Chase Goldman

9 hours ago, Rich (Utah) said:

 

Chase,

I'm thinking the next time I'm out and have some marginal targets, I need to take the time to test both methods and see if one of them provide better audio and visual ID's.

And apologies to everybody that WAS following this thread for hanging a hard left .   

Rich -

Would be interested in hearing your results.  When I do get a chance to detect, I am usually on the clock for those precious few hours I have and want to make the most of my time detecting rather than testing, but might try to force myself to take the time to do some testing myself.  However, with respect to the GB thing, I am pretty sure that doing a GB to start is probably better or at least no worse than just leaving it at the default so there is not a lot of impetus for me to go prove that to myself.  Wouldn't mind being proven wrong because at least that means I learned something new and that is something this hobby keeps reminding me - you never know as much as you think you do.

1 hour ago, Rich (Utah) said:

The question I ask myself is this, If the algorithm is an active process that is constantly reading the ground signal across the multi-frequencies to come up with a ground reference value, why does it need me to step in and give it a starting point with a manual ground balance?  The algorithm will have it figured out more accurately. My thoughts are it doesn't need my help at all UNTIL it gets to the point  that I'm over VERY HOT GROUND and the ground signal is so strong that the algorithm is no longer the MOST effective method of finding a ground reference to measure possible targets against.  At that point, I need to intervene and engage the manual ground balance system by doing a ground balance.

Because the active process is using multifrequency to interpolate from an assumed reference starting point.  If the actual ground phase is not 0, then its interpolation will not be as accurate compared to giving it the actual ground phase reading.  It is not determining the actual reference value just how the ground is responding in comparison to the target using multiple frequencies, otherwise it would be actually tracking the ground phase, which we know it is not otherwise what would be the point of having a separate tracking GB feature?  It just happens to be very good at compensating/interpolating (to a point) even if it is given a default vice actual ground phase reading.  You ask why does it need you to give it a starting point.  The answer is it doesn't absolutely need you to do it if the ground phase it within some unknown range of the zero point default, but I believe it would compensate even better if you did give it the right starting point even if the delta between the default and actual were small because that delta is just another potential source of computational error.

Rich - We're going around in circles at this point with diminishing returns so I am going hang it up at this point since we don't seem to be converging to a common understanding and have hijacked the hell out of aygore's thread, lol.  It has been an interesting discussion and you have given me some food for thought so I will leave it at that.  Thanks.

Will try to just lurk and read additional responses and try to refrain from wading in again as I am sure most are sick of my droning on at this point...lol.  Cheers.

42 minutes ago, glabelle said:

An explanation of how VLF detectors work may be in order.

When a target upsets the null between the Tx and Rx coils, there is a signal read which has a phase shift and an amplitude amount. It is the ratio between this phase shift and amplitude that is used to analyze what that target may be. A clad penny, or a silver dime, or a nickel, always has the same ratio. The ground also has a ratio - this is why you "ground balance". To ignore this particular ratio, given what environment you are in.

 

 

 

 

True, but a multifrequency detector has the added advantage of determining (in real time) the change in target and ground ratios with frequency and, as a result, can better compensate for a lack of a perfect ground balance by identifying the different frequency response of the target vs. the ground ratios (more precisely reactance X (phase component) vs. Resistance R (amplitude component).  Despite the ability to do this, even multifrequency detectors perform better when properly balanced to the actual soil ground phase effect.  In other words, even though a multiple frequency detector can perform better than a single frequency vlf without a precise ground balance adjustment, it will perform even better if ground balanced.  Not disagreeing with what you stated, just explaining why some might argue against the necessity if adjusting GB from the default setting when it comes to a multifrequency detector, like Equinox.

8 minutes ago, Rich (Utah) said:

Chase, 

It was not my intent. 

Rich -

Then I sincerely apologize for the misunderstanding.

36 minutes ago, glabelle said:

 

I downloaded and read that CT-3030 manual. I noticed there is no mention of ground "tracking" in it. I believe their 2 settings, "Start ground balance" and "enable ground" on, refer to manually ground balancing, and when enabled, ground TRACKING. 

