Chase Goldman

Neither am I, and ironically that's why I like the Equinox. I basically just choose the mode for the situation at hand (e.g., FIeld 2 for relic hunting, Park 1 for coin shooting, Beach 2 for wet salt sand) and basically run straight up with the defaults with either Gold Mode (for relic hunting) or a single frequency variant of Park 1 residing in the user profile slot for target interrogation. For me it is the ultimate turn it on a go machine - it's just that you have plenty of choices of modes to turn it on and go with. The Deus on the other hand sometimes takes a little more "tuning" in the field to get some of the parameters optimized (specifically reactivity, silencer, and frequency), especially in hot dirt. Moot point since Equinox was not your cup o' tea, but just my perspective so I thought I'd mention it. I do see a lot of folks fiddling with the user parameter settings on Equinox and they tend to get themselves tied up in knots when the defaults work for more than 95% of the situations once you get the machine noise cancelled and ground balanced. ML really hit the mark on getting the machine pretty optimized as far as the default setting are concerned based on my experience in the field. FWIW.

IMO ORX was just two or three missing features away from optimal. I like the display layout of the Orx vs. the Deus. I like that it normalizes the HF coil TIDs (Deus doesn't do that) but it would be nice to have the option to switch of ID Normalization as you do have with the Deus and the X35 coils. I also like the way Orx implements ground grab. Obviates the need for tracking GB. However, being stuck in 3 tones for the coin modes is just a little TOO bare bones. I don't need all the tone breaks and tone pitch customizations of Deus but give me at least pitch and full tones to go along with the ORX 3-tones and associated fixed tone breaks and I would be a happy camper. Ideally, adding a few more custom slots and the ability to navigate them using the +/- keys like on the Deus would be great too. I don't have a bunch of custom programs, I basically just use Deus Fast variants only, with a Deep program thrown in, but I like having clones of the same program with only the frequency and/or type of tones changed and go back and forth between them when interrogating and iffy target to see how the frequency affects the target signal to make a dig decision.

Large size of the stock coil? It’s a 6” wide DD. I would expect it to do well in a separation test despite its length. Fact is that other detectors do even better with 9” round coils as demonstrated here. But a decent showing for a detector in its price class. Thanks for sharing.

I could get away with one or two user profile slots if there was a way to navigate the modes forwards and backwards rather than having to cycle through all the modes in one direction only.

Apex - Have not seen plots to see what the Apex multfrequency profile looks like. As far as multifrequency is concerned, it really is not all that important to know what frequency components any manufacturer combines to comprise its multifrequency spectrum. It is sufficient to know that a multifrequency spectrum is being used. What is more significant is not the discrete frequencies used, but how those frequencies are being combined during transmission - sequential like the ML FBS machines (eTrac and CTX 3030) or simultaneous like the Equinox and Vanquish and probably the Apex and that the manufacturer is using sophisticated signal processing algorithms to derive the target data. How the multifrequency target signal is processed is the true secret sauce of multifrequency. There were some detectors that enabled you to choose which frequencies were combined (I think the Whites V3i). Most ML detectors and the Apex do not allow you to choose the specific frequency components that comprise the Multifrequency spectrum of the detector. And, like I said before, it isn't necessary for the end user to have this degree of control over the Multi spectrum. Equinox is the only late model MF detector that gives you choices on different MF spectrums to apply for specific detecting situations via the choice of the search profile setting (i.e., Park 1, Park 2, Field 1, etc.) The stability in salt beach hunting is the primary benefit of Multi and is derived from being able to use characterize the salt signal from the way it reacts to the different parts of the frequency spectrum. This enables the salt signal to be compensated for by the machine, enhancing stability in salt conditions. On the flip side, multi can be more susceptible to EMI noise perturbations and also the transmit signal power must be optimized to be able to simultaneously transmit multiple frequencies. Multi is not a miracle, do it all mode. There are some things better suited to a single frequency detector, especially where one of several different single frequencies can be selected. This enables the optimization for specific target types (large/small, high conductive/low conductive) and situations (deep targets or lots of junk targets). Some general truisms (as in anything metal detecting related, there are exceptions and your mileage may vary): use of lower frequencies (e.g., 4 khz) tend to favor larger and higher conductive targets (silver coins) and the signals penetrate deeper into the ground and are generally less sensitive to EMI ane more stable in salt conditions; use of higher frequencies (e.g., 20 khz) can generally resolve smaller targets and excite lower conductive targets better resulting in better separation in high junk conditions are more suited to gold jewelry and smaller items, like gold nuggets and small hammered silver coins, lead and brass targets like minie balls and buttons - but the signals are more highly attenuated by the ground limiting their depth vs. low frequencies. HTH. They probably could by manipulating the way they process the target signals but as far as relics and silver coins at salt beaches you are talking two competing target types. The beach modes are already suited to hit higher conductive targets like silver coins at the beach because they are weighted to lower frequencies. As far as relics - that is a pretty general term but as a relic hunter, I generally take that to mean lead and brass. On the surface the beach modes are less suited to those types of targets because of the frequency weighting but that being said, I have been able to hit deep nickels (greater than a foot in salt beach sand) with the beach modes, so I suspect that it can hit relic type targets pretty well. The fact is, that beach modes have to be weighted towards the lower frequencies in order to provide salt stability. HTH.

