Steve Herschbach

It’s not a Coiltek vs Minelab thing. There are six coils you can get, each one has a place on an Equinox depending on what you are doing. In my opinion only four are worth serious consideration. If you want a 6x10 get the Coiltek, if any of the other three, you’ll be getting a Minelab coil. The 6” round gets into the tiniest locations, and hits the smallest targets. The 6x10 gets about the same small item performance as the 6 round, a hair more depth on larger stuff, but mainly covers more ground, while still getting into tight spots. Excellent target separation, and a very popular coil size. 11” round is the best all rounder, which is why it’s the stock coil 12x15 gets best depth on larger targets while still doing well on smaller stuff (but not as well as smallest coils), and for a large coil is relatively light, superb for covering huge fields or beaches. In my opinion only, the Coiltek 9x14 offers no depth real edge over the 11” round, though it does have a better ground coverage profile. As an epoxy filled coil it is heavy, and I’d only really consider it possibly for underwater use. The 15” round is simply too heavy, for no real extra depth, especially in mineralized ground. If in mild soil, and on larger items, it would offer the best depth of any Equinox coil, but overall I’d say pass on this one. If you have to do it, get an aftermarket counterbalanced shaft. Not a bad idea with the 12x15, and pretty much a necessity with this coil. Again, just my opinion. Equinox coils by Minelab Equinox coils by Coiltek

It’s not that I’m not interested in performance, I’ve just been in the game too long to think this current generation in progress is going to make that much difference. The best I expect from Deus II is a combination of Equinox and Deus 1 performance in a single detector, not something that will exceed either to any serious degree. In one regard my bar is lower than yours, so I will be more easily satisfied. What Toms experiment (and Culpepper, and a lifetime of nugget detecting) has proven to me is that to get it all, get a PI, or at a minimum a good all metal VLF, and dig it all. Anything else is going to leave a ton of masked targets behind, including all these latest new toys. People would be quite shocked to know what they are passing over almost every outing by employing discrimination, but that’s just the way it is.

I've never paid attention to other people when it comes to the whole performance thing, as it almost never applies to my ground and targets. 10" dimes? With a PI but not happening with a VLF here. So I look for the specs I want, then get the detector, and I determine for myself how it performs. I've also finally realized VLF is all splitting hairs these days, and see no need to get every new one that comes along just to try it. It is just a waste of time and money. I've been eyeballing the ORX for over a year, but never could quite pull the trigger. This may be silly to some, but Legend vs Deus II for me pretty much boils down to I want the XP S rod, the best in the business. I'm sure the Legend is just fine, but I don't want another under 4 lb straight shaft detector. Nobody ever praised Equinox ergonomics except the weight, and it has a lot to do with being a straight shaft design. I tried a Simplex and was no happier, and for the same reason, so I know I'm not going to love the feel of the Legend on my arm. I've had a couple Deus, and know I will love the Deus II on my arm. I can find stuff with any of them, so it's on such mundane things now that my decisions often turn. Comfort on my arm, and audio, audio, audio.

I’ve voiced similar opinions, but you’ve changed it from “probably” to “won’t”. Ones speaking to probabilities, the other an absolute, and mischaracterizes the original statements. Compete means different things also. If a detector had 1% less depth than an Equinox, but twice the waterproof integrity, there would be those who would say that’s fair and needed competition. I frankly liked the Apex, which takes a beating now, because it was sold as an Ace, not a Equinox beater. It fits it’s niche.

Yeah, but Chuck, I don’t care about the whole “which performs better” thing as much as the “how is it physically designed" thing. Feature sets matter to me as much or more than performance, because I know 1/4” one way or the other simply will not have a major bearing in my detecting. I’m quite confident we are splitting hairs with current technology when it comes to that sort of thing. If depth matters, I’ll use a PI, not a VLF. It’s the battle for second place at best regarding depth. In other words, I don’t need to use either one to look at both, consider the feature sets, and make an objective opinion about what is best for me.

Could be I read it entirely wrong, and if so, I apologize profusely.