That's what I thought ML was saying also (and stated that in a previous post), but not having familiarity with the CTX...

5 hours ago, Rich (Utah) said:

A Ground Balance Setting of 0 = The standard Ground balance is OFF and the detector is using Minelabs' signal analytics to separate targets from the ground signal.  As I read it, Minelab believes this method provides SUPERIOR performance  when compared to the standard Ground Balancing Method.

Rich - that is a very interesting interpretation but I have found nothing in ML's user manual or the ML Treasure Talk Equinox articles, including the 4 part Multi IQ series that corrobrates that:

• Signal analytics to separate targets from the ground signal is ONLY active when GB is set to 0 
• That GB = 0 means that "standard GB" is OFF.

So I would appreciate reading more about this if you have a reference. 

I interpret from reading the Multi IQ series of articles that the signal analytics ground compensation processing is ALWAYS on in multi and that the detector is merely setting the GB reference starting point more accurately by doing a manual/auto GB from which the ground signal can be be better compensated/interpolated using the Multi IQ signal analytics. 

I also don't really know what you mean by the term "standard GB" as that is never used by ML in the context of the Equinox.  Also, since manual GB is fully adjustsble from -9 to 99, it seems strange to me ML would a assign a different GB behavior to "0" vs. any other setting.  In other words, by your interpretation, if a manual/Auto GB did just happen to give you a "0", then the "standard GB" you thought you were getting would be OFF?  That seems like it would be really confusing to the user and would warrant a mention in the user guide.

In any event, I admit that I cannot prove my interpretation definitively based soley on the vague information ML has put out but it seems reasonable to me that ML would design it the way I describe.

Regarding signal analytics being superior or just leaving GP at 0, I find it interesting that ML writes:  "When Tracking Ground Balance is active, the detector continuously adjusts the Ground Balance automatically during detecting.  This ensures that Ground Balance is always set correctly." - p  41 of the User Guide.  So yeah, at some unknown point, 0 is just not good enough but ML never says when, just the vague repeated reference to excess ground noise.  ML also refers to ground noise in the context of recovery speed and swing speed, implying a lower usable limit on recovery speed setting because ground noise will tend to dominate at slowe mr sweep speeds.  I think we both know that proper coil control is key to success with Equinox.

5 hours ago, Rich (Utah) said:

A Ground Balance setting of '0' is not a 'Dummy Setting' for noobs.

Don't know who said that (you put it quotes so you must be quoting someone).  As I stated in my previous post, that default setting is a great starting point for the entire gamut of detectorist skill levels and Multi IQ certainly allows detecting success without having to make adjustments from 0 with little penalty for MOST detecting situations.  Keeping it simple for the less experienced detectorist yet providing more precise control for the advanced detectorist appears to be inherent in the Equinox design philosophy.  But if you thought I was saying it is a setting suitable only for less experienced detectorists in my previous post you really misinterpreted my meaning and I personally do not appreciate the negative coonotation of the terms used in your post to be directly or indirectly attributed to me to make it sound as if I was dispariging inexperienced or even advanced detectorists who do use the default settings.  It is not something I would ever do or tolerate and is 180 degrees opposite of my typical interaction on this board.   Any detectorist new to detecting or the Equinox that I have helped with my advice can attest to that.  If that was not your intent, then I sincerely apologize.

5 hours ago, Rich (Utah) said:

An additional thought here that you brought up about hunting with the HORSESHOE or 'No Discrimination' engaged.  Earlier in the year, MKUS from the findmall forum was praising using this for the majority of his hunting and suggested those reading his post to give it a try.  I believe his thoughts are worth a look

I typically run without disc a high percentage of the time I detect with Equinox and am fully aware of the advantage of doing so.  However, I rekon that most do not run wide open, so I was generalizing to the more common configuration which is using the default disc settings.

