Chase Goldman

I tried to see if there was any online version of the article you cited, but no joy, so thanks for the additional details, Jin. The resulting ultimate depth loss penalty would be hard to quantify with any certainty, so when a 15% figure gets thrown around I assume that it is an estimate based on the calculated gain loss of the input amplifier, but how it directly correlates to ultimate depth would require knowledge of the relationship of gain to depth and in some cases, that relationship is non-linear and/or could be compensated for by higher user settings provided ML built in enough head room in the settings above the defaults, I suppose. Bottom line, good information to have for anyone considering used or (until the existing inventory is depleted) a new 4500 purchase. Thanks.

Simon - agree that the performance tradeoff to get noise susceptibility down was indeed what ML was after, but doubt they would have done it by knowingly introducing a 15% depth penalty. I have no doubt the author if the magazine article correctly identified ML part substitutions in the latter 4500 iteration, but usually those types of substitutions are benign and mainly due to obsolesence (couldn't get the original parts so used perfectly acceptable equivalent parts) or to reduce heat dissipation (e.g., lower reseistance values) which improves overall reliability. Although raw performance tradeoffs are enevitable when combatting negative issues such as noise immunity or heat dissipation with circuit tweaks, ideally a good designer would balance such competing effects so the tweak would not result in such a dramatic performance hit. I have no reason to believe that a design team that could pull off the GPX detector series design in the first place, could screw it up with a few resistors and op amps. Also, I suspect it would be hard to pin down the overall performance impact unless you had access to all the soil conditions, coils, and target types the GPX is designed for. But I am not saying it couldn't happen either (there have been some prominent and even deadly tech busts in the news lately resulting from performance tweaks to proven designs by respected design teams outside of metal detecting). It just seems very unlikely that such a dramatic hit in performance would not have gone unnoticed by the majority of GPX users.

Jeff, You are right. I always thought ML did this by simply setting the tone break at 2 meaning vdi 1 and 2 would be rejected, of course (true for both Field 1 and Field 2), which would not be much help if you were trying for gold chains, but ML goes on to say (from the bottom of p. 24 of the manual): Coke is the charcoal and carbon by-product of burnt coal, and is prevalent around historically populated areas. Generally coke has a Target ID of 1 or 2. For this reason it is rejected by default in Field Mode. Note, this could result in some small non-ferrous targets being missed. Field 1 Multi-IQ, even with Target IDs 1 and 2 accepted, will reject more coke more than Field 2 using Multi-IQ. That last sentence is VERY interesting. So if you go to horseshoe in Field 1, supposedly you will magically be able to reject some coke but can still pick up some vdi 1/2 non-coke targets. Hmm. Wonder how they do that?

I don't doubt the the source figured out that different parts were used and managed to find the original parts, but the 15% depth reduction claims are simply laughable considering all the variables that affect depth, not to mention the myriad of other circuit components and settings involved in this detector than a single op amp and a few resistors. But if it makes people feel better about getting the earlier version, then who can argue with that. I'm sure minelab had their reasons, and it seems wise to reduce noise susceptibility. So unless I am seeing an unwise tradeoff to incorporate less reliable or cheaper parts (on a 3 to 5K detector!), the old depth performance gain seems more like detectorist folklore, superstition, and OCD perception than a reality. I got the red-headed stepchild 4800, so I wonder what funky parts were used in that one.

Gold chains are a relatively rare find compared to rings, and not just because they are more diffucult to detect, so don't expect to come across many, much less those that will register on the Nox. Even with the Nox, they are not going to be easy. At 1 to 4 vdi, they are not going to be any more obvious than the much more common trash and borderline ferrous you are going to find in that range. If you are solely targeting gold jewelry in areas littered with modern trash, then you will have a high trash to treasure ratio. That is just the nature of where gold falls among aluminum. From what I recall, what was touted about Equinox was that you would at least hear the chain target (though at a likely 1 vdi ) whereas other BBS (e.g. Excal) or FBS detectors would likely pass over the target without a peep. Most vlf induction balance detectors have trouble with chains, period. Are the freshwater sites you are hitting giving up a lot of gold jewelry besides chains? Why are you expecting to see a lot of chains at these sites? What settings are you using at these freshwater sites?

