Steve Herschbach

Yes, single frequency is already at the limits of what more power can offer before it is counterproductive. Multifrequency is not, which is why you see that as a sales pitch for single frequency. I do think we are a long way still from what sophisticated signal processing can achieve with multifrequency.

Just an example of where multifrequency can still go. Right now you will hear it said that when a detector uses single frequency, all the power is focused on that one frequency, which can give slightly better results on that frequencies preferred target class over multifrequency. This is because multifrequency spreads the power out over the frequency range, with each frequency therefore running slight less than full power. It is the compromise of running all frequencies versus a single frequency. However, with that single frequency you are focused on a single class of targets, and will do less well on the other frequency ranges than the multifrequency unit. But it does not have to be that way. That is mostly a function of battery power and the desire to keep power use within tolerable ranges. With new high power battery technology, the next step will be multifrequency where each frequency is optimized and running at full power equivalent to what you get running at a single frequency only. I expect we will see this development in the relatively near future. I want to emphasize again that Equinox is not the be all end all of multifrequency. In fact CTX has better target id resolution and excellent ferrous handling that is arguably better than the Equinox. From my perspective the Equinox is just a crude proof of concept for Multi-IQ, with more benefits still to come. It should be fairly obvious that everything Minelab knows about FBS and has learned so far about Multi-IQ will be going into the next generation CTX model.

"future models will be a slow process" "battery not designed to be user replaceable" "eight frequency shifts for each frequency option" "defer on answering how many or what frequencies are used in the multifrequency modes. Maybe when finalized." "much more rainproof and weatherproof than other Aces" "fully submersible? 80% of people don't do that" "testing? I don't do that. Used it, it performs great, but will let others speak to testing" "last minute testing and tweaking still in progress, won't be long... this summer" "target id numbers normalized to read very close to AT series, within a point or two"

Steve Moore is the director of marketing at Garrett Electronics. He was interviewed on Relics Radio regarding the new Garrett Ace Apex. It's a long recording so skip ahead to the 6:00 minute mark to get right to the real discussion. Garrett Ace Apex Data & Reviews Garrett Ace Apex metal detector - new for 2020

Going for the micro jewelry huh? That’s does take patience! Best of luck, and thanks for posting!

No, much as I love water hunting it’s been more a sideline to gold prospecting, though that is shifting now. I’m certainly in line for an Impulse, but do not have one. And I won’t be shooting video or testing if I get one. My plan is to go detecting with it and find jewelry. I’ll leave testing and videos to those so inclined. Fisher Impulse AQ Data & Reviews

Yeah, it’s basically heading that way, especially here in the U.S. If gold was still $300 an ounce we’d already be done. People who say they are doing it for fun and adventure, not the value, for some reason are not out looking for things of no value instead. They could be looking for copper nuggets but few seem interested in that for some reason, even though it is as challenging and has just as much fun and adventure as gold detecting. The price does matter, and ever increasing prices have kept this ship afloat. And if gold breaks above $US2000 an ounce I expect we will see another electronic gold rush as people detect for the last remaining dribs and drabs on patches pounded for decades. Yes, there are virgin patches out there, but it’s the rare true prospectors out spending the weeks or months of non-producing detecting needed to find them. Ultimately it is legal access to ground that is the limit, and if gold prices spike everything available will get claimed up to the hilt. Competition will be fierce again. We lose even if we win. I feel like I missed the real heyday 20 years ago being busy running my business. But I am grateful I got to do what I did when I did near the end of it all, and see some virgin patches myself, and lots of large gold. The GPZ really did light things up, but now even the GPZ gold is getting sparse. I’m afraid I’m one of those spoiled old guys finding it hard to get motivated to go out and detect for a few grams. Beach detecting is more pleasant and with better viewing, and more what I’m inclined to do these days.

Doubtful. At one time they were the only option, and still the largest optional coil as far as I know, but that’s all. Overall I believe they were a failure for Minelab, a possible reason why we never saw any more GPZ coils after it. Hard to argue with included free with a GPZ as being overpriced though... I’d have to take one at that, regardless of the heavy beast that it is. I did not know you still had a GPZ Reg, and are running X Coils on it. Thought you were done with Minelab?

Welcome to the forum. You will find lots of help here on the Detector Prospector and Minelab forums. To get you started here are Some tips for the GPX 5000 that will also apply to the 4500.

Arguing that you see good results with your single frequency detector does not change the facts of this question. Yes, single frequency does well under many circumstances. Continue to use it all you want, nobody is saying you should not. It works well in your ground - great. Nobody is challenging you and how you detect, so no need for a defense. However, your observations change nothing about the reality of the multifrequency versus single frequency question. It is what it is, actual scientific facts versus anecdotal opinions. If somebody asks the question, I’m sticking with the science, not opinion, when answering the question. This discussion says nothing about the Equinox being better than other detectors or not. Equinox is not a perfect implementation of multifrequency, just one implementation, and a first version only with room for improvement. Examples of this and that versus the Equinox still do not change the basic facts that properly implemented multifrequency has the advantage. Single frequency, single domain, has less information to work with, period. Single frequency has been developed to the nth degree over decades, every last drop squeezed from what it is capable of. No new single domain, single frequency machine will ever surprise anyone with what it can do. By comparison multifrequency processing is in its infancy with engineers just now beginning to utilize its full capability via high speed processing power and modern battery technology. The first cell phones were a hard sell versus old rotary land lines also. Believe whatever you wish, but multi frequency / multi domain complex processing is the future of metal detecting, single frequency, simple processing the past when it comes to new detector development.

