Chase Goldman

I'm shocked and saddened. I always enjoyed our exchanges on the forum especially in regards to the GPX. He was knowledgeable and respectful of all points of view and freely shared his vast experience equally to newcomers and veterans to the hobby. Safe home to Fred and my condolences to his family.

Except he said they (Equinox, etc) were out of his budget range. So there's that. Vanquish wasn't mentioned at all and the OP had a budget constraint, so it seems the reviews I read were there supporting Vanquish for both coins and gold. Whatever. I explained how the ground noise issue could be addressed in mineralized soil. Not sure that it would really affect performance. Moving on...I'm not a prospector so I should have not stuck my nose in on this one.

In the US, yes you are usually dealing with some level of mineralization while prospecting. I am not a prospector, so not necessarily the right person to be recommending this detector to the OP. As a relic hunter, primarily, I use no discrimination a lot because I need to hear the iron for various reasons (to locate a possible dwelling site, to better contrast the iron grunt against non-ferrous tones) and because of the fixed GB of the Vanquish that can be a problem in mineralized ground because of the resulting ground noise due to the preset, fixed ground phase reference. I do not think, however, that it makes the detector blind to small gold. There is a workaround for the ground noise issue for us "all metal" mode users, but it is a little limited in that you can only apply the workaround to one mode at a time as the Vanquish only allows you to save one set of custom discrimination and search mode settings at a time. Not sure about the ground conditions in Italy, but Phrunt apparently can prospect for gold with nary a concern about mineralization in NZ. Now I don't know about .03g gold, but it is multifrequency (though weighted more to the low frequency range) so it gives you a fighting chance over a range of targets vs. a single frequency machine. The 540 PRO PACK is in the right price range and you get a small accessory V8 coil very well suited to small gold and jewelry while the "stock" coil is a great for general purpose coin and relic hunting on land and on the beach. Phrunt has had the most experience and can best discuss whether someone could have success with coins and prospecting for natural gold with the Vanquish. He sings its praises in his review here. With one notable quote: His other review is here. With these relevant tidbits: Sounds like exactly what the OP was looking for in price and capability.

You mean like the $250 simplex which does have ground balance?

Which makes me wonder why no one has suggested the Multi IQ-based Vanquish...until now.

The higher frequencies will indeed ping shallower high conductive targets but there will be a physics-based limitation on ultimate detection depth for all targets because the high frequency field is naturally attenuated in the ground to a greater extent than the lower frequency field. In other words the transmitted and received field strength in the ground drops off quicker with higher transmit frequencies than with lower frequencies which limits the ultimate depth capability of VLF induction balance detectors using higher frequencies all other variables being the same for both cases.

That's just the relative ground phase to whatever reference Equinox is using. You can't explicitly determine the mineralization from that number although it might roughly correlate to slight mineralization (i.e., a number much greater than zero might indicate high mineralization) non-mineralization factors also play into the ground phase number which can result in high ground phase numbers but not mineralization which impacts detector performance. You need a detector with a mineralization meter/bargraph to determine explicit magnetite based mineralization levels. XP Deus/ORX, the Tek T2, and Fisher F75 detectors as well as a few others have these meters on their panels.

All Equinoxes are still under warranty since it has been less than 3 years since they were released. The only question is whether the physical damage due to the car wreck voids the warranty. But I agree, with kac that it may worth it to repair even if not covered, especially if it is just physical damage to the rod/stem for which there are plenty of great aftermarket replacements that are better than the factory parts.

Yep. A TDI more cost effective and lighter solution. The GPX though gives you a fighting chance at rejecting ferrous targets.

If you want max depth for any target in hot soil and can afford to dig iron, trash, and anything else it pings, you might also want to look at a pulse induction detector (Minelab GPX or similar).

Ok, so much for me recommending the Nox which I have used successfully in the hottest dirt I have encountered in Culpeper, VA and hot dirt up in PA (but I think I remember your issues with an unusual layered hot soil type you encountered in your area). I also like the XP Orx in hot dirt unless you can afford the Deus, using the 9" HF or 9" X35 coil.

Probably the coin or jewelry modes, but you can save any one of the three modes in that slot and customize them.

