Chase Goldman

That^ The only thing I can add to this is that there are tonal nuances that can provide clues. Yes if you have junk that gives the same ID as a desired target (Steve's dime/beaver tail example) you will get the base tone ID that corresponds to the visual target ID, but on some detectors, especially those that have audio modulation with depth, whether they are multi F or single F, then if the target is irregularly shaped and not perfectly round, can sometimes hear a distortion or tonal sideband nuances in addition to the fundamental ID tone that tell you maybe that is a corroded zinc, bent tab, or slaw even if you get a rock solid ID. I have found that the Deus/Orx, especially in pitch mode gives you this nuanced information better than the Nox (but no target ID), similarly on the Nox, sometimes Gold mode can do this too. I like 50 tones on the Nox because if the target ID is unstable (usually a dead giveaway for junk unless there are multiple targets in the "hole" or more correctly under the coil - like KAC described with his large cent or a coin spill) you can just hear that right off and decide whether you need to circle the target to lock in the ID, move on, or just dig it out to be sure. Bottom line, it is both the audio and visual ID information and how the target responds to coil movement and perhaps a shift in modes/frequency (that is why having that single frequency option on a multiF detector is important to me) that all combine to give you the clues so you can make your best dig decision - I call this interrogating the target. Regarding the Nox, since it has less tone modulation than other detectors, I find the pinpoint to be a useful tool for "sizing up" the target otherwise, Nox's gold mode pseudo VCO audio is also a useful tool, so I usually keep a gold mode program in my Nox's user profile slot to interrogate an iffy target. Bottom line, though, these target interrogation techniques and audio clues work regardless of whether the detector is single or multi frequency, but the language varies from detector to detector due to the detector target ID feature implementation differences.

Great story. Well done.

Done!

Yep, I am a moron. Got my numbers mixed up along the way when moving between XP and Garrett one of my achilles "heals". Sorry about that. Ok it's perfect! And yes, Concentrics!!!! 6.5 x9 concentric and 5 x 8 & 8.5 x 11 DDs would be nice. Took the survey and submitted it.

It actually makes perfect sense to introduce this tech by dipping your toe in the water with a lower level detector. Expectations are lower at this level, people are more willing to risk the cash vs. a higher level detector, and they left plenty of room to add features and raise the price point. Frankly, Minelab is the one who did it backwards. It should have been Vanquish then Equinox, except that would have been a HUGE step down from where MF resided previously - i.e., only existing in the stratosphere of $1000+ dolllar detectors. That is why Equinox was such as shock wave. Now that the market has seen that MF can be done successfully at a reasonable price point, it doesn't make sense for Garrett to risk a potential flop at the flagship level. ML actually, unwittingly, set the table up perfectly for Garrett, by enabling them to slide in at this level with both the Equinox and subsequently with the Vanquish releases. Besides, releasing Multi Flex in a flagship would have forced Garrett to go head to head against Equinox and they may not be ready for that cage match, yet. The capable, yet flawed Vanquish is a much easier target to eclipse and to exploit from a marketing perspective (the "slow" wireless bluetooth, the lack of ground balancing, only 50 TIDs, AA batteries, clunky, non-weather-tight housing, no single frequency option...). Also, even if Multi Flex is not all that compared to Multi IQ, I suspect it will result in a perfectly capable and stable beach detector (the main benefit of MF) which is a huge improvement over anything Garrett currently has going. Barring even that modest level of success, the fact is that no multiple selectable single frequency machine exists anywhere at the Apex price point. Pretty hard to screw that up, so as a minimum, it still should easily be a success. I have extreme confidence in it. Do I think it Multi Flex will be Better than Multi IQ - probably not, but then again at $150 less than the Equinox 600 including wireless headphones, it really doesn't have to be in order to be considered a success. BTW - it was not just "a picture". There was video of it operating, albeit in a benchtop air test manner, by Brent Weaver. We should see the Gypsy Jewels Garrett influencer videos soon enough.