That's been the case since Day 1. We've all known the 600 is essentially a mildly crippled/dumbed down 800 with only minor hardware differences (different LCD screen layout and lack of a user profile membrane switch), with the differences manifested in software. But still a formidable detector nevertheless. And yes, if they can add 4 khz, they should be able to add 20 and 40 khz via software if they are so inclined. Regarding 20 and 40 khz, as has been noted numerous times in other threads, measurements of the multifrequency spectrums of the various Equinox modes on both the 600 and 800 appear to consist of few if any of the discrete single frequency components (4,5,10,15,20, 40khz). They consist typically of two (or at most 3) frequencies that are combined to create a low to high frequency spectrum of multi IQ unique to each of the modes. The best that can be said is that each of the multi IQ spectrums that appear on both the 600 and 800 and, more importantly, how they are processed appears identical. And yes, even if discrete 20 or 40 khz frequency components don't exist as part of Multi IQ, similar high frequency elements exist as part of the Multi IQ spectrum to provide similar capability. So Cuda is basically right because while you may not have exactly 20 and 40 khz, you have the close equivalent of those frequencies working for you in Multi IQ. This does not alleviate the fact that there are some circumstances where it is advantageous (high EMI, focus on micro targets) to run 20 or 40 khz single frequency vs. Multi. So yeah, if you want that capability, you are going to have to pay the premium and get the 800. That's just business and dealing with ML's tiered features approach to the Equinox product line (a common marketing practice not unique to ML). Does multi consist of 5, 10,15, 20, and 40 khz - probably not:

Me too.

Buh-ling! Nice find.

Cool. I like the new look and feel. I just have trouble finding the edit button now despite knowing where it is, since I am so used to it being on the bottom of the post. Causes a stutter step for me (I use it a lot). Ha!

That's possible, but I am not sure the Depar has fixed target IDs either. Cannot find that in the manual. The Depar appears to just be a port of the Deus gold modes with everything else disabled, but it has more refined user settings than even the ORX and shares the exact same wireless headphones. So I doubt there is a software impediment unless the Depar doesn't have fixed target IDs. They released Deus 5.X software and then the ORX with compatibility with both the HF and X35 coils AFTER Deus already had that, so that makes me think they were focused on Orx software SINCE release of Deus 5.X and may be holding that ID NORM option for HF coils "fix" for whatever they have up their sleeve next for Deus. Fun to speculate on all the possibilities. The fact is, XP hasn't released ANYTHING new in well over a year and a half now except for a backpack!