For Equinox and Vanquish - the service center will only test and replace faulty hardware which means straight up replacement of a faulty coil/cable, control pod, rod/stem/cuff, associated headphones and wireless audio accessories, or Equinox battery (if defective within the first year). Everything is surface mount, microelectronics now. Gone are the days of detector tuneups and tweakable potentiometer, variable capacitors, and inductors. It is a throwaway electronics world now which has both upside and downside. As "repair" technicians, not software designers, they have no authority to alter the software/firmware in any way. That has to come from the Factory in the form of an all user firmware update. Who knows if ML will update Vanquish at this point. All we know is that it is technically feasible for the end user to do it provided they are given the appropriate update interface program and firmware. Regarding the Vanquish, I am with you Monte. ML was a hair's breadth away from completely knocking it out of the park - three things would have made this detector truly great and should not have increased the price one iota - 1) ground grab/or manually adjustable GB (Simplex has it - so this is not a cost driver), 2) Replace the custom mode slot with a single frequency mode - at say 10 khz, and 3) simply make the 3 Multi IQ modes remember their custom discrimination settings after power down, just like the Equinox does, obviates both the need and limitations of a single custom mode slot. Would like to see some kind of sw fix for the GB issue, but I doubt it will come to pass because what you really need is ground grab or a manual ground balance setting and I don't see that happening without some accompanying change to the physical user interface. Hope I am wrong. PS - I also want to say that while ML may not have "hit it out of the park", it IS a helluva detector for the price and the included coils make the 540 PP worth the trip.

So that means they last rocked the world in 2010. I guess they are due.

Can you articulate better why you are asking. Just because you want to understand why is not necessarily a good enough reason. For example, do you want to know to make you a better detectorist - I think we have established that it is not necessary for that. Do you want to be able to impress your friends and fellow detectorists? Again, probably not a good enough reason for some to take additional precious time out of the day to do that. Do you want to be able to dispense advice to your fellow hobbyists? Just tell 'em to read Steve's guides. Problem solved. It's kind of like a twist on the old Radio Shack commercial tag line - "You've got questions? We've got questions."

I'm just here to provide levity at this point. I have no additional technical points to make that I haven't already made.

Violating my prime directive on this endlessly circular thread (where does one hop off?)... I questioned this in 2018:

OK, I'm going to violate my own rule, but just for the sake of explanation. While I appreciate that and also the kind words from Chuck (GB_Amateur) and others in this thread, I really felt I was just repeating myself in the process of answering the questions and it was not moving the topic forward because it is so subjective. More for the sake of those reading the thread, people are probably tired of reading my rambling posts anyway, so I thought I would bow out. Cheers.

Chuck, Thanks. However, regarding your questions, I was tired of putting qualifiers in everywhere so of course your mileage may vary in actual situations. It was a comparative statement and mostly theoretical to illustrate a point. So, yeah, singling it out of my entire post was taking it out of context. I think I was pretty clear in my original post that this is a theoretical advantage when I stated: This whole line of questioning is starting to become somewhat tedious as we all know that there are no absolutes in detecting, and I feel that the questions are trying to probe for absolute statements of fact when all of us (including the OP) know full well that is just not the case nor realistic. As Phrunt says, no one detector does everything. That's why mentioned the three detectors I use most. Now words are starting to get parsed on just about every reply, I have answered the original question and a follow-up and now disagreements with specific statements. I have said what I want to say on this so this will be my last post in this thread.

That is where you get the biggest separation from single frequency detectors IMO, the next is efficiency, you can cover the same patch of ground once with multifrequency, whereas it might take multiple passes at different frequencies to pull out the iffy, boderline targets in other frequencies. You talk about skill being able to make up the difference by really knowing your detector. Perhaps. I believe that knowing your detector inside and out and overall experience are keys to detecting success (next to site selection as the biggest factor) with the tool itself further down on the list, becaue when it comes right down to it, detectors don't make a great detectorist just like the golf clubs don't make a golfer great. Detectors, like golf clubs are all pretty similar in capability because they use the same basic physical principle to detect metal. But wouldn't you rather have a tool that takes some of the skill or chance out of the equation, and takes you to the next level by giving you less iffy targets to deal with, leaving only the real tough ones that only your skill as a detectorist can resolve? I am also a big believer in using a diverse array of tools. The right tool for the job at hand. I use a PI for relic hunting in super hot dirt, the versatile Equinox for relic, park, and beach hunting, and my Deus/Orx is probably my favorite because I know it so well, it is light, and it kills in thick iron. So which is better? The answer is simple, its the one I decide to pull out of the truck that morning.

Sube - try your tests in beach1, that is the lowest weighted frequency profile.

