Chase Goldman

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.

Why do you say that? Whether iron bias is used depends on the nuisance factor of iron at a given site regardless of the target objective.

There is nothing about MF that should preclude the use of a concentric/coaxial coil. ML is not a fan of them apparently. They don't tolerate mineralized ground as well as DD's. I would like to see Garrett offer them for the Apex just like they have for the earlier Ace detectors.

Yes the square shank could mean more modern, but like I said, no way to know for sure. Not sure you can really clean the back without the button falling apart. So your call. I have a tin backed Confederate I button with a highly corroded back. I was told to just seal it up with an Elmers glue/water seal and put it away because they can just disintegrate.

Possibly late 19th century Victorian 2-piece button according to my sources but with the rusted tin back, hard to ID for sure because there is no reference backmark. Neat design and find. Congrats.

That's why the Orx has been moderate hit. The extreme light weight also appeals to the older crowd who want to eek a few more years of detecting. But XP has now fallen way behind especially with Apex encroaching on their weight advantage. Except that they could likely do it a lot cheaper than Tarsacci, because they have the manufacturing infrastructure and resources to do so and could price it competitively. They can but do not always do so - Vanquish, CTX, eTrac. I think as a minimum, multiple single frequency should be the mid standard with single frequency relegated only to entry level units and simultaneous Multi F overlapping mid and flagship detector levels. Hope Nokta doesn't make that mistake. Bottom line, I agree with you Multi F and at the very least multi selectable single is going to be standard fare for enthusiast level detectors and above.

Pro tip - cut the English label off one of your included protectors and keep it permanently on your machine. Then you can just change out the clear part of the protector when it gets scratched up. In this manner you can use all the international version protectors by simply snipping off the bottom label strip.

What is that Monte, your "But this one goes to 11" argument on iron volume. Yes, I think recovery speed could be an achilles heal for Apex. I see no clues they are even considering a limited mode-based recovery speed variation like in Simplex and Vanquish. I really like the Simplex relic mode with Park 1 and Beach not far behind. Funny, it seemed beach was more responsive in my test garden before the 1.77 update. Could be imagining this, but really thought that to be the case. I will have to look at the before and after video tape. I do like the novelty of the auto backlight mode on Simplex. I could see that being useful for water work. Hey, I'm all in on a complimentary Apex review model. Can't argue with that.

You might also want to wait to see how Nokta responds. Might jump start release of their MultiF machine that they did not want to release too soon on the heals of Simplex. Anyway, Simon, while you are waiting, I suggest you run out and get a Deus.

I have spent more time in the Garrett forum the past 2 days then I have spent total in the past 2 1/2 years! I am starting to get a nervous twitch as a result. Garrett just really smacked one out of the park here if they manage to deliver this thing as advertised.

Pal, Similar reasons as Steve - As Steve says - there are situations where EMI dominates the MultiF modes and a single frequency option can often resolve this. In my case, relic hunting in thick iron and mineralized soils, I find that single frequency tends to perform better for me. For one, it ensures I am hitting on a frequency reasonably optimal for the mid-conductive relics I seek (brass buttons and buckles and lead projectiles) and it it eliminates the low frequency components that tend to hit harder on buried iron targets. Even though Equinox has single frequency options, I still tend to favor my Deus or Orx for relic hunting because the Deus/Orx provides better audio modulation than Equinox (I do like to occasionally switch back and use Equinox Gold mode because of the VCO like audio). MultiF as implemented on the Equinox does provide target ID at depth better than single Frequency in mineralized soils, but the advantage is marginal. I bring both Equinox and Deus to my relic hunts. Also have similar success on coke and coal in farm fields that were tended by steam engine tractors. I have found the main advantage of Multi F on a salt beach or when hunting in mild soil conditions without thick iron junk. Some users have reported that operating at 10 or 15 khz single helps with better IDing of non-ferrous junk like aluminum can slaw. This is a great quote and pretty much sums it up.

Andy is the FIRST ONE to tell you to not use other people's settings unless you know what the settings do. I know this because I teach detector boot camp instructional sessions with him. His book takes you through all the settings, what they do and why they do it. Provided you take the time to read the book thoroughly he arms you with the requisite knowledge you need to understand the custom setups people volunteered to include in his book (rather than keep them hidden like cold war secrets). It is up to the reader to choose to not just blindly go and set up their machine with settings they do not understand. For this reason, I see no reason to disagree with including the myriad of custom setups (including my contribution) because knowledge is power and you may actually learn something from the description of why people set their machines up in the manner they did. No harm as long as you apply them with your brain turned on.

