Despite the ability to do this, even multifrequency detectors perform better when properly balanced to the actual soil ground phase effect.  In other words, even though a multiple frequency detector can perform better than a single frequency vlf without a precise ground balance adjustment, it will perform even better if ground balanced.  Not disagreeing with what you stated, just explaining why some might argue against the necessity if adjusting GB from the default setting when it comes to a multifrequency detector, like Equinox.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Chase,

My apologies as I've addressed too many subjects by multiple individuals in a single post without segmenting where each comment came from and where my replies were directed. 

My reference to a "standard ground balance' is my terminology for how most manufactures handle ground balancing.  Typically bobbing the coil over a piece of ground free of metallic objects while manually adjusting the GB knob OR holding in a toggle until the detector has a good read and indicates it is done sampling. 

Moving on. 

Your description below is EXACTLY my take on the Minelab way of determining the signal from the ground EXCEPT in all of my reading of how Minelab manages the ground signal,  I've not come across where the ground ratios AND a manual ground balance are COMBINED for even better results. 

 

22 minutes ago, Chase Goldman said:

True, but a multifrequency detector has the added advantage of determining (in real time) the change in target and ground ratios with frequency and, as a result, can better compensate for a lack of a perfect ground balance by identifying the different frequency response of the target vs. the ground ratios (more precisely reactance X (phase component) vs. Resistance R (amplitude component).  Despite the ability to do this, even multifrequency detectors perform better when properly balanced to the actual soil ground phase effect.  In other words, even though a multiple frequency detector can perform better than a single frequency vlf without a precise ground balance adjustment, it will perform even better if ground balanced.  Not disagreeing with what you stated, just explaining why some might argue against the necessity if adjusting GB from the default setting when it comes to a multifrequency detector, like Equinox.

 

Anyway, I suppose I could have missed how the two are combined for most effective results. If I did miss this, point the way. 

More into the ground signal algorithm. 

I copy/pasted this from the 3rd installment of the Multi-IQ series on the MinelabUSA website. I've taken the liberty of underlining a few spots that lead me to believe the algorithms are handling the ground signal. 

https://www.minelab.com/usa/go-minelabbing/treasure-talk/equinox-technologies-part-3

 

Let’s assess Multi-IQ for the different Detect Mode search profiles:

  • Park 1 and Field 1 process a lower weighted frequency combination, as well as using algorithms that maximise ground balancing for soil, to achieve the best signal to noise ratio. Hence being most suited for general detecting, coin hunting, etc.
  • Park 2 and Field 2 process a higher weighted combination of the Multi-IQ band while still ground balancing for soil. Therefore they will be more sensitive to higher frequency (low conductive) targets, but potentially more susceptible to ground noise.
  • Beach 1 also processes a lower weighted combination, BUT uses different algorithms to maximise ground balancing for salt. Hence being most suited for both dry and wet sand conditions.
  • Beach 2 processes a very low weighted frequency combination, using the same algorithms as Beach 1 to maximise ground balancing for salt. This search profile is designed for use in the surf and underwater.
  • Gold 1 and Gold 2 process the higher weighted combination of the Multi-IQ band while still ground balancing for soil. However, they use different setting parameters better suited for gold nugget hunting.

I looked through these statements for any inference to a combining of the two, algorithm and a manual ground balance.

The question I ask myself is this, If the algorithm is an active process that is constantly reading the ground signal across the multi-frequencies to come up with a ground reference value, why does it need me to step in and give it a starting point with a manual ground balance?  The algorithm will have it figured out more accurately. My thoughts are it doesn't need my help at all UNTIL it gets to the point  that I'm over VERY HOT GROUND and the ground signal is so strong that the algorithm is no longer the MOST effective method of finding a ground reference to measure possible targets against.  At that point, I need to intervene and engage the manual ground balance system by doing a ground balance.

Anyway, I am hoping my words and tone aren't coming across in an aggressive or combative manner.  Completely NOT my intention. Just explaining how I've arrived at the point in the universe where I set my ground balance at 0. 

 

Rich - 

 

 

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

1 hour ago, Rich (Utah) said:

The question I ask myself is this, If the algorithm is an active process that is constantly reading the ground signal across the multi-frequencies to come up with a ground reference value, why does it need me to step in and give it a starting point with a manual ground balance?  The algorithm will have it figured out more accurately. My thoughts are it doesn't need my help at all UNTIL it gets to the point  that I'm over VERY HOT GROUND and the ground signal is so strong that the algorithm is no longer the MOST effective method of finding a ground reference to measure possible targets against.  At that point, I need to intervene and engage the manual ground balance system by doing a ground balance.

Because the active process is using multifrequency to interpolate from an assumed reference starting point.  If the actual ground phase is not 0, then its interpolation will not be as accurate compared to giving it the actual ground phase reading.  It is not determining the actual reference value just how the ground is responding in comparison to the target using multiple frequencies, otherwise it would be actually tracking the ground phase, which we know it is not otherwise what would be the point of having a separate tracking GB feature?  It just happens to be very good at compensating/interpolating (to a point) even if it is given a default vice actual ground phase reading.  You ask why does it need you to give it a starting point.  The answer is it doesn't absolutely need you to do it if the ground phase it within some unknown range of the zero point default, but I believe it would compensate even better if you did give it the right starting point even if the delta between the default and actual were small because that delta is just another potential source of computational error.

Rich - We're going around in circles at this point with diminishing returns so I am going hang it up at this point since we don't seem to be converging to a common understanding and have hijacked the hell out of aygore's thread, lol.  It has been an interesting discussion and you have given me some food for thought so I will leave it at that.  Thanks.

Will try to just lurk and read additional responses and try to refrain from wading in again as I am sure most are sick of my droning on at this point...lol.  Cheers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Chase,

I'm thinking the next time I'm out and have some marginal targets, I need to take the time to test both methods and see if one of them provide better audio and visual ID's.

And apologies to everybody that WAS following this thread for hanging a hard left .   

Rich -

  • Like 1
Link to comment
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
×
×
  • Create New...