Better? Well that's all relative. The main advantage of Multi IQ (Equinox/Vanquish) or other simultaneous multi frequency detector schemes (e.g., BBS, FBS) in general is that it enables salt balancing without the need to lower sensitivity because it can get a salt reference from at least two frequencies. This gives it better stability then single frequency machines on wet salt sand or surf at a given sensitivity lowering noise and increasing detection depth and the ability to ascertain a target ID at depth. This effect also helps on mineralized soils, enabling the potential to resolve a target ID depth (a single frequency detector may be able to detect a target at the same depth as an Equinox is more likely to resolve a target ID whereas the other detector may display a ferrous tone or ID or no visual ID at all (just a tone)). The other advantage on land hunting is little more subtle but it has to do with the fact that different targets react differently to magnetic fields generated at different frequencies. In general, less-conductive targets like brass, lead, gold, and aluminum or very small targets of any conductivity tend to be more responsive (are more detectable) with higher frequency fields than lower frequencies. Conversely, higher conductive targets like copper and silver and larger targets of any conductivity tend to be more responsive to lower frequencies. The effect is subtle and variable and there is no absolutes as far as frequency cutoffs or ideal frequencies for specific targets are concerned. Also, there is a lot of overlap and other variables such as the angle at which you approach the target, adjacent ferrous or non-ferrous junk target density, target orientation, ground conditions and effects (higher frequency fields tend to get attenuated more by the ground and cannot penetrate as deeply into the ground as lower frequency fields) all muddy up the equation. And just because lower frequencies are more suited to high conductive targets and higher frequencies are more suited to low conductive targets doesn't mean that you won't see that seated dime if you are detecting at 40 khz or that brass Eagle button at 5 khz. Since different targets that are borderline detectable at one frequency may become a no-brainer dig me signal at another frequency has been long known to detectorists. It is a common technique to hit a site with one detector, then hit it again with another detector and invariably stuff is found in the field where someone swears they already swung their coil This leads to the typically false conclusion that one detector is better than the other or someone is more skilled. While it is true that detectorist skill/luck (e.g., swing coverage, coil control, ability to interpret machine tones, approach angle to the target) comes into play just as different detector characteristics (coils, recovery speeds, sensitivities, and discrimination settings) do, one thing that is often overlooked is the detector operating frequency difference between the two detectors. With the advent of more commonly available multiple discrete frequencies on a single detector such as with the XP Deus, Nokta Multi Kruzer/Anfibio Multi/Impact, ML Xterra, Whites DFX, Tarsacci MDT, and even the Equinox as well as others, a lot of the variables above were taken out of the equation as detectorists discovered hitting or gridding a site with different detector frequency settings made "pounded" sites come alive again with finds that were barely detectable using other frequencies. So what is the Simultaneous Multifrequency advantage, since a magnetic field with spectrum of frequencies are sent into the ground simultaneously, then you have a better chance of "illuminating" targets barely detectable at one frequency with a frequency that makes them more detectable. Simple as that. Combine that with the associated sophisticated signal processing software needed to pick out the various targets responding at different frequencies and that means you theoretically only have to grid that field with one mode setting instead of with multiple passes at different frequencies. In reality it is not really that cut and dried, even frequency spectrums don't transmit every frequency and not all at the same field strength and in the case of the Equinox the multi IQ search profiles are still divvied up by high frequency weighted and low frequency weighted spectrums. Some might have better success gridding the field with different discrete single frequencies. But at least Multi IQ gives you a fighting chance to find the high conductive targets and low conductive targets on a single pass better than a single pass with single frequency. Multi IQ also facilitates some other performance enhancements on Equinox including a more forgiveness for a less then ideal ground balance (because the ground reference can be inferred and slightly compensated for from the ground response at the different transmit frequencies), more stable ground tracking, and iron bias compensation. As a side benefit of sorts, the processing power required to do the signal processing of the Multi IQ target signals also makes the Equinox a fast detector with not only high recovery speeds but the ability to adjust those recovery speeds to suit the site conditions, in a sense trading detection depth for separation while balancing ground feedback. Has Equinox rendered all other detectors "obsolete". Not by a long shot. But Multi IQ is still one hell of a detector technological advancement and I am excited to see where ML takes it in the future. Vanquish is the result at the low end, would like to see if Multi IQ brings anything to the table on the high end as the successor the sophisticated discrimination and target ID features of the eTrac/CTX 3030 FBS machines. HTH PS If you are interested in a deeper dive you can look here for a ton of more info - The Equinox Forum Essential Information Compendium. Specific posts on Multi IQ and Frequency are here and here.

Don't worry, I am sure they will come out with an Apex Summit Pinnacle - Pro Max series as they "ascend" to the "highest peak" of detector design, but it will take about 10 years to do it. It's sounding more like a high tech golf ball than a metal detector. I am sure the engineers and designers cringe once the marketing guys take over with their pomotional campaigns... Hope Garrett does come up with something that leans forward rather than plows the same ground as their competition.

We'll break you of the perception soon enough. Just start posting your finds. Seriously, glad you got it sorted without having to send your detector or even the coil back.