Chase Goldman

Nope. Some things never change!

You That IS falsing. You should try the new iron bias settings (F2) to see if that helps with your issue.

High tones not so much, mid-tones, yes. In your specific example, though, the tonal variation you showed might be telling me there are multiple targets and the ability to lock onto a slightly lower pitched 25 tone and a separate higher pitched 35 might tell me dime/half coin spill. If I can't audibly lock into either and it sounds really "flutey" but with the same variation in range > probable crown cap, though I would expect the audio to cross the tone bin breakpoint as well if a bottlecap and a little iron grunt off the edge if corroded. The 30-31 is just a no brainer dig me. You don't need 50 tones to tell you that. It just becomes really obvious in 50 tones vs. 5 tones. It works really well in the mid to low teens and ferrous range. Just is what I am used to. You can really hear the "rate of variation" better in 50 tones than 5 tones (+ display) and that rate of audio ID variation is an important clue as to whether you are talking probable junk or keepers or multiple targets in the hole. Kind of like a digital display where you just get numbers flashing vs. an analog meter where you can see a smooth transition or the needle jumping all over the place. Hard to describe. If I want a nice relaxing walk in the park or on the beach under non-challenging junk conditions and spread targets (i.e., low probability of masking) and am just digging clad or coin shooting or the occasional fat ring, 2, 3 or 5 tones is the way to go. But if I am trying to dig colonial buttons out of a bed of nails or have a severe crowncap situation - 50 tones.

Yep, I guess I misinterpreted what you were saying because the way you phrased it, it sounded like you were implying the Equinox was redundant to the CTX. Thanks for clarifying that. A few avid salt beach hunters here have praised the Tarsacci for its depth in wet salt sand and surf. Exceeding, Equinox on depth under similar conditions. Not sure the difference would be as great for FW situations.

The tone stability (or more accurately, lack of it) as it relates to iffy signal target ID in 50 tones is the advantage to me. Imagine variable ID within a tone bin, you can’t hear that in anything less than 50 tones unless it crosses the the tone break between bins and will only see it if you are looking at the display. To me that is an additional advantageous nuance or layer to tonality brought by 50 tones that is important for the type of relic hunting that I do and where I do it (super hot soil, typically). As I said previously, as far target ID audio is concerned for “non-iffy” targets, all I care about is low (ferrous), medium or high (non-ferrous), so I don’t need 50 tones in that respect and I know all that noise is is not everyone’s cup of tea. Totally agree and I often use this approach.

3030 and Equinox are just 2 completely different beasts so this statement kind of throws me. They perhaps compliment each other but there are a few things each does way better than the other. The Equinox, with its superior recovery speed would probably also do extremely well in the environment you just described vs. the 3030 and would probably be able to easily hold its own with the Tarsacci in this situation from what I know about the Tarsacci based on discussions here. But admittedly, I have no first hand experience with it so I could be wrong. Tarsacci looks to be a great machine with an innovative niche focus, but perhaps hampered in value because the limited production requires a pretty steep price point in order to recoup the R&D investment. That being said, I am all about using diverse vlf detector designs because even though the fundamental induction balance principle is used across the board, the different ways manufacturers choose to process signals and the variation in processing capabilities (e.g., recovery speed) and how the target information is filtered and conveyed audibly and visually to the detectorist. So despite the Equinox and CTX multi frequency implementation being different, they are both ML so I can see the attraction to trying out a different manufacturer’s machine, especially when they are trying to do it a little differently than the others. Regardless of all that, great finds! Congrats. Sounds like you worked hard for them and you seem to have a good handle on the Tarsacci.

