Chase Goldman

I was blown away by the light weight of the big coil. Still running it through its paces performance wise, but like what I see so far.

Beside the incredible jewelry finds you post, your consistent recovery of older nickel, wheatie, and silver coins from your beaches impresses me most.

Single freq is pretty obvious from a quick glance at the display. Since I run Multi most of the time it always stands out if I am in single and I see the frequency displayed vs. the multifrequency "brackets" or whatever that symbol is. It pretty much alerts me to the fact that I am in single if I didn't otherwise know that I was because the display looks noticeably different than normal. Alarm not required imho. Just my two cents. I also agree with Steve on the swap of the user profile and frequency buttons. That would be ideal based on how frequently I use User Profile vs. frequency switch. If there was a alarm or alert provided, I wish it was like the beach mode high mineralization alert symbol but without any control function like in the beach mode which reduces transmit power. Just something to let you know that there is high mineralization (in the absence of a mineralization meter which would be ideal but a significant modification at this point) present regardless of mode. Since the warning symbol and algorithm already exist, it seems it would not be too difficult to implement without significant code changes. Again just my two cents.

Had the name mixed up. Here's the link: 66 AUDIO - BTS Pro - Wireless Bluetooth 4.2 Headphones https://www.amazon.com/dp/B01M8M4PU7/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_apa_2LQ6Bb4TQYHV5 Don't get the newer (blue) model, it is not APTX LL. Update the headphone firmware per this post to get the BT+ symbol on your Equinox:

I know you directed your questions to Steve but allow me to pitch in with some conments as I recently acquired the 15" coil: Coil Shape/Depth: The elliptical shape simply enables 15" swing coverage while conserving weight vs. a 15" round coil. ML was going for a high coverage coil that provides slightly more depth performance than the stock 11" coil (which is a fairly deep coil for its size already) with a MINIMAL weight penalty. Having swung this coil for a few hours, I would say "Mission accomplished!" The depth performance is subject to SO many variables that in fact you may find that under certain conditions for certain specific targets you may actually find the 11" gives better depth. So you can say that in general you would expect to gain an inch or two perhaps in depth over the stock at best. In beach mode (most sensitive to high conductors), not sure there would be that much difference between the two coils in depth on your heavy mid-conductive (gold) target. But would have to explicitly run a test to be sure. Chatter and recovery speed: The interaction of recovery speed, proper ground balancing, swing speed and sensitivity is complex. If you find you have to lower recovery speed to reduce ground noise chatter due to black sand mineralization which is what I think you are describing, that is actually odd because lowering recovery speed usually tends to increase ground noise effects. Are you running GB tracking? In your case, lowering recovery speed is not otherwise detrimental, you don't run a high risk of missing masked targets since your trash is low density. But if I was getting a lot of chatter I would ensure I: had a good noise cancel; had sat GB or use tracking; and perhaps back off on sensitivity; with lowering recovery speed last on my list. But that's just me.

At about 20 ms the WM08 indeed does have less latency/delay than the APTX LL at about 30 ms, but am hard pressed to be able actually perceive the difference between the two vs. even wired headphones. But APTX and non-APTX BT headphones are really not useable for detecting because of the 100 to 200+ ms delay. I like the WM08 for the ability to use any wired detecting headset but wish it used a 1/4" plug so an adapter wouldn't be necessary.