I don’t agree with that assessment in the slightest. Plenty of positive commentary here where it’s deserved, and also otherwise, but often warranted. I think the folks here are second to none when it comes to calm, intelligent commentary. Telling Dilek I find the current approach unappealing is not being negative. It’s valuable feedback that a person in her position should listen to, and be grateful for. She’s in marketing, and when your approach engenders negative feelings, then you’d best pay attention. It does her no service to just make happy noise, if it’s not entirely genuine. I’m her biggest fan, but I’m not a fan of responding to every tiny slight. They have a saying about rolling in the mud with the pigs…..

Why is this a good thing? Devices backed by an international standard rating of IP68 are deemed fit enough to withstand dust, dirt and sand, and are resistant to submersion up to a maximum depth of 1.5m underwater for up to thirty minutes. That’s it. It’s nothing to brag about, and I have no doubt an Equinox would test out as IP68 also. Thirty minutes people, thirty minutes, and almost everyone exceeds that. An IP68 rating basically means a wading detector. Now, any manufacturer can warranty above and beyond that for anything they want. The margin of safety above and beyond the official rating, who knows, but there are higher official ratings one could achieve, except these devices do not. Or that’s how they would be officially rated. The manufacturers are simply gambling on certain failure rates, which absolutely will occur, and the number they are willing to cover under warranty. Everyone really needs to quit making IP68 out like it’s special. It’s not. It’s merely an admission of a minimal level of waterproof integrity, with only whatever the manufacturer adds above and beyond under warranty as having any real meaning. https://www.enclosurecompany.com/ip-ratings-explained.php https://www.polycase.com/techtalk/nema-rated-enclosures/ip67-vs-ip68.html Metal detectors designed for genuine underwater use are generally rated to 200 feet or more! These various IP68 devices are not remotely in the same category.

I’d say so, nice solid nuggets, that’s what I like to see!

It’s hard to do these sorts of things without somebody getting bent out of shape. I treat my gear extremely well. If my sharing buddy beat it up, I’d be unhappy. It’s not something I’d do personally. Renting high dollar detectors is common in Australia, and almost unheard of here.

Another way to look at this is tones. Most people do not like full tones, but prefer 2, 3, 5, or 7 tones. This is just creating a few large audio bins (not unlike the CZ above), and if you hunt by ear, it hardly matters how many numbers there are, either more or fewer.

Gold prospectors are way more in the know. All three coils made for the Gold Bug 2 are concentric, though half the people that own them don’t seem to know it. DD was the way to go on Minelab PI back in the SD and GP days, but since GPX most people favor mono. Not exactly the same thing as concentric, but the principle is the same. DDs actually suck at small near surface targets. An Equinox plays an actual medley on small surface aluminum, as the complex DD coil field passes over the item and gives varying target id numbers at different places along the journey across the windings. A small concentric is a real pleasure by comparison. I have a White’s DFX not only to run the BigFoot, but also the Eclipse 6” concentric, and the 6” concentric does pretty much stay on the Garrett 24K.

More range is better, but in real life hunting not as much as people think. A big stink always gets raised over this on paper, usually before people even use a detector, as was the case with Equinox, but in actual detecting people find it’s not that big a deal. The ground introduces too many variables, and fine divisions in air tests simply disappear in the soil. Even with a compressed range, you’d better be digging a numeric range to get any particular coin, like a nickel for instance. Picking one number means missed nickels. That’s even worse with more range, not better. More range also tends to lead to less stability, jumpier numbers. So while I personally will take more numeric range as a preference, I doubt it has much to do at the end of the day with my recovery rate. If I’m after silver, I’ll be digging all targets from below a copper penny reading and higher, not trying to tell a copper penny from a silver dime. My old CZ worked a treat with just seven possible target bins, and you want to talk target stability… Target ID Range vs Target ID Stability