Seth, I find the Deus audio to be more expressive and nuanced than Equinox but the Equinox audio gives pretty good information in its own right. I am extracting the audio "shape" information exactly as you describe to get target info, e.g. rise and fall times, duration, and whether the tone sounds hollow or full and tone "stability" in 50 tones which correlates directly with TID stability and can clue you in as to whether that mid or high tone is a likely keeper or likely junk (still need to dig it ito be 100% certain). The individual fundamental tone pitch just corresponds to individual low, medium, or high TID numbers and other than that I don't get much from tone fundamental pitch itself and in 50 tones you really can't differentiate individual IDs other than low, medium, or high without looking at the screen for the actual ID (anyone who says otherwise either has perfect pitch or is lying). What I am mainly looking for is the Equinox to lock in on a repeatable, desirable tone through appropriate coil manipulation (i.e., short wiggle over the target) and the high recovery speed of Equinox (or Deus) enables that over just about any other detector, including the AT Pro. I suspect the reasons we respectively give the audio nod to our other detectors (Deus in my case and AT Pro in yours) vs. Equinox is that we really learned what the audio was telling us with those detectors before Equinox arrived and so we are learning a similar but different detector language now with Equinox. I find the two detectors compliment each other in my case. In some situations the Deus will excel over Equinox and in other situations it is just the opposite. And as far as the audio is concerned, I now find myself able to seemlessly switch back and forth between the two detectors from an audio ID standpoint without thinking about it. Whereas, early on, it took some acclimation time when switching off between them to get used to the different audio response between Deus and Equinox. I guess I am fluent in at least two different detector languages now. Bilingual detecting, lol.

Agree with Seth, I am not quite sure what you are driving at regarding your "Selectable multi frequency on the Equinox, non selectable on the Vanquish" statement. They both have a number of search mode profiles that determine an optimal weighted Multi IQ frequency profile and target signal processing for the targets and environment of interest, there are just fewer choices on the Vanquish and they have different mode descriptors. In either case, you really have no selectable control over the actual transmit frequencies and signal processing used in the Multi IQ profiles as they are fixed in software for each mode (other than auto selection of the noise cancel channel which works the same on both detectors - with the exception that the 800 has manual noise cancel and Equinox had adjustable tones and recovery speeds). Can you elaborate? Thx.

Great move, Rob!

How many times have you swung the Equinox over a sweet sounding quarter coin tone only to discover it was an aluminum can? There are some tonal nuances a trained ear can tell the difference side-by-side in the ground, but it is even hard for a trained ear to tell the difference on widely scattered targets in a field or on the beach. And you certainly can’t get a good handle on the target footprint with the processed search mode tones. Pinpoint mode to the rescue. Since pinpoint is a non-motion mode (vs. normal detect mode which requires you to keep the coil in motion over the target to register a target tone), you can use it to quickly ascertain the relative size of shallower high visual or tone ID targets to give you an idea whether you are swinging over a coin sized object or potential junk with a much larger footprint such as a beer can or large falsing iron target (e,g., horseshoe.). This is accomplished by tracing over the target with pinpoint engaged. The larger objects will invoke the high pinpoint tone over a much larger footprint area than a smaller coin, ring, or button-sized target as the pinpoint tone rapidly drops off as the coil center crosses off the edge of the target footprint. This method becomes less effective for significantly deeper junk targets as the relative pinpoint signal strength "footprint" shrinks even with larger targets as their depth increases (you can simulate this by lifting the coil off the ground while tracing something like a beer can). You will probably dig the target anyway just to be sure, but at least this way your expectations are properly set such that you will be pleasantly surprised if it turns out to be a keeper rather than the other way around. I personally use pinpoint more for target tracing, when I am in doubt about the true nature of a good sounding target, rather than going to pinpoint mode for pinpointing, because I can pinpoint pretty effectively by wiggling off high probability coin-sized targets.

It is not properly showing the shipping availability status in the cart and I am not going to go through the checkout process to verify they are actually in stock and ready to ship. Saw this snafu before with Cabelas and the Equinox.

M. C. Lilly & Co. / Columbus, Ohio , manufactured military buttons from 1876 thru WW II. Agree, this looks early 1900's to WW II.

