Chase Goldman

Why project the Equinox water issues (a product basically designed for light wading) onto a proven product (Excal) that is designed for dive use and has several years of field use to back up its reputation. Apples and oranges IMO. If you want more Excal users to chime in on their take of tge Excal durability, you should post your concern in the general ML forum.

Facts are always welcome too (specs listed from the respective manuals): GPX Battery Assembly: 8 VDC nominal, 74 Wh, at 1.72 lbs (includes audio amplifier) GPZ Battery: 7.2 VDC nominal, 72 Wh, at .83 lbs.

If ML indeed comes out with a Multi IQ variant of the CTX, I suspect it will be more intuitive than the Equinox. ML seems to learn from each iteration and rarely repeats mistakes, so I suspect it will comprise the best of what it's predecessors (the CTX 3030 and the Equinox) have to offer. I may be overly harsh on that diagram, btw. I do think it can aid in understanding how simultaneous multiple frequencies create a spectrum that can interact with targets differently than a single transmit frequency on a conceptual basis, I just think that they confused the issue by implying a link between Multi IQ and the 5 individual 800 frequencies when none actually exists.

Chuck - would be interested in comparisons of 4khz to 5khz (in addition to your MF comparisons). For example, whether you observed 4khz could also be run at higher sensitivity vs.5 kHz (similar to your MF observation). Just trying to ascertain whether ML is doing something different with the 4 kHz SF WRT signal processing and noise immunity vs. the other SF modes. Thanks.

A lot of enemies and disappointed fanboys as I stated earlier...

Agree but it would have to be low latency bluetooth such as APTX LL which lowers the perceived audio delay down to less than 40 ms or so. Most "regular" Bluetooth protocols such as SBC, AAC, and even non LL APTX have latencies from 60 to 250 ms which is readily noticeable (and intolerable) on a normal coil sweep swing. This severely limits the selection of compatible 3rd-party bluetooth headphones available for purchase. It is apparent that there is not a huge demand for low latency wireless headphones so APTX LL does not appear to be a widely adopted BT protocol in the consumer market. That fact and manufacturer profit driven motivations tend to drive detector companies to hawk their own custom proprietary low latency wireless solutions limiting the selection of cross compatible wireles audio systems to the relatively expensive Quest, Garrett Z Lynk, ML Pro Sonic, and Nokta wireless systems that lock you into specific wireless receivers or headphones.

Clive, most of the "magic" of Multi IQ is likely about how the target signal is processed not what and how many simultaneous individual constituent frequencies are transmitted by the coil. There is ample evidence from those who have actually measured the individual frequency components being transmtted by the coil for the various Equinox modes, that all four of the. Park and Field modes across the board likely, simply use the two frequencies of 7.8 khz and 39 khz (5 to 1 frequency ratio) combined and transmitted simultaneously (different frequency combos are used for the Beach and Gold Multi IQ modes). Yet each of those modes has very different responses to high and low conductive targets. This can only be explained by postulating that the relative magnitudes of the two different transmit frequencies are varied from mode-to-mode and/or different signal processing algorithms are applied to the received target signals from mode-to-mode. In fact, adding another discrete frequency to the simultaneous frequency mix would likely only degrade performance as transmit power would have to be shared between 3 vice 2 individually and simultaneously transmitted frequency signals, reducing depth performance (a case of where more is not necessarily better). That being said, it really appears that 4 khz has something different going on vs. the other five original single frequency settings and that may actually be indicatve of some additional signal processing magic. Perhaps ML is attempting to optimize a new signal processing algorithm by getting it into the fielded Equinox machines as a massive beta test bed (albeit in a single frequency vice multifrequency application, to start) for potential incorporation into their next genera mtion Multi IQ platform (e.g., a Mu,ti IQ variant of the CTX). All just hopeful speculation on my part. I think Minelab just created a lot of consternation and confusion with their infamous "cloud" diagram (below) that implied but never actually confirmed that the 5 original individual single frequency settings of the 800 were also the individually transmitted, simultaneous multifrequency constituents of Multi IQ. If this were actually true, then that would probably be one of the most craptastic multifrequency detector technology implementations of all time for the reason stated previously regarding power efficiency. Adding 4 khz would just make the situation worse, as stated above. Consistent with the sentiment that respected detector engineer Carl Moreland (Geotech) has expressed elsewhere on this board, and as an engineer myself, I am very disappointed that the ML engineering community allowed the marketeers to let that pseudoscience graphic design abomination see the light of day. Reading more closely, it appears that the advantages of two different Equinox concepts/technologies/capabilities were attempting to be explained that were both rooted in the principle how targets of consisting of metals of different conductivity and magnetic properties respond differently to different transmit frequencies, simultaneous multi-frequency (Multi-IQ) and discrete selectable multifrequency (which ML dubs 5Fx8 on the 800 and 3Fx3 on the 600). In the former, you can get away with just two or three simultaneously transmitted frequencies to get the desired "frequency spectrum effect" due to signal interference and harmonics when two or more frequencies are mixed (ironically, the principle of a beat frequency oscillator used by early BFO machines). But to cover the same spectrum "ground" so to speak, using single selectable multifrequency requires a lot more discrete signal frequencies to be able to be transmitted one at a time (ML chose 5 and then eventually 6 for the Equinox 800...wonder if they have to call it 6Fx10, now and what about the 600, is that now 4Fx3.75? ). These two concepts got smushed together somehow in the graphic below and most everyone got confused as a result (including me, until Carl and others helped me to understand how what ML was showing/implying in this diagram could not represent a practical working simultaneous multifrequency detector).

