Chase Goldman

Actually, the 600 vs. 800 iron bias correspondence table in the updated manual does not differentiate between FE and F2 iron bias settings for the 600 and has definitely changed from the previous "non-F2" version that was 1/2, 2/4, 3/6 to now 1/3, 2/6, 3/9 for BOTH FE and F2. Yet that is inconsistent with the line in the manual that comes right before the table that states, "EQUINOX 600/800 Iron Bias Setting Equivalents The following shows the equivalent Iron Bias settings between the two models. EQUINOX 600 offers fewer adjustment increments and a lower maximum Iron Bias than the 800 model.EQUINOX 600/800 Iron Bias Setting Equivalents" So either ML's updated "Equivalents" section is in error or ML actually changed the 600 firmware so the maximum 600 setting of 3 now corresponds to 9 vice 6 on the 800. My money is on a typo in the new table, but as a minimum the wording is inconsustent with the table in the updated manual, so something needs to be fixed to remove the ambiguity for 600 users. Hmmm. Screen shots from each version of the manual are inserted below: Old Manual Upper/Updated Manual lower:

Agree - Based on these and other posts and videos, I have changed my tune and am looking forward to testing F2 out this weekend to see what it has to offer. Also, reading the revised manual, I was intrigued by the statement ML makes that the benefits of F2 are not fully realized unless you are running AM. Interesting.

You are correct. It is a misconception to believe that eddy currents generated by the transmitted magnetic field exist only at the surface of a metallic target. Eddy currents exist as far as the transmitted magnetic field penetrates the target. The penetration depth is a function of many factors including the frequency of the transmitted field, the thickness of the target and the target’s magnetic and electrical properties. So the penetration depth varies significantly depending on the type of metal. In the case of the clad coin, the magnetic field easily penetrates past the thin clad layer into the copper “core”. The larger mass and conductivity of the copper core dominates in terms of signal strength over the thin, lower conductive clad and so the detector primarily “sees” a high conductivity target and registers a target ID appropriate to that higher conductive metal.

F2 seems to be very level dependent on the Nox. The simple high/low Fe adjustment on the 540 might be useful but on the 340/440 you just have "High" with no option to even turn it off on any Vanquish model, so one might be sacrificing some non-ferrous masking for the sake of bottlecap rejection regardless of if it is Fe or F2 bias. Not a tradeoff I would be willing to make, but for the casual detectorist, probably ok.

Also posted in the Equinox forum and discussed at length there if you want to check it out for more info on this update.

Keep innovating and raising the bar Nokta/Makro - just makes everyone work harder to put out quality equipment and value prices which is only good news for us detectorists. Hmm...perhaps my friend Andy has another handbook to write...

Well that makes sense since the updater versions are clearly marked for only Windows or Mac (which I think is new this time around). Wonder if manufacturers are going to start recognizing Chrome OS as a platform for future firmware updates as Chromebooks AND firmware updateable detectors become more common.

Agree - more interested in the "and much more". Was that twist top you tested, Simon, corroded in any manner? Pristine "crown cap" steel or mixed steel caps are going to be hard no matter what. Frankly, if the emphasis of this update is an additional ferrous filter, that is frankly one of the last things I am needing or wanting, especially when it comes to semi-corroded bottlecaps which I can pretty much pick out with very high accuracy due to the ferrous grunt off the coil edge with Fe Bias at 0 and the typical accompanying highly unstable TID. I really am not all that interested in another filter that just sets me up for the possibility of more inadvertent masking of non-ferrous targets near ferrous targets. I have found that all Fe bias does is negate the positive effects of having high recovery speed settings for target separation in thick iron situations and typically run it at 0. Nevertheless, I am interested to see how this does in thick iron situations and to glean whether there are actual useful "and much more" enhancements. The back light fix for the 600 is a good thing for 600 users.

Well, technically, it still is a VLF machine because the multi frequencies it uses are in the VLF elecromagnetic spectrum. VLF is not just limited to single frequency or non-simultaneous multi-frequency machines, but refers to a what are more accurately called induction balance machines (as differentiated from Pulse Induction machines).