This a great topic with many lines of discussion. I like the stability of the compressed range and for me it is more about the audio anyway because the tonal nuances tell me more about the nature of a target than a number on a screen. So if we are talking single number VDI, I am ok with less is more. People fool themselves into thinking that a metal detector is a precision instrument. There are so many variables and variations in material properties that can result in disparate targets showing up with the same VID just as there are so many variables that can make almost identical targets show up with disparate VIDs. The detectorist needs to integrate the visual and the audible as well as how the target signal behaves when the coil is manipulated to make a dig decision. That being said, I am all for having the detector give me additional USEFUL visual information to enable a more reliable pre-recovery ID whether that is graphical imaging or even the 2-D target ID numbers (Ferrous/Conducitivity) used by ML FBS machines such as the eTrac and CTX. Perhaps a future Multi IQ based machine with the sophisticated ID and discrimination pattern features of these high end ML detectors will follow Vanquish.

Bingo. I'm guilty as charged.

For relic hunting I have seen some limited advantage to using the 55 khz/74 khz (9.5 inch elliptical HF coil) under certain conditions of extreme mineralization and iron. For me the 9" HF coil stays on my Deus 90% of the time. But for maximum flexibility for most types of detecting be it beach hunting, park hunting/coin shooting, relic hunting, or nugget hunting, the X35 excels. If I could have only two coils, it would be the 9" HF and the 11" X35. If I could have only 3 - I would add the 9.5x5" elliptical HF. If I could have only one "all around" coil, it would be the 9" X35.

I am not really looking for a new detector to add to my arsenal. I think my Deus, Equinox, and GPX cover the bases pretty well. I keep an MXT and F75 DST around mainly for nostalgic reasons (like a guitarist collects guitars) and because they were classic designs in their day with solid performance, features, design, and ergonomics bar none in the case of the F75. I laso keep my Tek Delta around because it was the detector with which I really learned how to detect and helped me form a passion for the hobby. Plus they all support concentric coils which are advantageous under certain conditions. So why was I still drawn to the two new low cost offerings by Makro and Minelab? There is always something refreshing about a stripped down, back to basics detector design that incorporates the latest tech and capabilities (e.g., Multi IQ for Vanquish, straight forward single frequency detecting with decent all metal capability, and a waterproof package for the Simplex). Why get another detector, when my main arsenal seemingly consists of detectors that should easily outperform either Vanquish or Simplex? The answer is simple, performance diversity. Hitting a site with a different detectors of diverse capabilities, features, performance usually pays of if you have the luxury of time and access. Last week, at several different types of CW relic sites in Virginia I was able to use the diverse capabilities of the three detectors I mentioned in the second sentence of my post and each delivered with keeper finds under the conditions to which they typically excel. The GPX penetrated deep into highly mineralized soils of those Virginia fields to snag a number of deep non-ferrous brass and lead targets including my first US Cavalry bit boss - a "bucket lister" for me. The Equinox with its Multi IQ capabilities and diverse modes (including gold mode) was able to ID and lock onto shallower no-ferrous targets in the mineralized muck of multiple non-ferrous and ferrous targets which enabled me to ultimately pull several non-ferrous keepers out of a single hole. And the Deus gave my tired arm a break while deftly navigating between huge chunks of big iron in pitch mode that enabled me to literally visualize the large target footprint of these big iron targets and as a result snagged some actual ferrous CW relics including stove leg and some antique door hinges and other unique ferrous keepers. So what does this have to do with Vanquish and Simplex? The Vanquish is a very capable entry level detector with some high-end features (Multi IQ) and a cool coil selection and neat stem design but, not surprisingly, very limited setting customization options and missing features that appropriately put in a couple of notches below the even the Equinox 600. Some of the missing features are quite frankly head scratching as far as I am concerned (e.g., not fully waterproof housing, lack of user firmware update capability, no single frequency mode option, and while the coil selection is compelling, those coils are not also compatible with Equinox - a missed opportunity IMO - confirmed with me in person by Debbie S of Minelab at last week's dig). Sometimes manufacturers tease higher end features into their new lower-end offerings that are otherwise not available in their mid or high level offerings. Other than the decent coil selection, there is no such situation here. The Equinox envelopes the Vanquish completely. Bottom line, the Vanquish is solid and provides "multifrequency for the masses" but brings nothing to the table for Equinox users. That is not slam, it is a fact and frankly is not unexpected. If the coils were cross compatible with Equinox, I might seriously consider picking up a Vanquish solely for the opportunity to use the coils on Equinox while getting a fairly decent emergency backup or grab n go machine in the process. But with the coils solely married to the less capable Vanquish and without the capability to wring the most out of them, it is a pass for me. The Simplex on the other hand is limited to single frequency and the emphasis is on solid basic performance and ease of use. Yet Nokta has packed it with some high end features such as fully waterproof, wireless ready (and cheaper than the wireless variant of the Vanquish), firmware updates (updates and bug fixes have already been released), and the promise of some decent accessory coils consistent with the Nokta track record on their other recent detector designs. So there are slight feature advantages that in the Simplex design that provide something a little more compelling in the "basics" than Vanquish, though Vanquish does have Multi IQ going for it. Since I do not own a Nokta or Makro detector, the Simplex provides the performance diversity that the Vanquish does not, IN MY CASE. This would not necessarily be true of those who might own a Kruzer, Anfibio or Impact. For those folks, the Simplex probably looks to them the same way the Vanquish looks to me or the typical Equinox owner. At this price point, the performance diversity is worth it. I get Nokta's signal processing which is lacking in my arsenal, a decent VCO all metal mode (which I prefer over the processed discrete tones of the Equinox in the non-gold modes) and the prospect of decent accessory coil choices with user upgrade-able firmware in a waterproof package. It is still entry level and fairly basic, but compelling to me from a performance diversity standpoint, nevertheless. Remember, this is only my opinion and is applicable to my particular situation based on the detectors I already own and the type of detecting I like to do (primarily CW and Colonial relic hunting). It should not be misconstrued as Simplex is better than Vanquish or that these detectors can outperform their more expensive and capable cousins. So do you find either the Simplex and/or Vanquish compelling even if you do own higher end detectors already? Discuss your thoughts below.

