Chase Goldman

They were primarily used for arrows.

Thought of you on this one, Dave, but it was kind of the opposite problem (too noisy vice too quiet and loss of depth). A problem nevertheless in the surf. Hope you have better news after July. Otherwise, a different detector might be the answer, unfortunately.

I feel the same about that feature as you do David. Especially if you inadvertently reject a desirable target ID.

Since far field electromagnetic signals (i.e., radio waves) that cause EMI are highly attenuated in water, noise cancel which finds the "clearest" channel with minimal RF EMI interference is only really effective if the coil and/or control head (the antennas that receive the RF interference into the detector circuits) remain above the water line. So if the control head remains above the water line (even with the coil submerged) then noise cancel will be effective against EMI but it has no effect on wave action and debris causing falsing primarily to varying salinity levels - in that case you might want to try tracking ground balance as recommended on page 41 of the user guide: "Tracking Ground Balance can also be useful when using Beach Mode 2 underwater at the beach (in salt water)." HTH

Quite a few outstanding bucket listers for me there and you snagged them all in one year. Congrats.

Rosemary, note you haven’t re-visited us since you posed your original question. Please don’t be a stranger. Let us know how it all worked out. It helps us learn whether we are barking up the wrong tree with our suggestions or have encountered a new, unfamiliar failure mode. Thanks.

No reason to dip your recovery speed simply because your swing speed is limited by coil drag, IMO. The higher recovery speed helps limit ground noise that occurs due to the slower sweep speed. Some detectors like Deus respond better with higher sweep speeds when using higher recovery/reactivity settings but I have found with Equinox you can get away with a slower sweep speed even with the higher recovery settings without target signal degradation. Your mileage may vary, but give that a shot to see if you can lower falsing and ground feedback noise.

I have both accessory coils and keep returning to the stock as it balances all the trade offs (depth, coverage, separation, small target sensitivity, EMI susceptibility, and weight) best IMO. At the beach, coverage is king (except that coil drag comes into play in the water) so I am going to use the 11” or possibly the 12x15 but not the 6 - that would literally drive me nuts.

All I’m asking for is a little clarity on how tracking GB is different than Multi IQ ground compensation. While I understand that ML has to protect it’s intellectual property, that aspect should’t be a state secret, quite frankly. Especially considering all the other information ML decided to put out in its Treasure Talk Multi IQ articles.

Well, maybe just a little magic...😉 Thing is with the Equinox, even if you "lock" the GB, Multi IQ is still continuously compensating for ground conditions in the background (not a user choice) if you believe this ML statement from the ML treasure talk article describing Multi IQ: 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. This is purely describing Multi IQ signal processing differences between modes and does not factor in default user settings for those modes (e.g., whether GB is "fixed" or in tracking). In other words, ML implies similar Multi IQ soil or salt balancing for the other modes which don't have tracking on by default. So one might argue that if you genuinely want Equinox to fix the ground balance point for prospecting so micro gold is not "tracked out", best to put Equinox Gold mode in single frequency also, which is where ML was originally headed as the default for Gold mode. Thoughts? As an engineer, I find the ambiguity and vagueness in ML's descriptions of ground compensation to be somewhat frustrating especially since the relationship/magnitude difference between multi IQ ground compensation and Equinox ground tracking (independent of multi IQ) is really unknown. I guess for prospecting, I would "trust" the Multi IQ ground compensation "more" than ground tracking, but who knows, quite frankly...

The question is will tracking actually react to and track small gold out in the absence of magnetite but it also doesn't help either. I can see Steve's point that tracking could overreact to the ground variations due to hot rocks and magnetite. All of this means tracking should never be used in any situation (hot or mild) whenever searching for milligram gold, so ML's default GB setting for the Gold modes should generally not be used. Prospecting is just a completely different ballgame than what I do. Thanks again Jeff and Simon. I am always learning from the awesome forum members here.

Thanks folks for setting me straight on small gold and tracking. As I said, I don't prospect (yet), but it really was not detrimental for relic hunting in mild and mineralized ground. For example, I had no trouble recovering tiny mid-conductive percussion caps in either soil situation with tracking engaged (about the tiniest relic target worth recovering, other than the button shank I recovered below), but I suppose those wouldn't be considered comparable to small gold targets. With all due respect to Steve's description, I still don't consider ground tracking to be a filter in the traditional sense, like discrimination or iron bias, as it is not directly acting on how a target signal is processed, it is merely setting the ground balance point reference and in that context, I have a hard time understanding how it can actually be detrimental to target detection. In fact, I have found that in low to mild mineralized soil, the ground balance point setting has little impact on the target signal even when it is manually set several points away from the measured balance point. Will have to take a look at the impact in highly mineralized soil. That being said, I can understand how it might be perceived that way and frankly, it does make sense to just turn it off if it is not needed as there is no upside to using it, so no argument there Great discussion. Thanks

In my experience with Equinox, ground tracking is either effective or ineffective at reducing ground noise, but I have never found it to be detrimental in conditions where it is not necessarily needed, provided that the detector was ground balanced in auto/manual mode at the start of the session. Engaging tracking will have absolutely NO detrimental effect on recovery speed or target masking as actually responds rather slowly to mineralization changes. Granted, I am not a prospector, but I do relic detect in really hot ground and manual ground and basically leave tracking on by default if there is any mineralization or ground phase variability whatsoever have not seen tracking to be detrimental. I use gold mode frequently for relic hunting. It is a default mode setting for gold mode, after all. Now I cannot say the same thing for iron bias. Unlike tracking, Iron Bias is a filter that does affect detector response and I HAVE found it to essentially degrade recovery speed and exacerbate target masking in thick iron situations and generally leave it at 0 setting. Just my take based on my experiences with EQ tracking and tracking GB in general which I also use with the Deus.

You obviously have a lot of experience on pressing, milling, and the creation of die forms. I really need to see a genuine graded uncirculated coin as the control for comparison to the suspected fakes. Plus the "business case" for expending the effort on conterfieting non-key coins just doesn't seem to be there as pointed out by others.

I am not seeing that. I am seeing feet clearly over/above the log on the ebay coin. Why is that suspiscious? Dies are known to often suffer from various minor defects and damage resulting in coins that slip through the inspection process and make it into circulation. I support your word of caution regarding purchasing collectable coins online, but really not seeing a strong case here, especially when a highly worn and damaged coin is being used as the reference for comparison.