Won’t know for a few months when folks actually get some in their hands. I will say that if the locking mechanism works similar to XP who also does not use a round shaft for Deus/ORX, it is pretty reliable for locking and the non-round shaft is not subject to rotational wiggle, but can be subject to flexing with heavier coils.

My ears were burning. First of all, great finds. Yes, your drought is over. Anyway, GB is giving you good advice, 57buick. However, I thought I would clarify some stuff regarding the modes and give you some "operational" pointers for your difficult dense non-ferrous target situation. First of all, on the modes. For the following, I am talking only Park and Field. Beach and Gold modes are very specific to their descriptors, however, those modes have situational application to other situations/targets too - for example, some folks have had good success with Beach modes on very mineralized ground nowhere near any beaches and Gold mode is a great "change of pace" mode for relic or coin hunting or for interrogating targets on the fly, but more about that later. For Park and Field, as GB said, the "1" modes are set up for larger targets and the "2" modes are set up for smaller targets. However, I have a slight correction to what GB said regarding the target types. Specifically, Park 1 and Field 1 are optimized for high conductive targets (like silver or copper and clad coins) and/or large targets based on the "lower weighted" frequency profiles that ML has applied using Multi IQ. Park 2 and Field 2 are optimized for smaller and/or lower conductive targets like lead, aluminum, brass, and gold jewelry and relics. But as GB said, these "optimizations" are really just ML guidelines because just like everything else in detecting, there are no "hard and fast" rules, no certainties (other than your best discriminator is your digger and eyes and you can't detect a target if you don't get your coil over it), and no free lunches. Everything is a matter of tradeoffs. And, yes, I would recommend, hitting that site with more than just one mode even though any one mode should be able to be used to snag a wide variety of targets despite their published "optimized" target objectives. The Equinox, with its various Multi IQ modes, single frequency options, speed settings and gives you versatility unmatched by just about any other detector out there (the Deus comes close and I find myself using one or the other at just about any site I visit as they have complimentary performance - you might want to consider hanging on to yours if you can afford to - the newer X35 coils are amazing and will really open things up). So if you have the luxury of time and unlimited access to that site, definitely hit it with different modes, different settings, and different search patterns. And keep removing the junk that is potentially masking keepers. Many folks do not have the time and/or patience to do so and you will likely be rewarded for doing so. A couple of other "operational" tips - use pinpoint to gage the size of the target > can be useful in IDing aluminum cans which might ring up high. You can trace the "footprint" of the target to quickly tell the difference between a larger target (can) vs. a coin or pull tab. Hit iffy signals with multiple modes (what I call target interrogation). If I am searching for relics, I primarily use field 2 but like to keep either Park 1 or Gold in my User Profile slot for ready access see if the iffy signal changes or a high conductive signal comes out of the muck. Similarly, if I am not already searching in ALL METAL, if I encounter clipped signals, I will turn off disc using the Horseshoe button to see what the signal sounds like. If it has a strong ferrous tone, then likely ferrous falsing, but may still dig it to make sure, but I least my "expectations" are properly set when I dig and I might get pleasantly surprised. This works better in thick iron situations than thick non-ferrous trash situations, but try lowering sensitivity some. That might actually allow deeper keeper, high conductive targets to pop out of the aluminum muck because the detector will be less overloaded by the shallower aluminum tab signal. Like I said, this works better with heavy iron infested ground. Another suggestion is to hit the area with single frequency like 5 or 10 khz to see if you can get high conductive targets to pop more. Anyway, maybe you can try some of these things out. No hard and fast rules, use your go to "optimal" settings and if the site begins to dry up, try something different. No site is ever really hunted out, it just becomes a greater challenge. HTH.

I like that stem design. Very similar to XP Deus. Would be neat if you could attach a different control box to that stem...hmm.

Last post on facebook was from January 2019. He must still betrying to get back on his feet after the Camp Fire destroyed everything including his home and business. Chuck, you can try reaching out to him via email or facebook from the links Steve provided.

FWIW - He last visited the forum in November 2018. Last post was August 2018.