Deus gold field has dedicated threshold tone with volume/level also, unless I'm missing something. The other ORX gold mode features listed are indeed missing from Deus gold field mode.

Is that because of the coil you have attached, because I would be using it anywhere there is iron whether open or tight spaces. The ORX is the superior machine in if iron infested and it makes a great open field running machine too with the right coil. I would do a quick scan of the property using whichever detector has the best swing coverage. Look for concentrations of good targets, concentrations of iron, concentrations of non-ferrous junk. Look at both the keepers and the trash you accumulate. Coin and relic concentrations (e.g., buttons, thimbles, buckles) should be exploited and carefully gridded, obviously But trash can also give you clues - horse tack, ferrous door handles, concentrations of nails, cooking pots, utensils and tools can also point you in directions you should focus on. Also, gather clues from the non-metallic finds such as plateware, china, glass, ceramics, etc. Look for areas where people may naturally gather, clotheslines, wash areas, high points. Humans are creatures of habit so think about where you might like to picnic, laze by a tree, or dry your clothes. Remove as much trash as possible to unmask deeper keepers. If you are in really thick iron situations, then consider lowering your sensitivity to reduce ferrous overload on the coil and see if some shallower non-ferrous keepers pop out of the muck. Hit the site with different detectors and different modes and different frequencies, if possible. Make sure when you re-scan an area you do it from a different direction of orientation. Some targets may not be visible until you turn 90 degrees and if you don't see it the first time you will never know unless you come at it from that other angle. Set your expectations accordingly. Old does not necessarily mean the property is brimming with coins or even keeper non-monetary targets. Folks may not necessarily be rich in property. Also, it is highly probable the site has been hit before by detectorists. Your ORX with its superior performance in iron and high recovery speed should help with masked targets that previous detectorists with slower machines might have missed. For ORX, I highly recommend you use discrimination (set between 7 to 10) WITH iron volume vice no discrimination to ID iron and non-ferrous. The discrimination is not just for filtering iron it also helps keep iron from down averaging non-ferrous target IDs. Hope this helps. Good luck, happy hunting, and enjoy your new site. Nothing as exciting as a fresh permission and the anticipation of great finds. Chase

Agree. I suspect the Vanquish is giving the ML engineers some breathing room to come up with that CTX Multi IQ variant (or whatever high-end VLF they choose to release in the coming years). It accomplishes two things, gets another iteration of Multi IQ out there and in the hands of users so ML can learn more about the tech through user field experience to better inform future higher end Multi IQ detector applications and it enables ML to take a stab at biting into the low-end/entry level detector market segment dominated by Garrett (Ace Series) and to a lesser extent FT (Bounty Hunter).