You're just stalling. C'mon, throw caution to the wind. You've already determined it would be the right tool for a ghost town job. No need to do all the comparisons and more comparisons unless this is all just about spanking your buddies over and over, turf hunting using Equinox comparison challenges as the excuse to get them to show up for their spanking. The deltas on vlf depth performance are really miniscule at this point. You pretty much know it is not a detecting dog, so the depth performance margins are really pretty thin if set up optimally. With the ability to crank recovery speed up vs. the Explorer, it can also open up new performance dimensions in modern trash infested parks. Bed o' nails or Bed o' crown caps/pull tabs - it can run circles around most slower machines with the possible exception of the Deus. Depth isn't everything as you well know.

Tom - you should just get one and prove it to yourself and take the variablity of the other guy's detecting and detector proficiency out of the equation (we know no one else stacks up to your abilities anyway ). It will either click or not. If it's a no go, the Equinox loses minimal resale value so you can get rid of it online, recover most of your investment, and call it a cheap rental fee. I mean why the heck else would someone spend so much time hanging out in a forum discussing a detector they don't own. The answer: you secretly do want one.

Then you lose all the other Multi IQ signal processing designed to enhance gold jewelry detection and iron bias filtering. I would only do that if EMI is somehow keeping you from being able to hunt in Park 2, Field 2, or Gold modes.

Don’t think they can deal with the backlash that would create, especially among their fan base, since they unequivocally announced a July release as part of the reveal. A month or two delay would be palatable, but not 5 months.

Doubtful. That would AT LEAST require a significant head unit redesign to accommodate the Garrett AT series style waterproof headphone connector - they are presently just using a run of the mill 1/8” headphone jack.

I think it will be pretty apparent if you do your own A-B comparisons with equivalent settings, you will notice differences between the two "1" and the two "2" modes. It appears that all 4 of these modes use the same frequency combinations (7.8 khz + 39 khz) based on signal analyzer readings but each mode appears to be processing the raw target signal differently independent of the default user settings. On a related note, I always wondered whether it made a difference which mode you entered single frequency from. In other words, did 5 khz, 10 khz, etc. SF behave the same way regardless of whether you entered it from Park 1 or Field 2 (again presuming all the user settings were set the same on both "parent" modes before you entered SF). My conclusion before v3 was that SF behaves the same way (i.e., signal processing is equivalent) regardless how you get there. I think this is still true even though 4 khz appears to have "something different" going on vs. the other SF's. This means the SF's are probably "generic" so you can start from any mode to set up a "reference" single frequency interrogation mode that you might want to store in the user profile slot. Table from the user guide attached that shows the default settings for each mode for general reference:

XP will take your money.

Simon - I would not slog Garrett too harshly on this... Apex announced in May probably released NLT September ~4 months during a Pandemic. Equinox announced with much fanfare at Detectival (remember the skydiver?) in October and released late January ~ 4 months. With all the Doctor Tones video hype during the wait. Vanquish teased in May and did not show up for sale until mid-to-late November ~ 6 months after all those ridiculous teaser videos with targets popping out of the ground and detectors stuck in rocks like Excalibur. Simplex announced later than Vanquish but released before Vanquish (still a 4 to 5 month period from announcement to release) [Nokta just gets it done] I sure remember a lot of wailing and gnashing of teeth associated with the wait for the Equinox. A little more subdued impatience with the Vanquish delay. Let's not talk about certain PI detectors and the Mars detector was announced in April and still not out yet... So far, Apex pretty much seems par for the course.

