Chase Goldman

SoundPeat Q12's are splash resistant.

Also shows how you can get different results air testing vs. in the ground.

I have the 12.5" round and a larger SEF Detech coil and GPX iron reject works as expected with them.  If there is a difference, it is not discernable and iron reject is probably about 75 percent reliable in the first place.  FWIW Iron reject is not really true iron discrimination because you can still get false breaking of non-ferrous targets with either a 3rd party or the ML Commander coils - but that's just the nature of iron reject as implemented on PI detectors vs. Disc on vlf induction balance machines.

If you read closely, there is actually only one individual on this thread that has a strong opinion against using drain holes vs. direct application of epoxy to the coil.  Really not much of a debate, quite frankly.  It is a great solution, with several different drain hole pattern approaches to choose from that preserves the integrity of the coil and no fear of warranty replacement issues should the coil fail.

I agree with Lacky's recommendations, those have been confirmed to work with Equinox and will pair up in APTX low latency mode vice just APTX which is worse for lag (regular AAC or SBC bluetooth is unusable).  I have been burned by other "off" brands that claim low latency but do not connect to Equinox in that manner.  There are A LOT more full size headphones that support APTX low latency than ear buds.  The Sound Peats have been verified to work and are affordable.  

If Vanquish hits before Simplex, game on.  Garrett needs to start innovating, or they are toast.  They haven't done anything interesting since they introduced thd AT series.  The AT Max is just a warmed over AT Pro.  It is a race to the bottom folks, the only market left that Garrett has significant market share.  None of these forthcoming entry level detectors interest me personally, but the detector market implications are interesting.

I don't prospect, but use gold mode frequently for reasons other than gold prospecting.  That being said, if you are not going to go relic hunting and if the park sites you plan to detect in are not super trashy (requiring the faster recovery speed settings available on the 800) you will do OK with the 600.  You may only regret the purchase down the road if you plan to expand your detecting hobby interests but by then you will likely have other choices, in the mean time you will have put in a modest investment which is wise if it turns out that detecting in not your thing.  Good luck.

T

21 hours ago, ColonelDan said:

I’ve been hunting in water and sand with drain holes in my coil cover for many years and have never experienced performance degradation in the least but as I always say, that’s just the view from my foxhole.

Dan, I think you've made that abundantly clear.  However, by quoting my several weeks old post without the quote I was originally referring to and that was contained in my original post to a specific poster's claim that "everyone" was missing his point and his "fear" that the cover would not drain effectively, you lost the context and meaning of my post.  Note that I was asking a question of the subject "quoted" poster trying to pin down their position on drain holes and their implied stance that direct sealing the coil was not only superior to using drain holes but that drain holes were detrimental to performance for the reasons he stated (i.e., his fear of insufficient draining).  I was not making a claim or statement directly to you or others using drain holes for or against drain holes  (IMO - they appear to be very effective based on the number of folks successfully using them) but merely was, in my question, noting the irony in his claim given that several folks, including you, posted how drain holes provided a benefit to keeping the coil clean and that none of you were reporting having issues salt water detecting using the altered coil covers.  In other words no one seemed to be having any problems with the altered covers draining effectively as was his claim/fear.  The question was never addressed with a direct reply btw....?

10 hours ago, Sting Ray said:

Please forgive my ignorance,  What is TX shift and TB?  I figured B2 (Beach mode 2).  I'm half lost without the abbreviations! 

100% agree.  Clive you are putting out some great nuggets and valuable insights here especially on these salt water and coil control issues, but I often get bogged down when folks use abbreviations for metal detecting terminology specific to certain machines.  There are a lot of newbies and veterans to Equinox here lurking.  Don't assume your audience is a bunch of nox beachunting insiders totally familiar and comfortable with the arcane Equinox and beach hunting terminology, much less their abbreviations.  Take the time to spell it out for us so we can all benefit.  Many thanks.

By the way to Sting Ray - Clive can confirm, but "TX shift" I believe is referring to the reduced transmit coil power used in Beach 2, for better stability in high salt conditions and transmit power autoreduction in beach mode in general if black sand mineraluzation is detected (p. 25 and 26 of the Equinox user guide).  "TB" refers to the ability to shift the ferrous/non-ferrous "tone break" in this case slightly higher than the 1 or 2 default to give better non-ferrous tone stability as the nox tends to want to bounce around zero on many weak targets.  You might sacrifice the occasional gold chain this way in order to gain more tone stability overall.  And I believe manual undertune is referring to manually setting GB to minus numbers in salt surf.  Again, Clive can chime in to straighten me out but this should help clear some stuff up in the mean time.

23 hours ago, cjc said:

The overprocessed signal removes you from the feedback that needs to be responded to by way of coil speed and tuning.

Agree, that is why I wish Minelab would incorporate a pitch tone option and true threshold similar to what is implemented in gold mode as an option for all search profile modes since gold and other "hot" modes are unusable in salt. Or even a more sophisticated ferrous tone grunt + non-ferrous pitch tone, similar to what can be configured for the XP Deus.