The “blade” is largely a marketing myth, easily disproven with a coin and a couple coils. Disc modes mask the true nature of the electronic field, and running a DD versus concentric in a genuine all metal mode reveals the truth. Surely most of you see that even with a DD coil your best signal is dead center, and drops off to the tips? Are we to ignore superior depth just because it’s concentrated in the center of the coil? Blades versus cones deflects from the facts, which is a concentric can get better depth than a DD in mild ground, whereas a DD is generally a better choice for mineralized ground. Concentrics are easier to pinpoint with, and better identify ferrous targets. DD coils have an edge in dense trash due to the concentration of field in the centerline. However, items under the edge are seen and contribute to masking, despite super shooting ray gun blade depictions the marketing folks put out. But that DD edge in dense targets does exist regardless. The simple reality is Minelab marketing had a lot to do with making DD so popular that they became a default choice, with concentrics not being demanded as on option by people who’ve bought the DD line hook and sinker. Lack of demand means lack of sales, which means fewer options. The pattern is self perpetuating, though some headway has been made via forums like this one in educating people, and getting more concentric options out there. Nokta/Makro in particular have done well in this regard. Some detectors are designed around the stock coil, like the Tek T2 and it’s DD only design. I suspect Equinox is optimized for the stock 11” DD coil. But in general almost all detectors can run both, and users benefit from having both options. But unless people actually buy them, and most will not, then these days I count myself lucky to be able to get a concentric option, and it sometimes drives my choice in detectors as a result. VLF Concentric vs DD Search Coils

Welcome back, and hopefully you make a full recovery soon. I’d think the Equinox 600 would be a great place to start for a 13 year old….. wish I could have had one when I was 13! The controls and menus are not dissimilar to the X-Terra so that may ease things, and the Equinox I’d pick for park detecting over the ORX any day of the week. The power of Multi and all that. Since you are in gold country, just know the 600 can find gold about as well as the Equinox 800, even lacking the Gold Mode. Gold Mode is as much an audio option as anything else, and similar functionality and performance on gold nuggets can be had via the Park or Field Modes. Tips Here

That’s an arbitrary number. Some would say $500, so now you are the high price elitist. Some people consider much more expensive things like boating or riding dirt bikes a hobby. I’m amazed what some people spend on golf! It’s all relative.

Yeah, delay due to last minute changes requested by testers? Why? We know there will be more updates, so not like delaying it will make it “done.” We know XP will issue updates also. But may as well take early user comments and feedback into account, and update later after we have machines. It’s going to happen, no doubt about it. And still will happen with Legend, just like it did and continues to happen with Simplex. Bottom line is simple - they are not ready to ship yet, and the reasons do not matter. Like Yoda said:

I’d say you are in the vast majority of the overall market. But just possibly a minority on the forum.

Ok, I’ll correct myself. ORX was clearly marketed for prospecting. Deus for coin and relic detecting. Maybe it’s not as effective in modern parks as other detectors (I fully agree with you), but that was not the question posed by the OP. That’s the end of the story there for me. Hopefully D2 addresses the modern park scenario in a way that satisfies us both. I’m glad my comments about lower volume were helpful. I’ve long observed that most people run way higher volume than I can stand, whereas I’ve always set as low as I can while still being able to hear things. It is a way more pleasant experience, way less tiresome, and as you seem to agree, works better.

I’ll stay with smaller coils with Deus, and use other machines for large coils. phrunt said: ”Nokta did release an update on Facebook where Dilek come on explaining the tardiness of the Legend, it's the testers which are requesting changes with it, but the changes aren't to do with the detector working well, it works perfectly as they expected it would according to Dilek, the changes are just little things with software that they wanted adjusted but not related to performance. So now it's not being shipped in December, or very unlikely to be and will maybe be January, or who knows when. I wonder why the testers took so long to give this feedback.” Despite all the time in development, this does feel rushed. XP obviously have their ducks better in a row in this release. It makes me wonder if Nokta got wind of the XP release, and moved their date up to try and beat them to the punch. The marketing pitch is also very different, with NM specifically going after competitors, and in effect saying “look, we made an Equinox also, and for far less money.” The sales pitch is mainly about being inexpensive. XP is taking a higher road in two ways. First, no mention really of the competition, just focused on their detector and it’s features. I like that. Tell me what you have, forget the other guy. And they are doing it with a detailed manual, and a flood of videos. Legend has no manual yet? That alone tells you it’s still “in progress” along with the delay due to changes still being made, while D2 is shipping now. How long has it been since we saw a new detector that was basically ready to ship right after it was announced? Seems forever. And price. It’s a funny thing. People hate to spend money, but we also tend to think we are getting what we pay for. A low price is nice, but it can also constrain a design. Even if that’s not true, low price still tends to say “cheap” in peoples minds, and that’s not necessarily good. XP charging what they are for the Deus II actually makes me more interested in it, not less. I have a Equinox and so pitching me a lower price knockoff is not working. That’s aimed more at new people buying a first detector, not me. I want the best, and am willing to pay for it. I’m not trying to give Nokta a hard time here. It’s just that marketing is my thing, and I like analyzing it. It just is what it is. In this case, it seems to me that XP, probably just though some luck in timing, really stole the wind from the Legends sails. Both the style and execution of the release also appeals more to me, and obviously to others. Now, keep in mind that this forum is a pretty elite crowd. The end result in the general retail market might be different, as the vast number of detectors actually sold are lower price models, and Nokta stands to put a huge dent in that with Legend. But with the higher end crowd, I expect it to skew heavily to Deus II, as XP is doing things in a way that appeals more to that crowd. I for one really appreciate the tech heavy manual and Gary’s videos.