Not seeing this at least not on this forum. The general consensus (including my experience since loading V3) is that not much if anything has changed regarding EMI performance on any EXISTING MF or SF mode on Equinox, and 4 kHz seems to run QUIETER than 5 kHz but significantly up averages most target IDs. If you guys were just silver slaying at that park, I reckon your friend would have had his best fighting chance hitting the park at 4 kHz single frequency and perhaps frequent noise cancels IMO.

Dew - thought you have always come across pretty objective and even keeled on the MDT. You obviously like the machine's wet salt depth performance and have given great advice on how to set it up appropriately based on your personal experiences. You also don't talk about it like it's Harry Potter's magic wand either. Like I said, I wasn't referring to any specific individual or even to the MDT. It is just a fact that whether you are talking about the Equinox, Deus, MDT, or the new Apex (i.e., any machine) you tend to get gushing, cheerleading, bashing, outrageous claims, biased test setups, and hyperbole (mainly on you tube and other forum sites or facebook). I question the motivations of apologists (beyond obvious dealers and hired brand marketeers) and those who can't see beyond their nose that a detector (or brand) can do no wrong or do no right, for that matter. I know that I don't presently own and never will acquire the single perfect or even best overall detector. That is not because I don't have the means to acquire that machine, it is because that machine does not now and NEVER will exist. The key is people need to get what I like to call Detector IQ so they can cut through the BS to make an informed decision as to what detector best suits their needs and from whom they can get unbiased field and test info. There are only a few people like David above, that I trust to just lay it out there and let you decide for yourself based on objective test setups or field videos. I also pay attention to people who are open to consider any detector worth its salt in the field who get vehemently attacked by a contingent of detector loyalists for stating their opinion when that opinion is not favorable to the detector or brand and especially if the attacks are full of emotion and devoid of facts or objective information refuting the point of view or request for info. Yes, presentation matters too and ratcheting up rhetoric and emotion tends to create unnecessary noise. But a friend of mine used to say that if you ain't catching flak you ain't over the target. All these things are clues that speak less about what is actually up about a particular detector but what what's up about the people talking about the detector. Clues about those whose information you can trust and those who you perhaps can't trust so much. And that is my point.

Nope. Soneone called him on it on the comments section and he admitted he was unaware you could roll back. Just a mistake, he did not know until someone told him about it.

I agree with you. Right now my go to detector is the Deus but I have proven with some awesome finds that the Orx can hold its own. And I will also pull the Equinox out as I see fit. The differences in performance are really slim. It comes down to feature preferences vice performance. Things like weight, tone customizations, and ability to perform slightly better in hot dirt, thick iron, or salt water and subjective factors such as what detector "performed best" on the last hunt weigh in the decision of what detector gets pulled out of the truck on any given outing. A detecting friend of mine who had been doing excellent research on some CW sites and who is pretty proficient with Equinox but has been coming up with slim pickings of late asked whether he should purchase and switch to the Deus, noting that I seemed to be preferentially hunting with the Deus instead of the Equinox and was having great success. Other friends had made similar switches. As much as I love the Deus, I told him flat out that he shouldn't bother. If the targets are there, then the Equinox will find them. The Deus wouldn't be creating a step change in success. Similarly, unless the Apex is a recovery speed slug, I doubt it's performance will be significantly below that of the $200 more expensive 600. BTW - I was only comparing the Apex to the 600 in response to j.t.'s comparison to the 800 (that's why I quoted j.t.). As far as performance is concerned on paper the 600 appears to have an edge over Apex, Vanquish, and Simplex overall. Looking at features on paper I give a slight nod to Apex over Vanquish and Simplex because Apex has both multiple single frequency options absent on Vanquish and simultaneous multifrequency absent on Simplex, but all three detectors are basically in the same ballpark.

Better to compare the Apex ($425) to the Equinox 600 ($650). I put together a table here to better show the comparison of Apex to Simplex, Vanquish, and to the Equinox 600. Even with that comparison the Apex is a pretty good deal. However, your focus is on using it on trashed parks and the fact is that the Apex will have a fixed recovery speed and you get what you are going to get. Garrett detectors seem to be just OK on recovery speed in general. The 600 allows you to adjust recovery speed up and down to suit the site conditions. So you can set it high for trashed parks and lower if you want to eek a little more depth for less trashy situations or split the difference. No such adjustment on the Apex. Apex is stuck at 5 tones vs. 2, 5, or 50 for the Equinox 600. Finally, the Equinox has basically 6 different multifrequency modes whereas the Apex has only 2. I think Apex will be pretty good for what it is and a good value even compared to Equinox, the big question mark is how will it actually perform in the real world, especially in trashy conditions with a fixed recovery speed. On paper the Equinox 600 beats the Apex. But is the 600 $225 better than the Apex. Hopefully, we will find out soon.