I have found the ORX gold modes actually do the best in the mineralized Virginia dirt.  Not a fan of the limited 3 tone option on the ORX in the coin modes for Virginia hot dirt relic hunting (vs. the multiple tone and pitch options of Deus) but they can be used. However, the ORX and Deus gold modes will give you more depth and sensitivity in hot dirt.  Problem is in really hot ground, the VDI becomes unreliable on both ORX and Deus at around 4 to 6 inches of depth but you will hear the target, you'll just have to dig it to find out if it's ferrous or a keeper.  Use some test targets like previously recovered minie balls and buttons and experiment with recovery speed settings (reactivity) and coil frequency to see what combos work best at your sites.  Gold mode uses a pitch based tone rather than tone ID and it has a threshold tone and iron rejection vice discrimination.  Iron rejection breaks up the audio if the detector thinks you are swinging over a ferrous target.  Problem is, in hot mineraluzed dirt the reject signal keys off the magnetite in the soil so most all targets ferrous or not break up so it is kind of useless.  I personally like reactivity at 2.5 or 3 and 28 khz frequency as the sweet spot for relic hunting using the round 9" HF coil.  I am partial to pitch tone mode on the Deus vs. the ORX, but you can snag some great relics with the ORX too.  Good luck.

47 minutes ago, phrunt said:

Forgive my ignorance but is a kettle point a spear head? I tried a quick google but little was to be found other than other forums with people finding them too. 

They were primarily used for arrows.

Thought of you on this one, Dave, but it was kind of the opposite problem (too noisy vice too quiet and loss of depth).  A problem nevertheless in the surf.  Hope you have better news after July.  Otherwise, a different detector might be the answer, unfortunately.  

18 minutes ago, Sting Ray said:

Am I correct to believe that lowering the Sensitivity is necessary because of the waves and debris above & below the coil?    I've tried to noise cancel in the water and this slightly helped.

Thank you Chase Goldman

Since far field electromagnetic signals (i.e., radio waves) that cause EMI are highly attenuated in water, noise cancel which finds the "clearest" channel with minimal RF EMI interference is only really effective if the coil and/or control head (the antennas that receive the RF interference into the detector circuits) remain above the water line.  So if the control head remains above the water line (even with the coil submerged) then noise cancel will be effective against EMI but it has no effect on wave action and debris causing falsing primarily to varying salinity levels - in that case you might want to try tracking ground balance as recommended on page 41 of the user guide:

"Tracking Ground Balance can also be useful when using Beach Mode 2 underwater at the beach (in salt water)."

HTH

Quite a few outstanding bucket listers for me there and you snagged them all in one year. Congrats.

Rosemary, note you haven’t re-visited us since you posed your original question. Please don’t be a stranger.  Let us know how it all worked out.  It helps us learn whether we are barking up the wrong tree with our suggestions or have encountered a new, unfamiliar failure mode.  Thanks.

No reason to dip your recovery speed simply because your swing speed is limited by coil drag, IMO.  The higher recovery speed helps limit ground noise that occurs due to the slower sweep speed.  Some detectors like Deus respond better with higher sweep speeds when using higher recovery/reactivity settings but I have found with Equinox you can get away with a slower sweep speed even with the higher recovery settings without target signal degradation.  Your mileage may vary, but give that a shot to see if you can lower falsing and ground feedback noise.

I have both accessory coils and keep returning to the stock as it balances all the trade offs (depth, coverage, separation, small target sensitivity, EMI susceptibility, and weight) best IMO.  At the beach, coverage is king (except that coil drag comes into play in the water) so I am going to use the 11” or possibly the 12x15 but not the 6 - that would literally drive me nuts.

All I’m asking for is a little clarity on how tracking GB is different than Multi IQ ground compensation.  While I understand that ML has to protect it’s intellectual property, that aspect should’t be a state secret, quite frankly.  Especially considering all the other information ML decided to put out in its Treasure Talk Multi IQ articles.  

3 hours ago, auminesweeper said:

There is no magic happening here, even as far back as 2000+/- we have had detectors that although the tracking/GB is locked they will still monitor the ground conditions and will update them when the User allows the detector to do so,

Well, maybe just a little magic...?

Thing is with the Equinox, even if you "lock" the GB, Multi IQ is still continuously compensating for ground conditions in the background (not a user choice) if you believe this ML statement from the ML treasure talk article describing Multi IQ:

• Gold 1 and Gold 2 process the higher weighted combination of the Multi-IQ band while still ground balancing for soil. However, they use different setting parameters better suited for gold nugget hunting.

This is purely describing Multi IQ signal processing differences between modes and does not factor in default user settings for those modes (e.g., whether GB is "fixed" or in tracking).  In other words, ML implies similar Multi IQ soil or salt balancing for the other modes which don't have tracking on by default.  So one might argue that if you genuinely want Equinox to fix the ground balance point for prospecting so micro gold is not "tracked out", best to put Equinox Gold mode in single frequency also, which is where ML was originally headed as the default for Gold mode.  Thoughts?