Thanks for the reply, this has been a great discussion and like the "how many frequencies are transmitted" question cannot really be resolved in the absence of more explicit details from ML.

Rich - the following is just a counterpoint addressing the ML p. 40 statements directly and not meant to be an I'm right and you are wrong thing.  Nor am I advocating that YOU should change the way YOU do business.  I know you quoted Horst but I too was in the camp of why not just do a GB so that is why I am responding.

Your position is valid because Multi IQ on Equinox does afford a lot of forgiveness when detecting without an optimal Ground Balance point set, I better understand your GB=0 position and just wanted to state why I do GB on regular basis as part of my startup routine (except for one situation) regardless of the soil condition and why I think I too am not violating anything ML has stated on p. 40.  And again even though I have a difference of opinion, I also agree it does not mean you should in any way change the way you do it because it works for you to swing at the GB default.  Anyway, with that out of the way...

I interpret p. 40 a little differently but again, that does not mean my interpretation is right for everyone, here is my take.

Fact - Multi IQ and multi frequency machines in general do have the advantage of being able to separate the ground signal by benefit of getting real-time reactance and resistance readings from the ground at different frequencies.  That means that UP TO A POINT, the machine can readily compensate for a non-zero ground phase condition.  The question is, at what point do does it start having an issue.  Minelab gave us the answer on p. 40 as well as on page p. 11 which refers you to the GB procedure on p. 40 if you are experiencing excessive ground noise after conducting the quick start steps.    The problem is you do not know if you are experiencing excessive ground noise unless you have removed all discrimination (horseshoe button) and furthermore, you do not know how much the ground noise is affecting detector performance up until the point you notice it though I am sure that in the grand spectrum of effects, on Equinox not having a precise GB in Multi IQ has at worst, a relatively small effect even at large ground phase discrepancies.

My Opinion/Philosophy/Take on GB with Equinox - In my region I am subject to a WIDE range of soil conditions.  No site, except the dry sand beaches I go to, is completely free of mineralization and also baseline ground phase readings vary greatly from site to site and mineralization is only ONE factor that determines a non-zero reading. I usually use more than one detector at a site and go with the hot hand.  Unlike the Equinox, my other primary detector has a mineralization (Fe3O4) meter and I have seen Equinox ring up with some very high Ground Phase numbers even on low mineralized soil (Side note: unless you have a detector that can explicitly read out mineralization level, you cannot tell the level of mineralization at your site if all you have the Equinox ground phase reading because high GP number does not necessarily correlate to a high mineralization level).  Furthermore, I have found that Equinox will ring up with significantly different Ground Phase readings on the same patch of ground depending on what mode I have selected.  Finally, if I am not searching in AM mode, I may not have any idea if I am experiencing ground noise because that usually shows up as a constant -9, -8, -7 variable chatter and just because I don't hear it in the NF target region does not mean it is not affecting my NF target detection capability.  Even on sand beaches, I have NEVER been to a site that has given my "0" on an AUTO GB.  Since I have no way of knowing what the GP reading is going to be and at what point a non-zero reading is going to affect detectability, I just do the auto pump as part of my startup routine and swing away.   

So let's go to what ML said on p. 40 again. 

"The default Ground Balance setting of 0 is recommended for Park, Field and Beach Modes because these locations typically have less mineralisation than goldfields.

However, if the ground is generating many noise signals (and/or the Sensitivity level is set very low), then using Auto Ground Balance is recommended."

