Chase Goldman

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!

Yep. Circle S is Siladium (Stainless Steel alloy) from ArtCarved.

Just FYI - With Equinox you have to GB separately for each mode and also, you could also GB separately for each single frequency used if you are still hearing ground feedback. But what you are experiencing is not ground noise due to out of whack GB but it does sound like EMI, as you surmised. Once you go to single frequency, the multifrequency mode profile (e.g., Field 1) disappears and all you are left with is the models default or user adjusted settings. (Disc, tone settings, and recovery speed settings) associated with that mode. IOW 5 khz in Field 1 will behave just tge same as 5 khz in Park 1 save for the mode associated tone and recovery speed settings. Note that there is no iron bias filter when in single frequency. Nope. It usually goes as you describe with the lower single frequency settings being more susceptible to typical generalized EMI. The exception is 4khz with the newest software update which appears to run a tad quiet than 5 khz. There are of course exceptions to this for specific narrow-band electromagnetic noise sources or strong emitters like invisible dog fences. You are probably getting bombarded by multiple sources of EMI - power lines, cell towers, a nearby cell phone, residential WiFi, other radio transmitters, fluorescent light ballasts, etc. All those sources interfere with each other and create local maximum and minimum noise fields. Furthermore you detector is affected by RF noise picked up by the coil acting as an antenna and also noise that is directly absorbed by the microprocessor electronics in the control head (nearby cell phones are the typical culprit in the latter). Finally, time of day affects load on the power lines (how much current is flowing) which translates into time dependent noise generation. Finally, he degree of humidity in the air can have a variable effect on noise levels as well as lightning discharges. Try re-running noise cancel if you change frequencies. HTH.

MXT is a classic and I am hanging onto mine for posterity. Good deal. I don't think I could give up my 800 for it, but glad you were able to score one and I am sure ML has something up their sleeve for next year anyway, so good as time as any to take the plunge. As an amateur radio hobbyist from way back, I like knobs and toggle switches vs. membrane switches and touchscreens.

The other thing to remember is that SMF is not the universal mode that solves world hunger. There are situations (such as high EMI mentioned above) and specific target objectives (deep silver/small gold) where single frequency (SF) might be advantageous over SMF. That is why ML provided SF as an optional mode on its higher end Equinox detectors that is absent on Vanquish (in fact ML recently released an update to ADD a new SF to the Equinox). Even Garrett threw that option in on Apex. There are certain "specialist" detectors (e.g. XP Deus, Gold Monster, and some Nokta detectors) that optimize and take advantage of specific single frequency or multiple selectable single frequency modes to enhance performance on specific targets or in high iron situations vs. SMF detectors. That all being said, Vanquish also does quite well without having a single frequency mode and despite fewer flashy bells and whistles vs. Apex, definitely appears to be the better value than Apex at this point and is quite a good detector for the money regardless of Apex. As far as the 340 being a sleeper, I guess I would rather trade up to the 440 or 540 (like you did jt) to get the additional tones and essential features like more tones and pinpoint the 340 lacks. I find that people come to the realization that they have trouble with the compromises associated with seemingly arbitrary features being left off simply to create price tiers. This can be extended to the point that once you get to the 540, a valid argument could be made to just go ahead and move up to the greater versatility of the Equinox 600 for about $150 more than a normal pro pack price. But since you got such a smokin' deal on your pro pac at about 400 and change, jt, the decision was easier for you to just grab the pro pack. I get that. Anyway, hope you are having fun with it.

Speaking only of the Equinox to Apex comparisons I’ve seen, Park mode does not mean that the Equinox was not run in zero disc mode. FYI. Park mode simply establishes the MF profile used. The user can then adjust disc as they see fit. From what I’ve seen in the Apex to Equinox comparisons it was indeed apples to apples with disc turned off on the Equinox while running zero mode on the Apex.

Uh oh, watch out. You might catch the relic bug. Nice finds. More where those came from...

Just to be clear, Dave, I reiterate that I was not referring to any specific individual or detector and I have used that Harry Potter Wand comment to refer to anyone who thinks any one detector can do it all or those who have unrealistic expectations on the performance of any one detector and the find themselves disappointed when it cannot work miracles (I usually am referring to those with Equinoxes who have bought into the marketing hype), which of course no detector can measure up. BTW I have an MDT on the way and will see if it can actually “conjure up” some CW relics from some of the nastiest dirt around.

If cost is an overriding consideration and your are open to considering other brands, there may be better overall values out there for what you want to do, the Equinox 600.or an 800 at just a slightly higher reach, price wise come to mind but there are a few other models of various brands that fall into the same category at about the same or even less cost but with the performance you seek. Within the Garrett brand others are are recommending suitable higher performing alternatives to Apex.

Yep, that is another option. I've done that too. You still need the headphone jack adapter plate to do that configuration.

Agree with Simon. The anecdotal AT Max (13.6 kHz) small gold finds described earlier could merely be opportunistic surface finds that could be picked up by any functional detector. Furthermore, the AT Max is probably sufficiently different in design from the Apex that no performance correlation could be drawn. Finally, just because you can "successfully ground balance" a detector to hot soil conditions doesn't mean the detector will have any appreciable depth performance under those conditions. It just means you've tuned out the ground feedback noise. John Edmonton is an excellent detectorist with tens of thousands of hours on Garrett machines. It is all he knows and he doesn't really consider that any other brand has much to offer him. He makes some spectacular finds but I think that is more a testament to his skill and perseverance. I shudder to think what he could do with a machine devoid of the inherent limitations of the flagship Garrett AT line and Ace Apex machines he favors such as poor recovery speed and the less sophisticated signal processing and tone customizations.

Tom, I mostly agree with your list except personally not a fan of the WS5's. You are limited to that over the ear headset configuration because the WS5 does not have a removable puck. WS4 Puck is more versatile in its wrist and stem mounting options as a visual TID interface (with wired phones adapter plate into which you could plug an APTX LL BT transmitter to retain wireless functionality), more water resistant than the WS5's (WS4 can actually survive full submersion), and you can mount the WS4 puck on a number of third party over the ear headsets purpose built with a compatible WS4 mount, duplicating the WS5 functionality with a lot more versatility. But that’s just me. I know a lot of folks that swear by their WS5’s. Just putting it out there FWIW.