What Steve said, plus what does it sound like when you remove all discrimination using the horseshoe button? Also, have you tried comparing what your are hearing with the external speaker or plugging some different headphones directly into the Equinox to see if the audio improves (this could eliminate an issue with the wireless headphones you are using)? Put yourself in our shoes, pretend you are us unable to see or hear the problem you are having, and consider whether how you are describing the problem in words paints a detailed enough picture for someone else to really understand what you are seeing and hearing. Or post a video using the Equinox speaker as the audio source so we can see and hear what is going on.

Garrett is really good at coming up with updated AT's . Seems to be the only thing they have been doing for the past several years (but not really innovating). Slashing the price, well that is going to take some innovation and Garrett hasn't demonstrated the ability to do that lately. We'll see, it will get interesting. Especially if Simplex and Vanquish start eating into Garrett's ACE market then, yeah, Garret is going to have to figure out how to provide more for less. So you are right - it will have to be AT capability at an ACE price. The question is how quickly can Garrett react with actual product on the street.

The EDS Winner Detector by Detech operates at about 14 khz as does the Whites MXT (why did you think the coil frequency was 28 khz?). And the Detech 8x6 SEF appears to be compatible with a number of detectors from various brands. Normally, I would say it is unlikely to work as 3rd party coils tend to be manufactured in different versions and sold specific to a detector model, but if the coil connector properly mates up with your MXT, you may be in luck.

Actually, they kind of did do that. The wireless headphones come with a patch cable such that they can be used passively (i.e., powered off) and the mini-mini patch cable connected to the headphones and the other end connected to either the detector itself (the cable is a little short though) or to the WM08 wireless receiver (no adapter cable needed). It is kind of moot now that you have the Sunray Pro Golds, and a little odd to consider, but some have reported better sound using the WM08 with the wireless phones hooked up in "wired" mode rather than using the wireless phone's built-in BT receiver. I like the wireless phones as is, personally. They sound great to my ears, but everyone has different hearing, so I know not everyone is a fan. I just applaud ML for providing the myriad of audio options they do right out of the box with the 800. Be mindful of the Equinox's upper operating temp limit (122F). Folks have reported erratic operation and LCD faceplate "blackout" when the head unit is exposed to direct sunlight at similar elevated ambient air temps. The control head can quickly exceed that 5F delta in direct sunlight (especially when usung a black protective head cover that limits air flow/ventilation) and might need a little powered down shade and water to prevent an Equinox version of heat stroke. 😉

Back in business with the new Nox!

Totally get what you are saying and agree that if it is not as affordable as Equinox I am probably not going there. I am presently happy and not looking for a new detector either and haven't been since the Equinox hit the street a year and a half ago which is probably the longest stretch of time where I have not at least been interested in anything newly released in detectors (and there have been about 3 or so worth considering in that time frame). All I am saying is that there is high end capability that presently exists in the CTX and eTrac and ML now has the tech and ability to repackage that capability in a much more affordable detector. And especially with ML AND Nokta driving capability way up in the entry level detector cost class, that IS likely to happen before my Equinox battery bites the dust. If that detector does hit the streets, my Equinox might start collecting some dust. I apologize for hijacking devilsrenegades thread.

I agree it would have to be a leap of some sort. But comparing developments in pulleys and bow materials vs. microprocessors is perhaps not the best analogy (but I get where you are coming from). Perhaps a more appropriate question is whether. you are using the same cell phone for the past 17 years? Detector tech innovation over all is likely plateauing out, with the biggest leaps coming in price drops versus technology adds. But the pace of technology developments in signal processing is progressing at such a rate that I can see Minelab coming up in the not too distant future with a detector that has the sophisticated 2-D discrimination pattern programming and FE-CO target ID processing of the CTX with the speed of the Equinox’s Multi IQ multi frequency signal processing. That would be one killer combo. That would be a game changer.