Agree, but he did say scanned 3 ft in every direction around the hole for that very reason. He basically did everything I would have done. The only other thing I can imagine is the phantom was a heavily corroded ferrous disc and corrosion halo (falsing high) instead of a dime that disintegrated upon recovery.

Let us know how it goes.

I think the reason for the inevitable Equinox comparisons, is that ML has been promoting this detector heavily and in a similar manner to the way they promoted the Equinox. If I look at the videos they released, they seemed to be targeted at the mid to experienced level detectorist (including all the Equinox users on the ML email list!). Entry level detectorists really would not have the appreciation for what ML was trying to "say" in their video promotions, frankly. So in the absence of detailed specs, there was a lot of speculation as to whether the Vanquish was indeed entry level, although the leaked information from whoever clearly showed that the Vanquish was landing somewhere between the GO FIND and the Equinox 600, so I knew it was not a "Nox killer" and was clearly never intended to be, yet the debate, speculation, and rumors persisted with the promotion hype, until the specs actually landed. Still folks seem to be confused as to what the Vanquish is all about, with some still arguing that it can go toe-to-toe with Equinox or complaining that it can't, etc. That is just what naturally happens when you get a bunch of people with a common interest but individual perceptions and opinions together. In other words, same as any other group of folks. As far as I am concerned, I will observe the entry level detector wars with bemusement while I enjoy the detectors I have now and am content to not necessarily want for a detector at this time. We'll see what the future holds, however.... Agree, great move to get Multi IQ out to the masses, to compete with Simplex, and hopefully give Garrett a swift kick in the you know what to start innovating again. I don't think, however, the Vanquish devalues the Equinox, at least not to those who really understand the differences between the detectors and ML's objective to aggressively move into the entry level market. Unlike the Equinox to eTrac/CTX comparisons, Vanquish brings nothing compelling to the table vs. Equinox regarding performance. However, Equinox did bring speed, simplicity in operation/user interface, comparably light weight, a dedicated prospecting mode, and fundamentally different, mode-dedicated multi frequency search profiles (vs. just user settings differences) and some other "pluses" to the table vs. eTrac/CTX while some of the sophisticated features of the FBS2 detectors remained intact and untouched by Equinox (CO-FE target ID, 2-D discrimination mapping/programing). This resulted in a true dilemma amongst FBS2 loyalists and those who felt the lower price point of the Equinox enabled a sophisticated multifrequency experience vs. their higher priced FBS2 cousins. That debate continues today as there are things Equinox with Multi IQ does better than FBS2 and vice versa. I look forward to the next development cycle which will hopefully spawn a few simultaneous multi frequency competitors to ML in the guises of XP and Nokta/Makro while ML works on perhaps a higher end Multi IQ machine with some of the sophisticated target ID and 2-D discrimination features that are now solely residing in the FBS2 machines (eTrac and CTX). I also look at the Vanquish I also look forward to see what ML has done with the imminent Equinox firmware 2.0 release, that is hopefully not vaporware.

Yeah, most of the small hole metal water scoops are going to cost a pretty penny. Here are other threads:

How big are the holes on your scoop? PVC is typically not good enough to scoop into into rocky bottoms or heavy wet mud/sand where the fine edge and heavy mass of a metal scoop help do the work for you. Steve posted this scoop for fine jewelry last year and there are other member suggestions in the thread. HTH.

Unless, as an older detectorist, are looking for something lighter weight AND that combines the capabilities of those two detectors should you want to eventually downsize the arsenal OR are hunting in sites with thick junk target densities as the higher, adjustable speed of the Equinox will bring better target separation and unmasking to the table vs. Excal or the V3i. Otherwise, if that is not the case, I agree with GB and really wouldn't recommend looking around until one of those two detectors bites the dust because other than versatility, weight, and speed Equinox does not bring a whole lot else to the table that those detectors don't already have. Nokta/Makro and Minelab might be focusing their next detector releases at the higher end detecting crowd in 2021 after taking on the entry level detector market place in 2020 with their Simplex and Vanquish offerings (respectively). That might be a good opportunity to entertain an upgrade, but you should really have a reason for doing so (dying detector or a specific capability or feature objective you desire that you are currently missing).