In fact, pointing these things out in an honest and realistic way (rather than marketing hyperbole) that is consistent with real world physical principles lends huge credibility. I think when capabilities are demonstrated in a way to prop up capabilities while attempting to downplay or hide the tradeoffs (i.e. marketing) it does tend to leave a bad taste in my mouth (since my background in engineering and detecting experience give me a pretty good marketing BS detector) and does set the "marketeer" up for accusations of contrived or fixed demonstrations or demonstrations that look amazing but have no real world application to detecting (so called, "parlor tricks"). (BTW no specific accusations are being made here. Just talking in general terms). Most of us who post on DP are just trying to keep it real (objective) and try to avoid brand bias and subjective or hyped claims. And most have pretty good BS detectors. That's why I like hanging out here.

I cannot verify it, but I am pretty sure the Deus also does this in Pitch tone mode and gold field mode as well. There is a marked difference between the zip of different non-ferrous targets (and not just due to signal strength) so I do think that differences in phase shift response are baked into the Deus VCO emulating pitch tone mode. It is not as pronounced as the way tone ID can differentiate targets in Deus "full tones" but pitch is not subject to some of the implementation issues associated with full tones on the Deus such as the fact that you have no iron volume capability when you apply disc unlike the multi tone and pitch modes where you can apply disc and still have the discriminated ferrous region provide an audible "iron volume" if desired. This results in a very powerful and starkly contrasting audio attack when using pitch audio combined with iron volume for the discriminated ferrous region. You get the low frequency iron grunts when passing over discriminated targets and then the distinctive pitch zips when you pass over a non-ferrous target. It really makes those non-ferrous targets pop out of thick ferrous site situations. Some may ask why bother to add discrimination if you are just going to listen for the ferrous tones anyway. The reason is that you need to apply discrimination to set the tone break for iron volume (otherwise all targets ferrous and non-ferrous will simply pitch zip). The other reason is because the addition of ferrous disc tends to keep iron from down-averaging the non-ferrous target IDs (yes in pitch mode you still have a fully functional target ID display). Differentiating the phase shift aspect of the pitch audio is very nuanced. It is more of a feel thing. You do need to glance at your display to view target ID as an additional input to aid in a definitive "dig decision". Gold Field mode (which is a pseudo "all metal" mode on Deus and Orx) does not use discrimination, so although Gold Field is similar to Pitch mode with the exception of the iron volume capability. Orx does have a slight "iron volume" capability in Gold Field but it is not as pronounced as the iron volume on the Deus in discrimination mode. Orx does not have a pitch tone mode option in discrimination mode - pity because if it did, I feel I could probably get rid of my Deus for the Orx and feel that I am not missing any capability. Without pitch audio, I consider the Orx to be capable in a pinch but not equivalent or superior to Deus and I have found some great relics with the Orx. Overall, I prefer the Deus implementation of pitch mode vs. full tones, and Gold Mode and also I prefer it over 50 tones and the Gold Mode VCO tone on the Equinox. I can hear a lot of heads exploding after reading this, sorry about that.

Whatever the reason, they simply don't bother providing any clarity on questions like that. I guess it would open them up to accusations of artificially inflating the number of unique search modes or something if they admitted to them being the same, but the fact is that they do seem to perform slightly differently on my test garden even when set up identically but I can't say one is "deeper" than the other or simply better because the target responses are a mixed bag. So the difference may be more than just differences in the frequency profile between the two modes but also how the target signal is processed. Again the differences are slight. I point you to the target response differences between the new 4 khz SF mode and 5 khz. On paper, the target response differences between these two modes should not be signficant. I neality, there is a marked difference and not just on target response but also on perceived EMI noise immunity. 4 khz just seeims to be able to be run at a higher sensitivity setting than 5 khz in the same EMI noise environment. Some of that might be because 4 khz is less susceptible than 5 khz to powerline noise or a new noise cancelling signal processing algorithm being built into 4 khz, but of course Minelab is not talking as usual, so we'll probably never know the real reason.

We don’t really know. They are similar but even with identical user settings there still seem to be differences between the two.

Welcome to 5 years ago...LOL