Nice saves. I’ve found that coins can be recovered at decent depth (~6 inches) depending on ground conditions with frequencies as high as 28khz FWIW - The Equinox battery is serviceable/user replaceable with an industry standard Li-Ion cell vs. a custom design. Should last 5+ years with proper care. Enough time to get me to the “next big thing” should I actually hang on to the detector that long before a suitable upgraded design comes along.

Yeah, had my own typo in that sentence so no one's perfect. Lol. Let us know how it goes. EMI, especially transient EMI is just a hard thing to pin down and mitigate. Good luck. Phrunt may be on to something too. I'm not a commercial electric power engineer, so anything is possible when that much electruc power is in the vicinity of your detector. At a historic site that I volunteer at to do metal detecting surveys for the archeologists, there is a pulsed radio or wi-fi transmitter at the visitor center that periodically wreaks havoc with our GPX detectors. BTW if you want a good long distance lightning detector, get a GPX. It definitely alerts you to when it's time to leave tge field even if you don't see or hear the lightning.

Doing this on the forum versus email allows you to benefit from multiple folks who might have great suggestions. I don't have all the answers. Listen to what Steve suggested. On the dry beach 0 GB should be fine and GB should not have any impact on how low vdi numbers sound. Do the noise cancel as Lacky suggested. Can you describe the issue better - low vdi not coming through means what, exactly? Low volume? Doesn't sound off at all? Sounds off but you don't recover the target you expected? Really not sure what you mean.

High velocity of high voltage? Sometimes humidity affects high voltage line EMI emissions and/or affects insulators or when high impedance ground protection devices trigger. Malfunctioning insulation or protective components can cause this also - that would tend to be more continuous.

Tony - thanks. Sent you a reply once I got home from work. Much appreciated.

Yep, it is all about learning the strengths and weaknesses of each the modes, throwing out the implied meaning of the mode name or taking what ML or the so called experts say about how the modes should be used with skepticism, and with that knowledge applying them appropriately to the situation at hand. Dan - I know the following is not news to you but for the benefit of others reading along... I think it is unfortunate that I hear repeatedly about folks not getting the 800 because they "don't have a need to do gold prospecting", not realizing there is a lot more to gold mode than prospecting (and a lot more that is different between the 600 and 800 than lack of gold mode) or conversely skipping over the 600 because they want to find gold (which the 600 is perfectly capable of doing). This shows how these somewhat arbitrary mode name descriptors can bias inexperienced or unsuspecting folks in buy decisions or even mode selections during detecting. Knowledge about your machine AND site is power when it comes to detecting. The site knowledge piece and knowing what sites hold promise and where to go once you get there is a whole other topic but no less important than knowing your machine.

First of all, location, location, location. Look for the obvious areas where people congregate and lose stuff - Parks, schools, playgrounds, fair grounds, sports fields, beaches, campgrounds. Hit these places and build up your detecting skills on modern coins and jewelry, learn what modern trash sounds like, get some "wins" to boost your skills and confidence before you attempt the hit or miss world of relic hunting at old churches and the like. Just because it is old doesn't necessarily mean it will produce at all much less, produce old treasure. These places tend to be well known by detectorists and have been pounded hard, so what is left is probably deep and/or masked. In other words, you need to be on your "A" game to find stuff and just because you didn't isn't necessarily the fault of the machine. Yes the finds may not be historically significant or interesting or valuable in the sites I previously mentioned, but you will learn a lot about detecting by hitting them You also really need to get some detecting basics down and do it at a simple site like a park, playground, or beach that is benign enough for you to really learn the detector without a bunch of conflicting signals driving you bonkers as Jeff suggested above. Forget about your yard, it seems to be a detecting nightmare so build up your basic skills elsewhere and that includes pinpointing and target recovery in an efficientbmanner that doesn't wreak havoc on the site's ground cover and aesthetics. I think I've suggested this to you before, but your best bet is to hook up with a local detectorist or local detecting club. The other advantage of getting another detectorist involved is that he or she can also determine if your machine settings are out of whack or your machine is potentially faulty so you can either get it reset properly, replaced or you can put the notion thst your machine is at fault to bed. Barring getting first person assistance, keeping some detailed notes as to target ID and what you actually recovered and sharing those with us could help too. Video recording snippets of your hunt could help too. Otherwise, stating "This church that I was at gave me so many tones in every part of the ground ranging form 1 to 28, and I just didn't have time to dig more than 5 holes before I had to go..." doesn't give us much to go on. Fill in some details like: How many repeatable targets you encountered and what were the ID's? What was the "28" target - a coin? How long did it take you to recover the 5 targets and what made you dig them? This is the kind of information that can help us help you.

