Chase Goldman

That is probably where our respective experiences diverge. I see more variation in ID at depth with MF than I do with SF on the Nox. Like I said in my original post, that is just my experience and is not a universal truth. It may have something to do with the greater amount of mineralization I am dealing with here vs. your home turf, Simon.

Actually, it sounds like you may be agreeing with me more than you know but semantics are getting in the way and perhaps I overplayed my hand with the Vanquish vs. Apex statement. I never said the Multi IQ machines were not ACCURATE, I said the 50 segment ID tended to improve STABILITY which might otherwise suffer from a larger range of IDs (i.e., more RESOLUTION). A lot of folks clamor for more ID segments and complain about the Nox 50-segments. I say, leave it at 50 segments because I would rather have the ID stability to go along with the accuracy. Accuracy and Stability are two different things. You illustrated it in your example. A 21 ID target could register between 20 and 23 OR 19 and 24 perhaps with more segments, the average TID of 21 is the same (ACCURATE) but the latter example showed worse variation in ID (STABILITY). Single Frequency ID accuracy on Equinox suffers (e.g., 4 khz up averages) but tends to be pretty stable at greater depth than the MF IDs which tend to break up from a stability standpoint but still hover around an accurate average TID unless multiple targets are involved. That was the only point I was making. My Deus 00 to 99 target ID range drives me nuts because it is rarely stable for targets at depth. It doesn't matter to me that much though because I hunt with Deus mainly by audio and visual TID is a backup. It is just the opposite for me with Equinox because the audio modulation and nuances are not as pronounced as on the Deus, therefore, there is more reliance on the visual Target ID. Continued on next post....

One of the things that gives the Equinox/Vanquish Multi IQ it's stability is 50 segment target ID. Multi tends to increase target ID accuracy at depth but not necessarily stability. What I mean by that if Vanquish was 100 segments, it might be as jumpy as what you are seeing with the Apex. MF enables you to at least get a usable TID at depth (if not stable) especially in mineralized soil. Otherwise, Single Frequency under the same conditions might give you an inaccurate (e.g. upaveraged or downaveraged) target ID but some greater depth and perhaps stability/repeatablity. You can see this with the newly added 4 khz mode on the Equinox, it punches deeper, gives a solid stable TID but it is usually up averaged vs. MF for the same target. In mineralized ground I can get deeper usable target ID's with Equinox under clean conditions vs. Deus. However, Deus will punch deeper overall in mineralized soil and give me a deeper raw target signal, the problem is, that deep target signal may ring up as ferrous even with a non-ferrous target. It's all a matter of tradeoffs and specific situations. In my experience (and I am not saying this is a universal truth) - Equinox in MF can give an accurate TID deeper than the Deus in mineralized soils but the raw depth of Equinox drops off faster than Deus (kind of makes sense if you think of MF being slightly less power efficient than single frequency) such that I can illuminate a target with the Deus deeper, I just can't get a reliable target ID, but I do know a target is there whereas it is silence with the Equinox. If I switch Equinox over to SF then I can illuminate that target but the ID is unreliable (just like the Deus). In thick iron, though, the Deus will still outperform the Equinox in depth and separation even if the Equinox is in SF, and definitely will outperform it in iron when the Equinox is in MF. MF is not the panacea for all detecting ills, bottom line. Again, this is just my experience in some nasty soil and I will say, as always, your mileage may vary.

Mine is on the bottom left corner of the pallet he’s standing in front of.

First of all, it looks like some intervening posts have disappeared, so some of the context is gone. Anyway... Yes, I am not infallible, of course. I make a lot of mistakes. I am still learning how these things work, but am just interested in getting the facts straight. If you want to paint me as some sort of hostile villain, that is your prerogative and I'll own that. I was offering counterpoint backed up by ML footnotes, also. In the mean time, I encourage you and anyone else who want to do their own deep dive on the Equinox Multi IQ Treasure Talk Articles, to do so if interested. I did my own homework and came to my own conclusions I don't know if it will change anything in your mind, SB, but doing the deep dive and having what Geotech was saying regarding power efficiency finally clicked. But what is more important is what ML is saying about how it processes the target signal. ML has not made it easy to navigate the articles with their website redesign, so it is easiest to start with the 4th article and work backwards from there as that article links back to the remaining 3 articles. Here is the link: https://www.minelab.com/community/treasure-talk?f_author[]=301357. Thanks.

I would be sending them an email every day, that way you avoid the risk of your email running off the bottom of their screen.