So you have a pair of walkie talkies/FRS radios that are compatible with this BT receiver/transmitter gizmo you previously mentioned as this in itself is not a standalone walkie talkie? Care to mention the specific model, because the Baofung ht mentioned in the Amz listing of the gizmo requires an amateur radio license to be legal. Would be convenient to use with a compatible FRS/GMRS ht when out of cellular range, I suppose. But since I wouldn't be continuously talking on the radio, just having a wired speaker/mike clipped to my shirt/jacket would probably work just as well as this thing, with less claptrap (additional batteries to be charged for the receiver/transmitter/ptt unit etc.). Interesting gadget, nevertheless. Let us know how you like it after you put it through its paces in the field, CC. Thanks. While I applaud the ML designers on the multitude of built-in wired and wireless options in the Equinox itself, I, like Dubious, do not count myself among those overly enamored of the ML BT headset (or more accurately, the mass produced clone/knockoff headset that ML chose to stick their logo on) so pardon me if I get real for a minute or two with some constructive, real-world criticism, even though I am an unabashed lifetime member of the Equinox fan club. Lol. It works, true, with good, low-latency audio, ok comfort, and decent battery life as others have said, and I like that you can use it in wired mode should the battery die in the field, but it also has several drawbacks for in-the-field use including: - No IP rating for dust and weather/moisture resistance. These will last about as long as the Wicked Witch of the West if you are caught out in a drenching downpour without a means to quickly protect them from the rain drops and forget about chancing it in shallow water hunting (one inadvertent dunk or slip off your head and they are done). While this is true of many wired detecting headphones, I would think that ML might have gone with a third party model (or even an in-house designed model) that had some moisture resistance (they do exist, but are hard to find - see below), since the Equinox itself is designed to weather the elements. Granted this might add to the overall cost, but based on where ML has priced the headset as a separately purchased accessory, I think it really could have been done without moving the needle on the Equinox 800 MAP/MSRP. - There is practically no tactile feel from the control buttons, even bare-handed (fuggetabouttit with gloves on) and if your hands or gloves have any dirt or mud on them, God forbid that you get debris lodged in the button cavities as this will cause them to cease functioning properly. -The charge port seems a little flimsy too (thin plastic shell) and may not be able to take several years of even non-abusive plugging/unplugging for charging at this high stress point. Certainly, not as beefy as the Equinox and WM-08 charge ports, though those are proprietary vs. using the industry standard micro USB or USB-C plugs which, itself, is a drawback. Balky control button and charge port issues have been previously reported by a couple forum members. Thankfully, ML covers the headset with the same warranty as the detector so you can get it replaced (perhaps repeatedly so, if necessary) within the first three years and if you are beyond the warranty period, you can get the 3rd party clone/knockoff branded version for about 1/3 the price of the identical ML branded accessory. So while not exactly hassle free in terms of having to ship stuff back, etc., ML is standing behind their BT accessory headset, and that is a really good thing, especially in this case, and it can be replaced, relatively inexpensively, out of warranty if you can stomach not having the ML logo on your headset. As a result of the issues cited above and for warm weather comfort, I chose to go with the relatively more expensive (and slightly more rugged) Audio 66 APTX LL BT Pro back phones, recommended by another forum member, that are IP rated for dust, sweat and moisture resistance (but not immersion proof) so should stand up better to field use and they also boast great comfort, and audio as well as positive control button engagement. I will save the ML BT headset for occasional cold weather use in those situations where they will be less subject to in-the-field abuse from the elements and my dirty digging gloves. Perhaps they will outlast the warranty period if I use them in this occasional manner. When I'm covered head-to-toe in wet, red Virginia clay next week after 6-days of relic hunting, hopefully I will still have a functioning set of ML branded BT headphones at the end of it all (it will likely be a little too cold for my Audio 66 backphones and a perhaps a little too wet for the ML BT headset on some days, so I will likely mostly go with my waterproof wired phones for next week's adventure when I'm using the Equinox instead of the GPX). In any event, kudos to ML for giving us no less than four built-in audio options with the Equinox 600/800 (speaker/wired/low latency non-proprietary bluetooth/ultra low latency/multi-user wi-stream wireless (WM 08)) which provides amazing audio flexibility that far outstrips just about any other detector out there and should be the audio template for all future ML detectors (i.e., hoping ML does not come out with yet another model-specific, proprietary wireless solution and perhaps more rugged wireless headphones for their next detector model). This flexibility provides you with the ability to use at least a couple of alternatives to the wireless BT headset should the conditions preclude you from using the headset (e.g., rain) or if they do break. It is because of this overall audio design flexibility provided by ML with the Equinox that I have basically not bothered mentioning the admittedly relatively minor flaws of the provided BT headset (until now) and is also probably why ML was willing to cut a few minor corners in their BT headset choice, which mostly gets the job done.

No worties. I just thought it was notable because his was the first in water report I had seen of the big coil, especially addressing coil drag, so it struck me when you said you hadn't heard any. It is going to be Spring/Sumner for our friends Down Under so we should be getting some additional reports of water usage from them. Only the real hard core US and UK/European users getting in the water at this point, so that could have something to do with the sparse water reporting in addition to being few coils on the street at this point. Wish I had one for my upcoming Central VA relic hunt in hot ground.

Well, Dew, you posted right in NSC's thread and he discussed actually using it in the water...so at least give him some love...or acknowledgement. Perhaps you just missed it when you read his post...

I agree Exactly the point I was making when initially responding to David's newest test data per my quote below. It is not a good thing to be over responsive as that can tend to null out a target while swinging over it, especially if it is ferrous or a low conductor and was a problem with the Deus tracking early on (version 3.2). And also agree that Multi IQ is very forgiving to a less than ideal GB (see above, too). I also think it HELPs if the ground is mineralized to some extent, that is what helps the tracking algorithm grab the ground phase difference and is why I will see what happens in Culpeper in hot ground with respect to responsiveness (and may test different search profile modes and reactivities to see if there is any variability for learning purposes). I have never seen HUGE swings in ground phase even in highly variable mineralized soil, so a damped response doesn't bother me. All I know is that putting the Equinox in tracking seems to "smooth out the ride" when in mineralized soil conditions and I have not seen detrimental effects. If there is no mineralization then I go with the default or a manual/auto GB. It is interesting to note that David is testing in very low mineralized ground so that is probably why tracking is not as responsive and the condition where I would NOT recommend using tracking. I do think it is prudent to do a manual ground balance prior to switching into tracking to initialize the starting GB number in the ball park as your previous detecting session have stored a GB number that is way off from the current site's ground phase reading. No sense "challenging" the tracking algorithm off the bat. Nevertheless, I find David's test to be academically interesting and will enjoy trying to see how David's test performs in high mineralized conditions if I get the chance, but relic hunting will be priority numero uno. It has been a long six months since last April and my last true relic hunt.