Valid point, Jeff regarding the shaft system, it is nice and compact/light. If they used Steve's pod concept and the incremental functional line discussed above married to the existing Vanquish shaft system (and cross compatible Equinox/Vanquish coils) that would have been a formidable lineup. What a missed opportunity on ML's part. The one thing they have going for them is the intervening 7 months that Vanquish has/will have been available vs. the Apex mid-summer release. Taking it a step further, it would be like having that S-shaft that a non-trivial percentage of Equinox users wanted. It would have been great to convert Equinox to the Vanquish shaft system.

Five inches width can work, especially in highly mineralized dirt. I know a very experienced detectorist who kills it solely using the Deus 5x9.5" elliptical coil. 8" to 9"' would be better (sweet spot) for what I do and where I hunt. Larger than that is not really worth it. That is why I wish they had made a 6 to 9" width elliptical coil (with 10 to 12" ground coverage) for Equinox. 11" round is ok, but just a tad too big. The 6" round is just ridiculous from a coverage standpoint. So that leaves a huge hole in the coil lineup for Equinox. For Apex, the Viper is just one inch shy in optimal width for a stock coil for my purposes but the 5" is certainly serviceable and closer to what I would have liked for Equinox. The Vanquish coils are perfect dimensionally IMO - which was the main driver for springing for the limited capability Vanquish. Apex changes that equation, now.

Chuck - you are right that's why I always add the above disclaimer. As far as the wait, I really am not waiting for Apex. Certainly not like I was waiting for Equinox. I have the Deus and Equinox so am completely covered as far as my detecting needs are concerned. I obtained Simplex and Vanquish just to test them out and perhaps retain them as lower cost backups/loaners that wouldn't break my heart if they got stolen or broke in service. So when I get around to it I might pick up an Apex when available, but I am not waiting in line or getting on pre-paid waiting lists for it (actually - I will never get on a pre-paid waiting list for ANY detector). Unless someone sends me a review unit, I will get it when the dust settles. In the meantime, keep an eye out for a Simplex and Vanquish on the classifieds at some point.

I would agree with you except that in the case of Vanquish, Equinox came first so the base code was already developed. All they are doing is packaging it in a simpler interface and removing features. Seems to me, removing less features (like Equinox's single frequency capability) would actually require less engineering effort. So it is not cost driving this decision. It was a somewhat arbitrary market driven decision, perhaps simplification in the name of attracting less experienced detectorists to the hobby who don't want to have to deal with a lot of technical bells and whistles (the Ace objective). Look at the Equinox 600 vs. 800. Exactly the same hardware save for an extra membrane switch (the user profile button) and some icons on the LCD. Exactly the same firmware package for both (Equinox updates have the same version number regardless of model). You apparently only have a SW/HW flag that gives the detector it's "personality" whether it is the 800 or the more simplified 600. From a manufacturer cost standpoint there are absolutely no differences between the two machines other than the need to have a slightly different assembly line path for each detector due to the minor control panel differences. Yet one costs $250 more than the other. Yes, the 800 comes with additional wireless hardware. Subtract out the cost of that hardware ($260 for the WM08 at retail and $140 for the wireless headphones) the 800 actually costs LESS than the 600. So the price is not driven at all by features, but by what the market will bear. ML turned the detecting world on its ear with the Equinox release considering the capability at that price point. Nokta followed with Simplex, a very capable single frequency detector with pro features. And the ML offered the Vanquish - unfortunately they targeted Garrett's "old" Ace and undershot and Garrett shrewdly kept their powder dry until they were ready to release Apex and just eclipsed barely ML's Vanquish with Apex, setting it in the sweet spot between Simplex and the Equinox 600 that ML thought they owned with Vanquish. I can't get over how much that thrills me. I honestly think ML got just a little TOO complacent with Vanquish. Great detector nevertheless. And again, with Apex, jury is still out until the real world results start coming in after release.