Hadn't heard that conspiracy theory before 🤔 The HF coils were introduced more than a year and a half before ORX (if you ignore the Orx immediate ancestor, the Depar DPR 600 - but that was more like a Deus with only Gold Field, was even compatible with the WS4/5 phones and came with an HF coil). XP can easily "fix" this with a SW update to Deus, but has chosen not to for whatever reason. I think it might be the other way around, actually. The Orx was probably designed around the HF coil even though the coil was initially developed for Deus/Depar. I think the fact that ID norm is fixed for all coils on Orx is simply a matter of simplification for the end user. Just another setting the end user doesn't have to fiddle with. That's my take anyway. That being said you just might be right, Jeff. You referred to Orx ID normalization of all coils as "more proof" that the HF coils were designed for Orx. What other evidence do you have that this might be the case. Cool little tangent I hadn't given much thought. Thx.

Yes you are reading the manual wrong. You got it backwards. There is no option to select ID normalization with the HF coil on Deus. Target ID for a given target will increase with increased frequency (i.e., ID Norm is off). You can only choose ID normalization (all target IDs normalized to 18 khz regardless of actual operating frequency) with the legacy LF coils and the X35 coils. So what you were observing was exactly how the coil is expected to behave - no ID normalization. The ORX normalizes all target IDs to 18 khz regardless of actual operating frequency and does so for ALL coils, including the white HF coils.

Agree. We are now probably talking about two completely different approaches to iron bias. EL NINO77's results tend give FE worse separation and Steve's results tend to give FE less "effectiveness" vs. F2. If EL NINO77's results hold, then that is a real eye opener regarding FE. Almost as if ML's first attempt at iron bias was severely flawed. The other thing that is flawed and as recently mentioned above, is why not a detailed Treasure Talk article on how to properly apply iron bias (both types) and when one might be preferred over the other and the plusses and minuses of cranking the magnitude of the IB setting. They obviously put some effort into refining IB, it would be great if they explained it better and in more detail.. Also, to emphasize the implied preference of F2 they should have implemented it in a manner such that it could be cranked to "go to 11". That would make F2 "two better" than FE.

I am missing how you are concluding that. Can you elaborate?

I love this discussion. What I find interesting based on Steve and Jeff's testing how little FE affects certain mixed targets. I think it is just tough to compare FE with F2. Perhaps they react differently to different types of targets. If I take Steve's latest theory on the FE to F2 scale comparison the following observations come to mind (which I am dubbing the Herschbach IB scale to differentiate it from the Dankowski IB Scale): 1. If FE indeed reacts so minimally compared to F2, I wonder why ML chose to retain FE other than to avoid complaints from Equinox users about removing desired capability. I know that personally, I have never invoked FE ever since F2 showed up in the Ver 2.X update. 2. Steve's theory might also support the notion that Fe 0 and F2 0 actually both represent completely turning off the IB filter. That notion sort of went out the window when I first embraced the "Dankowski IB Scale" that showed FE 0 ~ F2 4. 3. Finally, I find it interesting that ML took care to select different FE IB default settings for different modes including "0" for Park 2, Field 1, and Field 2 and 6 for everything else. And, counterintuitively, set the F2 IB default to 6 across the board. Hmm... BTW Using the 3.0 update.

This is my response in another of the Apex separation comparison threads. I suspect people are going to eventually figure out the ability to change frequency on Apex is more powerful than simply running multi, except for salt beach work. An underappreciated feature no other Garrett has incorporated to date (frequency shifting doesn't count).

Steve's test results are very interesting. I never knew that F2 could be that effective because I have been afraid to crank it that high out of fear of masking. As far as a no free lunch is concerned, my main concern has always been masking. IB tends to counter the target separation effects of higher recovery speeds effectively mitigating the setting. Put another way, you might have to crank recovery speed higher to overcome the target masking effects of IB, but there is probably a point of diminishing where depth becomes limited and exacerbated by the other downside of IB, where deeper non-ferrous on the edge of detection look ferrous. This is similar to the masking effect but a little different. As with most of these settings, the key is finding the sweet spot intermediate settings of IB and recovery speec that provides the best balance of these tradeoffs. That, of course, is dependent on search mode, ground conditions (e.g., mineralization), ferrous and non-ferrous junk density, and the primary targets of interest (gold vs. jewelry vs. coins vs. relics, mid-conductors vs. high conductors...) and their depth. I guess that takes me back to my preferred middle-of-the-road IB setting of F2 = 4 to 6 as a good starting point.