This minus is a plus if all you are focused on is low conductive targets. Since ORX was actually designed for nugget detecting, not park detecting, I’d be just fine with an expanded lower end while nugget detecting, though it’s not a huge deal with me. My actual preference is choice. Give me the option to normalize or not for each frequency used, as there is a good reason for doing both. Notes on Target ID Normalization A lot of words spent on this thread on ORX vs Deus for parks, when the easy answer is what I just said. Deus was designed for the task, not the ORX. Sure, you can get good results with the ORX in a park, but that does not answer the question. Hands down Deus is the better option, and tone options is the reason why. But there are some park folks who simply dig all non-ferrous, and ORX can certainly do this as well as the Deus.

Yes, the GPX 6000 will find slivers of steel you never thought a metal detector could find. And small birdshot you never knew existed before with other PI detectors, even the SDC 2300. It’s specialty is small stuff. Way more sensitive than a GPX 5000 to tiny ferrous, no discrimination except tones, I’d not consider the GPX 6000 much of an option for relic hunting. There is such a thing as too sensitive. The GPX 5000 is far better suited to that task in my opinion, due to far more sensitivity control options, an actual disc function, and the best set of coil options of any detector. If using a GPX 6000 you can generally avoid digging small ferrous by digging only low tones, which indicates large/strong targets, or lifting the coil far enough off surface to miss the tiny stuff. Most small ferrous will give a high tone. It does have some other tone options I’ve personally found interesting, but they are dependent on the automatic ground setting, so results vary with the ground. https://www.detectorprospector.com/forums/topic/16696-coin-and-relic-detecting-with-the-gpx-6000/ If you read that article, I was using a GPX 6000 to hunt effectively in an area heavily littered with ferrous, so it can be done, and I’d not write the machine off completely. Just don’t buy one specifically for the task unless you can run one for free first, as this is cutting edge stuff, and only certain people will take to it. Being able to effectively read the machines tones in your particular scenario is the key.

https://www.detectorprospector.com/forums/topic/7468-my-tips-on-nugget-detecting-with-the-minelab-equinox/

Me, I’d not start with a new high performance detector under the worst conditions, doubly so if new to detecting. Learn the machine under tame conditions so you know what normal is, before wading into under high voltage power lines. But if you insist on persisting …. https://www.minelab.com/emea/treasure-talk/using-the-gpz-7000-in-high-emi-conditions-and-audio-smoothing

It’s not just the AQ but Fisher the company. I’ve simply lost faith in them, and no way would I be first in line to buy anything from them now. Maybe after others buy and prove a new model out for about a year, but not before. I’m just guessing, but the return rate on the AQ must be up in the 50% region, with some detectors needing multiple returns. I hope they get their act together, but this all left a very bad taste in my mouth. It’s nowhere near what I expect from “the oldest and proudest name in detecting.” So I think it best I retire now from posting anymore about the AQ or Fisher in general. This is a brand forum intended for fans of the brand and the detectors they make, and I no longer fit the profile. I’d rather talk about things from a positive perspective, so I’ll just lurk as a moderator from now on. I wish everyone that have these units still, and are having problems, the best of luck in getting it sorted out. This all leaves me very sad.