As good as multifrequency is, it is never going to be as effective as hitting the site with different individual frequencies or different MF profiles because MF is usually biased to a most effective frequency component. That is the performance advantage of Equinox vs. Vanquish. Vanquish likely only has one MF profle. Vanquish modes are only diffrentiated by preset recovery speed and discrimination settings. On Equinox, you likely have at least 6 or 7 unique MF profiles (unclear if each of the beach 1/2 and gold 1/2 MF mode profiles are unique) with all the myriad tone, recovery speed, and iron bias adjustable settings on top of those MF profiles giving significant conditional detecting versatility. That's why on Vanquish it really would've been nice if ML provided one or more individual frequency modes to provide additional versatility, similar to what Garrett is doing at only a slightly higher price point than Vanquish. Demonstrating that ML could probably have done it too (and provided adjustable GB) without having to jack up the price. ML probably knew that their target Vanquish demographic would probably not miss those features, but more experienced detectorists, looking for a bargain in Vanquish vs Equinox as perhaps a backup detector, did notice. And now looking at Apex's price point, it looks like needless cutting of corners on features on ML's part to those folks, steering them towards Apex or an Equonox 600 as a preferred backup detector for those that encounter highly variable ground environments. As a result Garrett has introduced a detector with slightly greater appeal across a boader base of detectorists of varying skills and experience vs. ML with Vanquish. If I am really budget limited, I go with Simplex. If I want bang for my buck, I go with Apex. All of this is dependent, of course, on how Apex actually performs in the field.

That's very anti-American Express of you, Phrunt. I'd be offended, but I am a pretty slow American.

Seriously, though, nice looking nickel.

Don't get me started....

"a bit of a drought"...a drought is exactly 3 years between my first and second V nickels found.

"Gypsy Jewels" - Oh brother - I love the influencer crowd. That's almost as bad as "Chase Goldman". Anyway, can't wait for user feedback however it comes.

So I guess we need to know what the TID is going to be for that amazing ring on the Apex (just to keep the thread on topic...). Cal - that means you have to get your hands on an Apex one way or the other to answer this question.

It is invisible to us most of the time. Great translation.

No. It was printed last Spring before the 2.0 update. So having the book and access to this forum are a great combo!

i don I like to just answer the question also, in detail, and that's what I did when Luke first asked so I thought just point him back to that detailed post rather than regurgitating it all again. Just easier that way. No biggie.. Then everything I wrote and linked to in that old post just starts trickling back here and I think to myself, why did I bother, was my post invisible? I was just trying to save time not just for myself but for everyone else. Anyway, sorry to vent. I shouldn't complain since all the good information got re-posted and that isn't necessarily a bad thing especially for new folks who happened on by. Moving on and sorry everybody about the rant.

Unless I missed it, they never actually say that if you listen closely. They only say it "simultaneously transmits across the entire spectrum of frequencies" (unpecified) or use vague terms like "the broad range of simultaneous frequencies". It is also not specified in any of the literature they have released so far. And frankly, this is exactly what I would expect them to say (and not say). In fact, it would be ill advised of them to actually say how many they actually transmit simultaneously or that the four (not 5) individual frequency components are contained or comprised within their "full spectrum" Multiflex implementation to keep from being boxed in by naysayers, inadvertently reveal a trade secret, or to open themselves up to litigation. Frankly is not important how many they transmit as long as they combine at least two that results in harmonics to cover the desired range and to get the desired performance effect. For the same reasons, ML was also vague, but they also tried to clumsily "sell" the technology by implying things that were not precisely scientifically accurate and subject to multiple interpretations. Garretts approach is still vague but cleaner. They probably didn't. Carl can explain why doing that is technically 1) challenging and 2) unnecessary. Again, its 4 individual frequencies.

That probably won't happen until after release as cynical as that sounds.

Contact Andy directly here with a PM (if he doesn't respond to this thread again today) and he can probably tell you who the Aus distributors are for his book.

There will be plenty of time for field test videos to be released by Garrett's youtube "influencers" between now and July now that the lid is off.

Steve's book?

Agree, that's why I linked to it in my original post. But I guess people don't want have to plow through words just to get to the pictures.