It is something I am definitely going to test when I go to Culpeper in a few weeks. That is the hottest soil I encounter and where I would most likely use tracking. I will post back with anything I learn about the topic there and may see if the response changes with mode and reactivity setting. Thanks again.

The good news is I do not think it matters much with the Equinox. MultiIQ is very forgiving to less than optimal GB. Furthermore, tracking needs to see changes in mineralization in order to make determination to do another GB adjustment. At least that is how the Deus circuit works. So if there is not much going on with changes to mineralization, then I do not recommend tracking GB. I definitely do not track at a white sand beach. The fact is, however, that the ability to track to the actual ground balance reading is much slower than Deus. I still have not seen any detrimental effects to using tracking as it has not seemed to hinder my finds, but it is true you never really know if you are missing finds just because you happen to be making recoveries. Also, I think I would rather have tracking react slowly than to over-react which was a problem for Deus until recent updates. This hasn't frightened me off from using tracking but the test data is interesting and useful. Thanks for sharing, David.

Steve - here is my thought - why aren't you hitting that spot with the 6 inch coil. Lol. It is on my to do list to do some side by side comparisons of pre and post update firmware. I donated my 600 and have 2 800's now and can do some true side by side. Some non-exhaustuve side-by-side testing indicates differences between the two firmware versions both good and bad. Want to do coil comparisons too. In addition to the swing angle of attack as pointed out by Sinclair and the detect ability variations that come from using different detectors, other factors that keep sites from being hunted out include the different moisture content of the soil on different days, target corrosion rates, and the fact that targets in the ground ARE CONSTANTLY ON THE MOVE due to frost heave, tilling, plowing, fertilizing, aerating, rain, and root action as well as other reasons. Not only does this change the depth of the targets or their relative locations, it changes their orientation in the ground (edge up to flat up) or their proximity to masking junk. So even if a site us not being refreshed, if it has absorbed a lot of targets, it will be difficult to fully clean it out. A "proclaimed" hunted out site is usually a fallacy.

David, thanks for linking back and reminding me about your original test thread. Good info. I think it is a good reminder that if you are going to use tracking GB at a site, be mindful of where GB is initially set in the mode that you are going to use as it may indeed take awhile for tracking GB to "catch up" if there is a huge disparity in the actual ground balance vs. the setting when you start to swing. So it DOES make sense to always do a manual GB before you start if you are using tracking just to make sure tracking starts at a number near the actual ground phase for the site you are detecting. But as long as you start tracking near the actual ground phase reading, even in highly mineralized ground, I have not seen huge swings in ground phase that would result in the inability of tracking to keep up. I base this on two experiences. I rarely get canary noises or ground noise grunts (in All Metal) when using tracking in mineralized ground. If I forget to use tracking in mineralized ground I do start to get the ground grunts or canary sounds, switching into tracking gives me a much smoother "ride" and keeps me from having to constantly rebalance. Your experiment and test results also made me think of a lot of questions: 1) I know that we have always treated each of the search modes like a separate detector (requiring us to EMI noise cancel and ground balance each search mode separately when using at a site) particularly, as evidenced by the different ground phase readings each mode generates on the same plot of ground when doing a manual/auto ground balance (e.g., Park 1 may generate a 10 while Field 2 may generate a 35 when GB on the same patch of ground). That tells me that the Multi IQ "personalities" may have some effect on the GB algorithm either due to the unique mode signal processing algorithms or the frequency weightings, so I wonder if tracking works "better" on certain modes vs. others. 2) I wonder why it takes so long for GB tracking to catch up the "real" GB number if there is a huge, say 50+ point< difference in real and "starting" GB number while auto GB seems to be able to readjust after just a few pumps. 3) I wonder if recovery speed has any effect on GB tracking responsiveness. 4) Finally, I wonder if tracking performance is affected by single frequency ops. Might have to try some experiments and welcome your thoughts. But as far as tracking is concerned, in general, under real life conditions in mild to hot soil, I have found it to work out just fine. I think it is prudent to always do a manual/auto GB before starting out in tracking to normalize your initial GB setting close to the actual site conditions. Thanks!

The other thing the elliptical shape does is make the coil lighter. You trade off 15" coverage at a lower weight for a small decrease in depth performance vs. a 15" round coil.