If you are just using two tone, then give pitch a try with disc set wherever you like. I like disc at 7 to 10. Turn on iron volume to your desired level. I raise the pitch audio frequency to the highest frequency which is something like 650 hz. When you hit a ferrous target you get the iron tone. When you hit anything above the ferrous disc breakpoint (theoretically any non-ferrous target) you will get a pitch zip tone that varies in intensity and pitch based on target strength. Really gives you a feel for depth and target footprint. Give it a shot.

That's nuts!

Not exactly. You can notch out any vdi you don't want but you can only customize tones in up to 5 pre-defined bins (5 tone mode). 50 tone mode you can notch out any VDI but you can only affect the ferrous/non-ferrous tone break and the range of the tone pitches in the non-ferrous range and the difference in pitch between the ferrous bin and the bottom of the non-ferrous bin. It's all spelled out in the online manual on pp. 46-50 which you can download here. A good summary overview of tone options can be found here. Other Equinox essential information here. .

You seem to be addressing EMI issues not salt sand stability. Just to clarify, are you running Field 2 on wet saturated salt sand or surf or just on damp/dry sand where any mode can be made to run stable?

Regardless of nail board scales and iron volume levels, the original comparative tests speak for themselves because the playing field was level for all the detectors shown. Also, I believe 3D tests and demos are more informative (but Monte's test board still provides a useful reference point). People are splitting hairs and arguing over shades of gray but you can't change the fact that Garrett knew what they were doing by placing it in the Ace Class. And it is apparent they have some work to do to improve recovery speed against their flagship competition. I appreciate abenson's tests for what they are: informative and unbiased. They are not designed to win pissing contests and arguments between small minded individuals with oversized egos. Get over it, fanboys. People need to stop getting offended by the technical reality about their toys and just go detecting. It is not a failure and it is not "the one" (no one detector is btw). It's a solid entry to low-mid range value detector that will make a lot of people happy with their choice...no more, no less.

No. It is a great first detector at a good price point. For a new detectorist you really cannot go wrong with Simplex/Vanquish/Apex. Though IMO Simplex is probably the least intuitive of the three for a new detectorist to learn because of all the features Nokta stuffed into that machine making the UI cluttered and user navigation around it a little daunting. What you are hearing are experienced detectorists complain about long standing design and feature issues that hold Garrett back from producing a competitive higher end, higher performing elite class flagship detector vs. the present main competition from Minelab, Nokta, and XP. Some of the nit picking of Apex is a symptom of that issue. For learning detecting, decent features, versatility to use it on land or salt beach, great ergonomics and streamlined user interface, the Apex is very good. Enjoy it and come back to the forum to get your questions answered as you learn how to use your new machine.

They are not even close to being in White's situation. They are paying attention to their competition and what hobbyists are looking for. They were cautious and did not oversell this as anything more than an Ace variant. Their legions of brand loyal customers will lap this up and hopefully they can make some true inroads into improving recovery speed and tone customizations on the next iteration, presumably an AT series machine. They really took a step in the right direction by updating the user interface, design, and ergonomics with solid wireless audio and rechargeable battery. May have made a tactical error in not providing user software upgrade capability. Garrett isn't going away any time soon. Question is whether they are going to be competitive with the likes of Minelab (who are going to release at least one if not more new detector models in 2021) or content to just play to their loyal hobbyist fan base while they make money off their professional security product lines. Time will tell.

Just what you were looking for, congrats! You made a great decision to go Vanquish. The irony was you were waiting around for that Apex when you could have been swinging a Vanquish all that time. But it worked out because you got that great deal. Have fun with it!