In fact, Minelab HAS made that statement in reference to the Equinox. It has been referenced by Steve and myself several times. Here it is: “How many simultaneous frequencies?” you may ask, wondering if this is a critical parameter. Minelab has been carrying out detailed investigations into this in recent years. Just as you can colour in a map with many colours, the minimum number to differentiate between adjacent countries is only 4 – a tough problem for mathematicians to prove, over many years. Similar to the map problem, it’s perhaps not the maximum number of frequencies needed to achieve an optimum result, but the minimum number that is more interesting. When it comes to frequencies in a detector, to cover all target types, how the frequencies are combined AND processed is now more important, with the latest detectors, than how many frequencies, for achieving even better results. Efficient new technology = lower power = lighter weight = higher performance.” Power efficiency is the driver to minimize the number of simultaneously transmitted frequencies. Hey, don’t take my word for it. Why don’t you talk to Carl Moreland (Geotech) about that. He’s an actual detector design engineer and can explain to you the physics of power and energy required to create an electromagnetic signal or you can simply read his posts sprinkled throughout the forum on the subject and can explain to you the physics behind it. The 28 simultaneous frequency thing has also been long subject to debate associated with marketeers stretching technical truth right up to the breaking point. The key word being “simultaneous”. In fact, ML sort of alludes to this debate in another Equinox Technology Explained article comparing BBS/FBS to Multi IQ by stating: “Hence – Multi-IQ is not a derivative or evolution of BBS/FBS. Multi-IQ is a DIFFERENT method of simultaneous multi-frequency metal detection. We could also debate “simultaneous” versus “sequential” semantics; however the really detection ‘magic’ doesn’t happen with what is transmitted to and received from the coil alone. Remember, in Part 2, we discussed how frequencies are “combined AND processed” as being important for achieving better results?“ Yes, nothing conclusive here. However, from these excerpts from ML’s own knowledge base articles it is pretty clear they are trying to back away from and downplay the importance of “how many“ and “what” fundamental simultaneously transmitted frequencies are in play with Multi IQ and focus those who are willing to do the deep dive into understanding that the real “magic” occurs in how the target signal is processed. Or just believe what you want to believe, fine with me. I do not have any hidden agendas here against any entity. I am not here to convince you but you are refuting what I have written, so I feel obliged to at least provide the ML statements that support my position. I like to seek technical truth to the extent these companies are willing to reveal it, believe detector tech should still follow the laws of physics regardless of how magical they may seem or be portrayed and have enough experience and/or technical credibility to effectively throw the BS flag at the marketeers when that is what I think I am hearing. Simple as that. I’ve said what I want to say and am pretty much done with this topic.

Deus fast is the base program that I use for all my custom programs. All the programs except Deep which uses a different “hotter” earlier Deus Ver 2 signal processing algorithm and Gold Field are basically the same, they are just set up with different defaults for frequency, sensitivity, discrimination breakpoints, tone customizations, recovery speed (aka reactivity)/silencer, iron volume, target audio modulation, target graphic screen preference, and GB reference (normal or salt). Most of the modes simply sound different than one another due to the tone customizations to make them emulate previous XP analog detector models like the Gold Maxx with impressive sounding Program names like “G-Maxx” and “GM Power” (Gold Maxx Power or GMP) rather than result in any appreciable performance differences other than those that might be affected by reactivity, frequency, or the discrimination/silencer filter settings. For example, the only differences between GMP and Deus Fast is the recovery speed setting of 2 for GMP vs. 3 for Deus Fast and the fact that GMP runs with the silencer filter at 2 vs. silencer off for Deus Fast. GMP will run quieter in iron than the default Deus Fast settings due to the increased silencer setting but separation and masking may be more of an issue due to the lower recovery compounded with by the silencer setting of 2 vice off. Every other setting is identical between the two programs. Similar comparisons can be made with the other programs: Basic, Dry Beach, Wet Beach, G-Maxx, Pitch, and Hot. Gold Field is a special threshold-based VCO program that uses Iron Audio cancellation vice discrimination for gold hunting.

Steve: "You got chocolate in my peanut butter!" Chase: "No you got peanut butter in my chocolate!"

Yeah, I have to keep reminding myself that Garrett is on their first generation of MF with Apex, while Vanquish, as simple as it is, is rocking Minelab's fourth generation MF implementation (Multi-IQ) that followed in the footsteps of FBS 2, FBS, and BBS. When you think about it, the laundry list of advantages of MF are small and sometimes I have to really think about it to come up with them: Salt beach stability is probably number 1, followed by: normal ground balance "forgiveness", wide target type detection "versatility", target ID accuracy at depth (though I suspect ID stability might take a hit under some circumstances), and advanced ferrous filtering capabilities (e.g., iron bias). MF certainly does not enhance raw detection depth (perhaps decreases it slightly due to power inefficiencies), has no beneficial impact on recovery performance (and can potentially hinder it due to processor overhead), and tends to be more susceptible to EMI. MF is not a panacea by any stretch but it is a good capability to have in your detector's toolkit.