Yup, what Jeff said. It has nothing to do with the target id information being presented in an audio or visual fashion. It’s is all derived from the same base information, and if one is inaccurate, the other will be also. An aluminum beaver tail that reads like a dime will also sound like a dime, a common occurrence with single frequency in bad ground, but does not happen to me with multi.

Welcome to the forum! No, that is inaccurate. One simple example is saltwater - multifrequency machines have a clear and indisputable advantage there. Target id accuracy is another area of clear superiority. These are not opinions; there are clear technical reasons why this is so. This article will tell you more about the subject. Selectable & Multiple Frequency Metal Detectors That is not to say you can’t do well with single frequency or that single frequency does not excel at some tasks. There is generally a situation in metal detecting where any one methodology can have some advantage.

Promo ends in ten days

Yes, go there and vote! They want to know what you want - tell them!!

Concentrics!!!!! There is an option for other sizes and styles, but I assume the advantage goes to any existing mold sizes. But I went ahead and voted for 6.5" x 9" concentric.

The Viper is 6” x 11” so what is the 5” in reference to?

People seem to forget Garrett is one of the most successful companies in the industry, time and again making products that leave their competition flat footed and dreaming for years. Ace was the Equinox of its day, possibly the best-selling series ever. Look how long it took Minelab to respond to the AT series with Equinox. Garrett literally defined what all terrain means with the AT series. Yes, Equinox rocked, but not until after Garrett ruled that arena for many years. The Garrett pinpointers redefined that market, to the tune of endless copycats. I’d posit they have done proprietary wireless better than anyone. Anyone that thinks their units do not perform has not given them a fair go. Frankly, they are the quiet company that us flagship nerds tend to overlook as they sell huge numbers of mid-range detectors and define detecting for a large portion of the U.S. market at least. They have deep pockets and top engineering talent. If I have to bet on one U.S. manufacturer above all others it would be Garrett. They are a marketing powerhouse. Their website, catalogs, and informational videos put First Texas and White’s to shame. Their social media game is unrivaled in the industry. This is still their game to fumble in many ways. If they sold stock I’d buy some right now. Who knows, with this new direction, maybe I’ll even see my LTX eventually!

I actually have no issue with the Ace Apex using the AT Max shaft and handle assembly. However, it should be easy for an adapter to come out for the Mars Universal shaft, an XP Deus knockoff. Garrett Ace Apex Data & Reviews Garrett Ace Apex metal detector Mars Universal Telescoping metal detector shaft

I know Brent Weaver and what he is capable of. Yes, I have confidence in the detector. The other issues are up to the marketing folks, and I put far less store in the marketers than the engineers. In their defense however replacing a detector lineup without undermining existing sales is a tricky business. Releasing a complete lineup at once would be best, but pressure from competition may be forcing the issue ahead of a picture perfect scenario.

I’ve already touted the 19 kHz TRP, an offshoot of the Gold Bug Pro/F19 series, as a potential west coast bargain priced prospecting unit. The 12 kHz Simplex is a submersible alternative at a lower price that would be ok for gold prospecting. I did quite well on gold with the 13 kHz F75 and the Simplex would probably match the F75 for gold nugget capability. But even a Vanquish with 8” coil would surprise people on gold nuggets. These low cost machines are getting to be like low cost computers... pretty darn capable compared to even top end machines just a few years ago. My main issue with Simplex has been the protracted bug fix timeline as the machine was rushed to market early, and first year owners have been beta testing it. Only the latest software release gives it the appearance of being a nearly complete product, as something was done that changed coil compatibility, no doubt accounting for the long delay in the release of accessory coils.

You nailed it with that analysis Hugh. I would not have done Vanquish the way it was done were I running the show, I would have taken the Equinox pod off the handle. I would have designed a screw on back for the Equinox 600 faceplate that would hold the battery. This would make the pod thicker but still very rain resistant/dunkable if not fully submersible. Just to keep future projected warranty claims down and therefore retail price lower I’d advertise it as rainproof. Without the attached battery in handle setup, the pod could now be mounted on an S rod as was done with Vanquish. So basically I would have put out a “not submersible” Equinox 500 on an S rod for $549, $100 less than the 600. And released the new coils with it, which would be compatible with existing Equinox detectors, boosting coil sales. Minelab could have done this with no additional development costs of consequence as was no doubt incurred with Vanquish. They would also have benefited from economy of scale using many of the same components and shared coil design. If such a machine existed, Garrett would not have had the opening they had to shoe horn Apex in between Vanquish and Equinox. At best they could undercut the Equinox 500 price with the Apex at $425, but the Minelab name and Equinox feature set would not be a hard sell at the slightly higher price. There could be an Equinox 400 with just Park 1 Mode and Beach 2 Mode and all other features intact for $449 and an even more simplified version (preset ground balance, two recovery speeds, two IB settings) Equinox 300 at $349.

Unless a person needs fully submersible for under $500, which means Simplex+, the Apex in my opinion is now the default answer for bang for the buck features for under $500.

U.S. dealers are including the 19” coil free with GPZ 7000 purchases for a limited time. I’m not sure if this is being offered in Australia.

If you are not in a hurry to buy, the new Garrett Apex certainly looks to offer great features and value at well under $500. Expected for delivery in late July

For you Facebook people, there is a new Facebook User Group for the Apex. https://www.facebook.com/groups/ApexGarrettMetalDetectors/ This was posted there: "I just wanted to let you know that I’ll be receiving a test unit of the Ace Apex tomorrow, along with some other testers. We will be testing these units and giving our feedback to Garrett. The plan is to release videos in a few weeks after much testing. We will be posting finds discovered while testing the Apex detector as soon as possible."