As an engineer, I find the ambiguity and vagueness in ML's descriptions of ground compensation to be somewhat frustrating especially since the relationship/magnitude difference between multi IQ ground compensation and Equinox ground tracking (independent of multi IQ) is really unknown.  I guess for prospecting, I would "trust" the Multi IQ ground compensation "more" than ground tracking, but who knows, quite frankly...

The question is will tracking actually react to and track small gold out in the absence of magnetite but it also doesn't help either.   I can see Steve's point that tracking could overreact to the ground variations due to hot rocks and magnetite.  All of this means tracking should never be used in any situation (hot or mild) whenever searching for milligram gold, so ML's default GB setting for the Gold modes should generally not be used.

Prospecting is just a completely different ballgame than what I do.

Thanks again Jeff and Simon.  I am always learning from the awesome forum members here.

Thanks folks for setting me straight on small gold and tracking.  As I said, I don't prospect (yet), but it really was not detrimental for relic hunting in mild and mineralized ground.   For example, I had no trouble recovering tiny mid-conductive percussion caps in either soil situation with tracking engaged (about the tiniest relic target worth recovering, other than the button shank I recovered below), but I suppose those wouldn't be considered comparable to small gold targets. 

With all due respect to Steve's description, I still don't consider ground tracking to be a filter in the traditional sense, like discrimination or iron bias, as it is not directly acting on how a target signal is processed, it is merely setting the ground balance point reference and in that context, I have a hard time understanding how it can actually be detrimental to target detection. 

In fact, I have found that in low to mild mineralized soil, the ground balance point setting has little impact on the target signal even when it is manually set several points away from the measured balance point.  Will have to take a look at the impact in highly mineralized soil. 

That being said, I can understand how it might be perceived that way and frankly, it does make sense to just turn it off if it is not needed as there is no upside to using it, so no argument there

Great discussion. Thanks

4 hours ago, Jeff McClendon said:

Really long over 1 hour video. Edited judiciously, it could have been just as informative in about 10 minutes length or less. Otherwise, it is a fairly good example of what those three detectors can do on small to medium sized gold in hot rocks and iron trash.

I don't agree with using tracking ground balance on the Nox unless it is absolutely necessary. If the mineralization had been so high that the GM 1000 and the ORX were almost unusable then I might have considered tracking ground balance for the Nox. Ground mineralization was not that bad. I think using the 11" coil plus tracking ground balance made the Nox slower in recovery speed and gave it less separation capability than using auto/manual ground balance and the 6" coil.

 

 

Jeff

In my experience with Equinox, ground tracking is either effective or ineffective at reducing ground noise, but I have never found it to be detrimental in conditions where it is not necessarily needed, provided that the detector was ground balanced in auto/manual mode at the start of the session.  Engaging tracking will have absolutely NO detrimental effect on recovery speed or target masking as actually responds rather slowly to mineralization changes.  Granted, I am not a prospector, but I do relic detect in really hot ground and manual ground and basically leave tracking on by default if there is any mineralization or ground phase variability whatsoever have not seen tracking to be detrimental.  I use gold mode frequently for relic hunting.  It is a default mode setting for gold mode, after all.   Now I cannot say the same thing for iron bias. Unlike tracking, Iron Bias is a filter that does affect detector response and I HAVE found it to essentially degrade recovery speed and exacerbate target masking in thick iron situations and generally leave it at 0 setting.  Just my take based on my experiences with EQ tracking and tracking GB in general which I also use with the Deus.

You obviously have a lot of experience on pressing, milling, and the creation of die forms.  I really need to see a genuine graded uncirculated coin as the control for comparison to the suspected fakes.  Plus the "business case" for expending the effort on conterfieting non-key coins just doesn't seem to be there as pointed out by others.

5 hours ago, kac said:

Take a look at the feet on the back. Original the feet go above the log, ebay one the feet are deeply carved into the log.

I am not seeing that.  I am seeing feet clearly over/above the log on the ebay coin.

5 hours ago, kac said:

Another really suspicious artifact is there is a raised line on the bottom left background behind the text on the back that can only be created if it is in the die itself.

Why is that suspiscious?  Dies are known to often suffer from various minor defects and damage resulting in coins that slip through the inspection process and make it into circulation.

I support your word of caution regarding purchasing collectable coins online, but really not seeing a strong case here, especially when a highly worn and damaged coin is being used as the reference for comparison. 

VDI variability is a key “discriminator” of junk targets like bottlecaps and cans and the only way you can truly get an audible sense of that is using 50 tones.  So the site and likely junk and keeper targets go into my decision as to number of tones I am going to run at a site.  Less likely to run 50 tones in the water, though, where environmental conditions are likely to affect vdi stability.