I've dug plenty of plow shares and other large iron items including a small diameter partial axle and various suspension springs for farm equipment. I saw someone dig a leaf spring assembly and carry it off the field (doh). I dug a very heavy partial Parrot shell projectile. But the most unusual and large find I dug was a large 3- inch base diameter and about a foot and half tall brass candlestick holder at the beach.

Sorry about the cross-post but responded with my theory (theories) about MF and MF Salt here. Just a theory, and nothing earth shattering, and we'll know when we get our hands on the machine, but agree it is just an Ace level implementation of MF like Vanquish, nothing more sophisticated. Anyhoo let me know how much you want to put down on that wager, Steve.

I agree with you regarding what Garrett is calling "modes" simply being simple preset discrimination profiles. I was not trying to "count modes". I was trying to point out that whatever is going on with Apex they have not one but two multi-frequency profiles and I don't think that is beside the point you were trying to make. Until someone with detector knowledge and testing experience such as yourself conducts comparisons between MF and MF salt, I don't think that we can say with certainty that they behave the same and don't have something baked in under the hood that causes them to respond to targets differently, similar to (but not as sophisticated as) say Beach and Park 1 on the Equinox (minus the differences in the user adjustable settings of disc, recovery speed, iron bias, and tone customizations). The differential in Vanquish modes appears to simply be disc patterns (like the Apex) plus baked-in presets of settings like recovery speed that the Equinox user normally has access to rather than actual different underlying MF profiles. I suspect, but as you know can't confirm, that Vanquish is just running a close variant of Beach mode under the hood in all "modes". I also suspect the differences in Apex MF and MF Salt to be subtle and possibly be even undetectable, but am curious as to why Garrett bothered to include both rather than a single MF mode primarily intended to provide salt beach stability. That's all I was trying to say. As I think about it a little more - there may truly be no difference between MF and MF salt as far as targets are concerned and MF salt is just a flag simply setting telling the detector GB circuit to GB to salt conductivity vs. ground phase. I guess we'll know once we get a few in the wild to do some unbiased test runs.

Why MF and MF Salt (MS), separately, if MF is only intended for the salt beach? I think there may be a little more going on with the two MF profiles than just salt beach stability if they took the time to include both. I agree not more sophisticated than Equinox but perhaps more sophisticated than Vanquish - though Apex doesn't seem to take advantage of MF for other enhancements such as iron bias which exists on the Vanquish, yet ML didn't even bother to provide a GB adjustment on the Vanquish. Very strange that ML left that feature off and as Jeff mentioned is something that really hampers the utility of the Vanquish no-disc capability under certain off-nominal (but not what I would even consider extreme) soil conditions. But no argument from me that Vanquish and Apex both targeted introducing MF to the Ace demographic, they just took slightly different paths.

Yes it is really simple compared to Equinox. However, in choosing a frequency you have the choice between MF and Salt MF - which is the closest analog to Equinox Beach mode and "Everything Else" Multi IQ. In effect, Apex has two MF search profiles vs. arguably 6 to 8 Multi IQ profiles for the Equinox - all the other "modes" are indeed just discrimination pattern differences and no adjustable or discernible recovery speed variations. As you mentioned, it is not clear that Vanquish has anything more than a single Multi IQ profile with the modes differentiated solely by disc patterns and underlying "hard wired" recovery speed settings differences for each of the 3 modes (Coin, Relic, and Jewelry). There isn't even a dedicated Salt/Beach MF mode on Vanquish.

Technically there are two MF modes on Apex. MF and Salt MF (analogous to Beach Multi IQ on Equinox) but yes, it is simple. It is funny because Vanquish doesn't even have an explicit, dedicated salt beach mode and one could actually argue that it is technically a single mode detector also with underlying differences in recovery speed and the preset discrimination patterns making the distinction between Jewelry, Relic, and Coin modes.

I should have included this part of your sentence in the above "quote" - just wanted to say, how do you know you wouldn't get the pleasant surprise of the Garrett "Vanquish" equivalent like you did with the ML? If Multi IQ was a first generation approach at MF and someone else owned the MF market besides ML, I could see a world where the Vanquish might be released before the Equinox. After all, it really not a good marketing approach to undermine your flagship sales after the fact by releasing an 80 to 90% capable, but much less expensive model compared to your flagship. You would much rather give them the 80 - to 90 % then entice them to also buy the Flagship that completely closes the gap. That would have been Vanquish First and Equinox 600 then Equinox 800. You have to keep it under wraps though so that you don't have a bunch of people simply waiting for that Apex Pro to come out or whatever it is going to be called.

Probably the most likely reason. It would torque a lot of people off if they offered a $700 - $800 MF detector and the implementation was a miss.

Yeah, that one gave us all a chuckle several months ago when it was posted...very superficial but good at least in explaining how frequency affects target detection, even if it really doesn't shed any informative light on Multi IQ itself.