Steve - I'd like an autographed copy of your website please. Thanks. ?

Great example of "informed" experimentation. You were right to experiment. There are no absolutes. People may use terms like X mode or Y setting is "Not recommended" for Z but that should not be interpreted to mean the same as "do not use", it simply means that X mode should not be your first choice in the specified situation. That is why I agree with you that simply copying someone else's settings without knowledge of what those settings do means you are simply flying blind and guessing and INFORMED experimentation that comes through gaining as much book and practical knowledge about your machine is ideal. I too find it frustrating that ML is not giving us more info about the secret sauce that differentiates the modes(but I also understand why they are not doing so), but I think I have filled in most of those gaps through swing hours and continued experience will only make me have a better intuitive feel for the Equinox. It is a continuous process that never really ends unless I just stop swinging the detector and move on to something else. But right now, there is nothing in existence that I would rather swing than the Equinox, Deus, or GPX (when needed). When I make recommendations, I try to avoid "thou shalt" like statements as just about everything with respect to selection of settings and modes is about balancing tradeoffs. In the case of use of the Beach modes at freshwater sites, I would say that if people are providing the proper context for their recommendations on why the other modes are "preferred" for freshwater sites, then no one should have come away with the idea that Beach modes should never be used in fresh water situations. The reasons the other modes are recommended for fresh water, in general, is that you have the potential for better ultimate depth and/or the ability to hit harder on mid-conductive targets like small, gold jewelry. The reason being that the Beach modes were designed for salt beaches because they are tuned to cancel out the salt signal and provide maximum stability. . This results in a compromise that limits depth and can also create "holes" for certain mid-conductive targets that have phase shifts similar to Salt, and that usually means small gold. Depth can be further limited in the Beach modes because reduced transmit power is used for Beach 2 AND in the case of both Beach modes, mineralized black sand can result in a further reduction in transmit power if the Beach Overload Warning is tripped. The logic is that If you don't have salt to deal with then it makes sense not to also deal with these compromises, so preferentially use the other non-beach modes that can give you theoretically better performance. Ironically, the stability of the mode and reduced sensitivity to black sand by reducing transmit power is precisely what might make Beach modes killer at some freshwater sites that are noisy or have significant mineralization. In fact, I plan to do some experimentation with Beach modes in mineralized ground which is something I hadn't even considered in the past. Extremely mineralized ground conditions necessitate non-traditional approaches which means one could potentially have success with either the hottest mode (Gold mode) or the most stable mode (Beach mode), which is really counterintuitive. BTW - I have never heard/read that you cannot ground balance an Equinox in the beach modes. The manual certainly does not say that and in fact, recommends the use of tracking ground balance in the surf. Interested in where you saw that one.

Scott - left a note for Tony on the site's "contact us" web form. Thanks for your responses.

Thanks for the tip in, GK!

The Spanish where the only ones really minting silver currency in the Americas from the 1400's through the late 1700's (South America, Central America, Mexico, and Florida). So Spanish silver was commonly used in the American colonies and in the French and Spanish territories until America sought it's independence and started minting it's own coinage. So Spanish silver pops up in just about any American Colonial site where currency exchanged hands. HTH

I grew up in San Diego, but the Navy put me in DC and Virginia. Love the Colonial and CW history here on the East Coast, but always wondered what could be found on trails associated with the Spanish Missionaries in California. If Reales are to be found it would probably be associated with the missions.