Steve will chime in too. Depends on whether you are talking ultimate detection depth or ID depth. What does that mean? The linked thread above discusses that with VLF technology dime sized targets can typically be reliably detected and positively identified at about 5 to 6 inches under most conditions perhaps deeper in really mild soil and much less in highly mineralized soil. Beyond that, the detector may know the target is there but can't ID it, ultimate depth. That ultimate depth (as well as ID depth) can be influenced by some of the variables listed below. There are many variables that affect depth including: transmit power, sensitivity, frequency, recovery speed, coil size, target composition, target size, target shape, target orientation, nearby "non-desired" targets (ferrous and non-ferrous), soil conditions, and the user interface that facilitates human brain decoding of the receive signal (typically the audio vice a target ID number or even graphical user interface). All of these things compete in differing ways and degrees to determine your ultimate depth capability. VLF technology has not progressed to create a significant improvement in ultimate depth in several years. But ultimate depth is not the only key. Multifrequency is a great technological advantage, though not necessarily because it creates more depth but because it allows exciting multiple targets that respond favorably to different frequencies with a single pass of the coil and enables effective balancing under salt or other unfavorable soil conditions (e.g., mineralization) which can improve ID depth. The other great innovation has been improvements in signal processing both in speed and ID accuracy through advanced microprocessor components and software algorithms allowing much greater detection separation between adjacent junk and desirable targets. What these technologies bring to the table is the ability to unmask shallower targets that are hiding amongst the muck of other junk targets or in difficult to manage mineralized or salt ground conditions that limit detector capability. Advanced signal processing technology also improves signal-to-noise ratio to enable faint targets, regardless of depth to be more readily picked up by the detectorist. The ultimate depth detection capability hasn't changed, but the ability to discern targets under difficult conditions has. Shallow targets that were previously masked are now becoming unmasked by advances in detector technology. Not sure there is more that can be wrung out of this technology now, so the battle ground is detector cost, weight, environmental ruggedness (waterproof detectors), and advances in the user interface (wireless, graphical user displays, simple menu navigation) and feature upgrades/bug fixes over the internet. Hence, Vanquish and Simplex and the mid-range cost breakthrough detectors like the Equinox and the Nokta Anfibio that preceded them.

Gotcha. The thread you linked is good, just started reading it again. At the risk of repeating information there, transmit power does affect depth. But under certain conditions, like high mineralization, attempting to "punch through" with more power on a VLF just makes things worse (unlike a PI). There is also a consideration for how much power is needed to generate multiple transmit frequencies for simultaneous multi frequency detectors since that power has to be divided amongst the various transmit signals in the frequency domain (no free lunch), that is why the argument regarding number of simultaneous transmitted frequencies is kind of a double edged sword. The fewer you can get away with while elegantly accomplishing your goal of getting multiple different frequency components in the ground through various waveform manipulations (e.g., harmonics and sidebands) and receive signal processing methods the better vs. a brute force approach where 3, 4 or more waveforms of various frequencies are transmitted simultaneously.

Good point. Agree.

No, the voltage source (battery) for a VLF is regulated typically through a switched electronic dc/dc power supply to provide the appropriate fixed voltages to the electronics and transmit coil winding.

There are so many variables at play, it is always hard to come up with a definitive answer for that question. But at 12 khz, I think the Simplex will hold its own against the F75 or MXT under most conditions and with comparably sized coils. I just realized we turned this into a Simplex thread in the ML forum and are WAAAY OFF TOPIC. Nevertheless, I hope to have my Simplex in my hands in time to give it a go at my favorite site next weekend. We'll see how it does, provided I remain disciplined enough to break it out and not just stick with my Deus/Equinox hot hand machine since I don't get to this site often enough and must make the most of it in the few hours I am allowed to be there. #Excited to Just Dig Baby.