Again, as Steve mentioned and as I laid out in excruciating detail here with respect to the latest 4 khz SF update to the Equinox, it really doesn't matter what or how many INDIVIDUAL frequencies are combined in ML's simulataneous multifrequency Multi IQ scheme, what really matters is how ML uses, processes, and interprets the resulting target and ground feeback signals - and of course that is a very complex software approach that ML won't tell us about even if we COULD understand it. But if you still really must know what the frequencies are likely used based on signal analyzer measurements, again see my linked post here. It likely won't be all that informative.

Cal, Better go get your "mead" from from the Coal store before they run out. Nice saves, as usual. Some info on Mead Coal Co. "scrip" here. Apparently a WV Coal company (makes sense) but wonder what a story it could tell about how it found its way to the Carolinas. https://scholarworks.moreheadstate.edu/kilgore_scrip_collection/28/

Nice find in the bed o nails. Looks more like a copper nail point than a native Amercan hammered artifact, but it could very well be the latter depending on the historic background/context of your site. Recommendation on adjusting your settings: I'd up the disc furher to at least 7 vice 2.5 (the default is -6.4, I believe). This enables the horseshoe indicator to function in a more stable manner for depth and ferrous to non-ferrous visual indication. Furthemore, it gives you better separation on ferrous to non-ferrous mid-tones tones and tends to cause less ferrous down averaging of non-ferrous high conductors. You can still hear the ferrous using iron volume, if desired. The hot program is based on Gary Blackwell's UK hunting conditions, and for whatever reason, Gary likes to run with little to no disc by default (hence the -6.4 setting). Just a different philosphy I guess, but IMO he loses some of the built-in capability of the Deus disc functionality with his recommended UK style setups. You will notice that no other default program has disc less than the 5.5 on the Deep program (again, a "Gary" program XP put in as his request when Version 4.1 software was released) and most are 6.1 disc, at least. This is by design by XP engineering because the Horseshoe ferrous and depth indicator works best at a minimum 6.1 disc setting, contrary to Gary's preferred UK style setup. Gary is now a huge, influential XP rep (and now employee) in UK based on his initial (and excellent) video series, so XP deferred to his wishes on the newer default Deep and Hot programs in the latest XP software versions. Gary gives excellent tips on how to use Deus/Orx and I agree with most everything he espouses other than his "little-to-no disc" setup preferences. I have found disc just works works better for me for relic hunting in iron and is more in line with Andy Sabisch's school of thought (author of the XP endorsed Deus Handbookand Deus Bootcamp instructor). (Full disclosure: Andy asks me to sit in as a co-instrctor on his XP bootcamp sessions when he conducts them in the US mid-Atlantic region (my relic hunting stomping grounds)). No real downside to cutting in disc representative of the actual ferrous-to-non-ferrous TID breakpoint on Deus which lies in the 7 to 15 range since it does have iron volume. Non-ferrous depth is unaffected on Deus unless you set Disc well above 15 and it doesn't reduce the "hotness" of the "hot" program and would not have precluded detecting your find (though, admittedly, may not have enhanced this particular find's detectability either). The higher disc also helps non-ferrous targets to pop with a nice zip when hunting with pitch tone in high ferrous conditions making the Deus essentially a two-tone ferrous/non-ferrous detector but with the advantage of a variable VCO tone on the non-ferrous against the constant low buzz of iron volume. I have a 5 tone setup and pitch tone setup adjacent to each other (as well as a full tones program with no disc for modern aluminum trash conditions) as custom programs so I can interrogate targets with both setups to see how they respond by just switching programs back and forth using the plus/minus keys. The other variable I change up between custom programs is frequency, which also helps with IDing falsing ferrous like bottlecaps because the bottlecap high ID will tend to remain constant with different frequencies while true non-ferrous will change with frequency with ID Norm (normalization) set to OFF.

They are obviously heavier but other than noticing it on a side-by-side basis, the extra 3.6 oz is really not a significant factor in the field.

I agree with your list. My list might have snuck the Tarsacci in there at #9.5. I know the Tarsacci is a pretty penny at about $1.5K, but compared to the Deus (which is now probably significantly overpiced compared to its more recent competition (e.g., Equinox)) it does factor into the conversation.

Big XP fan here as you know, but only drawback to the Orx/Deus is cost of the latter vs. the OP's budget and both are not really suited to water use without all the additional claptrap due to the wireless coil and not really a stable/deep salt beach machine due to its lack of multi-frequency (for those Hilton Head trips you mentioned). But best in class performance in iron and the grab'n'go and ultra light weight make Deus my #1 relic machine and a decent coin machine. Orx lacks some Deus tone cutomizations but is a decent performer nevertheless. Arguably, Deus/Orx still less versatle overall then the Equinox when its all said and done but a great complimentary machine to Equinox as a light weight arm saver and thick iron relic/coin specialist.