First of all, I agree you should stick with he ET (AND the Equinox) not because of the number of frequencies used but because the Vanquish is indeed RED () and was intentionally designed to be low cost. That means that even though it does use Multi IQ, a lot of the other settings/features that help to enhance Multi IQ on the Equinox platform are missing from Vanquish, including ground balance, variable recovery speed, tone customizations, and the number and sophistication of the various search profiles, especially beach mode capabilities (auto transmit power reduction in the presence of detected black sand and Salt Balance tracking) to name a few. Bottom line, for Equinox users, unless you are using the Vanquish as a bare bones backup detector or as a simple to use, inexpensive loaner you can allow a friend or family manner to borrow, it makes no sense to pick up a Vanquish because it doesn't appear to be able to do anything your Equinox cannot already do. The coil selection is interesting especially if they turn out to be cross compatible with Equinox (but something makes me doubt they will be). The Vanquish is a cost effective and capable ENTRY LEVEL detector or loaner, or emergency backup unit. Regarding BBS vs. FBS vs. Multi IQ - A LOT of folks seem to get wrapped up in the issue of how many frequencies are simultaneously transmitted with the implication that more is better. Geotech explains in this post, why more is not necessary better (it has to do with how much power is needed to be produced by the detector) and even Minelab argues that the fewer frequencies simultaneously TRANSMITTED the better as discussed in this comprehensive Multi IQ explanation article. This does not mean you are limited to the two frequencies that are actually transmitted, because, as also described in the linked Multi IQ article, the transmitted frequencies are combined to create a frequency spectrum that enables different metals to be excited differently by the detector and subsequently detected through sophisticated signal processing algorithms. Varying the transmitted spectrum and the signal processing used in target detection is the heart of what Multi IQ does and is also what defines each of the individual search profiles. Regarding BBS/FBS, again whether it transmits and combines 2 or more frequencies is really beside the point and that fact alone does not define whether BBS/FBS is better or worse than Multi IQ. This is an apples to oranges comparison/debate that really has little constructive merit. Suffice to say that ML appears to not vary FBS frequency spectrums to create mode/target optimizations like Multi IQ. The strength of the FBS detectors lies mainly in the benefits that multifrequency brings to the table in general regarding its inherent ability to provide strong detection of a wide variety of targets spanninga range of conductivities and the ability to use multiple frequencies to cancel the salt signal in salt beach/water and alkaline soil environments. The other strength of the FBS2 detectors is the sophisticated "two-dimensional" target identification (Ferrous and Conductivity target ID components) and sophisticated discrimination "mapping" that can be applied in the search profiles. HTH

Could be a charm or pendant, too. Appears to be a classic, popular "angel wing" design. Whatever it is, it's gold and a great find.

Just an additional data point, Andy Sabisch (Author of the Equinox Handbook) basically confirmed this forthcoming Equinox update on a recent facebook post, so that gives me high confidence that it is coming soon.

Like GB_Amateur and others here, I find detector comparison videos to generally be a waste of time because there is typically an agenda involved and carefully manipulated settings, contrived target setups, missing critical information, and creative editing are commonly used to make the case for whatever point the producer is trying to get across. Even carefully crafted test garden/comparison videos that attempt to take great pains at being objective, careful, or thorough in their production, such as those by Calabash and others invariably leave more questions than answers so are always subject to debate. I like videos that teach you about detector features or techniques you didn't know about or actual hunt videos. You really seldom learn anything of substance from the comparison videos and I have yet to hear of them changing anyone's opinion of a particular detector.

The Anfibio is a solid waterproof detector, but it is not simultaneous multifrequency like the V3i. It can only run one frequency at a time from a choice of 3 (5, 14, and 20 khz). If you are looking for the latest in Multifrequency tech for maximum stability in wet salt sand/surf and decent performance with fast recovery speeds across a wide spectrum of site conditions and target types, the ML Equinox 800 is a better bet and more versatile with various multifrequency modes (Park, Field, Beach, or Gold) and single frequency operation at any one of 5 frequencies (5, 10, 15, 20, and 40 khz) in a light weight waterproof package. HTH