Awesome. Wish I had the Tice button book. That looks like a great reference site, Dan. Is that the http link in the pic (e.g., relicman.com)?

Right, so if you can't afford Apex, stick with arguably the best single frequency detector in the world for less tha $400, Simplex. However, for those who know the advantage of what selectable single frequency brings to the table, you can't get it for less than Apex anywhere, period. Simultaneous MF puts the cherry on top of that detector sundae and frankly even if it only makes Apex a stable salt beach detector, that is still a win. Selectable multiple single frequency is not an "on paper" improvement, it is a defacto game changer on any properly designed detector. Stick that on the old Ace and it will make a huge performance difference. No one has offered it in this price range period and even the Equinox 600 doesn't offer 20 khz. ML missed the boat by not including at least one SF mode option on Vanquish. I frankly would have been happy if Garrett simply stopped there. 20 khz is a killer relic frequency. But they went all in on MF too. We'll see how Garrett's MF/Salt MF turns out. But it has nothing to do with "how many frequencies are actually being used" (it appears that Equinox only uses two frequencies in many of its MF modes, possibly 3 in beach mode) but how they sample and post-process the target signal. Jury is still out for Garrett in this regard. Regardless, I think people are sleeping on Garrett if they focus on MF and ignore what Garrett has done to bring multiple selectable single frequency in at this price point. This is really just a nunner in the weeds feature to me. I guess as long as it doesn't sear my eyeballs off like the original Equinox 600 implementation, I'm fine with on/off or always on, frankly. It actually has 8 levels of Iron Volume. Download the Apex brochure where this info is buried from the Apex page or see the screenshot below. BTW Garrett appears to be obsessed with 8's. 8 iron disc pixel segments, 8 levels of iron volume, 8 channels for each single and MF mode (that's 48 total channels which should help on EMI), 8 levels of sensitivity... To me this is the biggest disappointment of Simplex. For whatever reason, AM performs terribly in my test garden. The other modes (except for the original Park (now Park 2)) perform just fine. None of my test garden targets are exceptionally deep, they are mainly there for ear training and comparison, not for extreme on the edge performance testing at depth. They consist of various typical coin denominations and smaller brass and lead relic targets with some mixed target simulated "spills", vertcally oriented coins and ferrous/non-ferrous junk mixed in. Relic mode is by far the best overall, followed by beach and Park 1. AM just has no intensity whatsoever compared to the disc modes and GB and threshold adjustment do not help. It is either severely flawed or poorly implemented or is not working on my detector. Weird. The audio tone options including mixed VCO on Simplex are excellent. I wish the intensity of Vanquish banging on a high conductor were there too, but I will take target strength modulation (which is typically poorly implemented on Equinox and Vanquish) with VCO if forced to choose (more like Deus). Yes, the Vanquish and Simplex have limited variable recovery speed which is a plus. I suspect Apex recovery speed to be acceptable but uniform across the board. Possibly some delta between the two MF modes and/or between MF and the single frequency options (due to less processing load), but this is a big unknown I put in my Apex Pros/Cons rackout here. Same here.

You are right, Jeff. I suspect there is nothing there regarding recovery speed adjustments or tone adjustments. The "modes" are just prepackaged discrimination patterns and perhaps (but not likely) have different 5-tone breakpoints. I suspect recovery speed is fixed across the board unless there is some delta between the two MF modes and/or between MF and the single frequency modes. I guess we have to keep reminding ourselves this an Ace not an AT series detector, so hopefully these enhancements will be addressed in a future higher end Garret offering.

In the end, the fact is that with a Garrett machine we are likely guaranteed a plethora of coil choices relatively soon after launch both from Garrett and third parties which renders the stock coil debate somewhat moot. We are not stuck in the annoying Minelab walled garden of 3 coil choices that are chipped to preclude 3rd party coil innovation.

Luke - no problem. I would say the simplest thing is to just go with the F2 default settings and see how it goes. F2 default is 6 across the board for all modes which is like FE = 6 or 8 which seems perhaps a tad high. I might try F2 = 5 as a fine middle of the road starting point. There really is no magic bullet for a junky site, frankly. If you have thick junk or a bed of nails situation, you can try a smaller coil or lower sensitivity to desensitize the coil to big iron and try to pick out some shallower keepers that are otherwise masked by the junk. Good luck.