My take (just my speculation and opinion again, not proven fact) is that ML was really pointing out why they chose 0 and NON-TRACKING as the DEFAULT GB setting vs. TRACKING as the DEFAULT for the Gold Modes and was trying to keep things simple for detectorists of all skill levels by not REQUIRING a GB for most situations because it should really not affect detecting experience all that much, especially with the Multi IQ advantage.  Many low end detectors do not have anything other than a preset ground phase reference point, and that suffices for most situations and people do just fine with them.  However, I am surprised that ML is linking Ground Phase solely to mineralization, as mineralization is not the only (though it is probably the most dominant) factor in determining ground phase reading.  Furthermore, in the CTX words I am especially surprised that ML said "Ground Balance should not be enabled in most detecting conditions where ground mineralization is mild."   "Should not" is pretty strong language and is incongruent with them throwing in the qualifier "most detecting conditions" later in the statement.  So what are those outlier conditions when you "should" GB in mild mineralization?  Also, not being familiar with CTX, some of the nomenclature is also unfamiliar to me - what does "enable" ground balance mean in the context of CTX - is that some sort of tracking GB mode?  If so, I fully understand why you would preferably not want to use a tracking GB feature in mild mineralization and address that below.  Bottom line, I don't think ML is saying don't do a GB under mild soil confitions with Equinox, only pointing out the basis for their default settings.

As far as I am concerned, if I am getting something other than 0 (and the only way to know that is to go into GB and pump or listen for Ground Noise in AM) then why wait to see if you are getting ground noise just head things off at the pass and start off with a ground balance point that most closely matches the site condition, regardless of whether that is 0 or some other number.  There certainly is no down side to always doing an Manual/Auto GB at as part of a startup routine other than the 5 seconds it takes to do it and since that GB reading sticks from the last session, it is prudent for me to do it anyway since if it is not zero, then it can be WAY OFF for the new site.  I also noise cancel and GB separately for each mode I use at a site.  Since it is now just a routine thing, I even do it at the beach.  

My bottom line - Even though ML "recommends the default ... setting of 0", I do not think they are saying you "should not" do a GB, either.  Unless I am missing something, there is no real downside to doing a GB routinely at the start of a detecting session regardless of the site and on the flip side there is probably very little penalty to NOT doing a GB at most sites and just sticking with the default of 0 (but make sure it really is at 0, especially if you did a manual/auto GB or used tracking at your last site).  But regardless how small the penalty is, I see no reason to incur it when it is easily remedied.

If I am mistaken regarding the "no downside" statement on routinely doing a GB, I would like to know.

The philosophy of using tracking GB is a whole separate subject, especially considering the fact that there may indeed be downsides to using tracking GB, especially at low mineralized sites, because tracking relies on changes in mineralization to trigger a GP reading and rebalance and I don't want to get into that here.

Thanks for reading and welcome feedback, especially if I am missing something that would indicate doing a routine GB is somehow detrimental or even non-optimal.  Thx.

Clive - can you clarify a couple things - by NF tone at 25, are you talking volume or pitch? And how far above zero are you typically having to set the non-ferrous (NF) tone break (TB) under noisy conditions and what is your "do not go above" max TB setting?

Finally, what were you driving atvwith that last comment (i.e., "can't be heard...").

1 hour ago, cjc said:

Great rundown and instruction, Chase.  I especially like the part about letting the machine operate within its pre-set parameters.  Very good advice.  Thanks clive

Thanks, Clive.  On my to do list this summer is cracking open your second Equinox book and getting a chance to put your advanced theory to practice at tge beach and elsewhere.

4 hours ago, aygore said:

I've been wondering if I set Field 1 the same way as I have for Park 1 (5 tones, Recovery 6, Iron Bias 2, Ground Balance 0) is it going to behave the same way as Park 1?

Most likely it will behave very similar if all the user parameters are set up identically between Park 1 and Field 1.  Regarding GB 0, don't automatically assume GB 0 is the right setting based on mode, it needs to be set according to the local site conditions (i.e., if you are getting a lot of ground feedback in all metal, then GB) similar to noise cancel.  Also not sure why people don't take the 5 seconds it takes to get an optimal Auto GB, regardless, but that's just me and my OCD, I guess - lol.  An interesting test would be to see if after you have set up Park 1 and Field 1 identically, that if you do a GB on each one to see if the GB readings are similar between the 2 modes (GB is mode dependent because of the different Multi IQ profiles on the Equinox and if you do GB, each mode should be balanced individually).

Have had to use a pick to hack through frozen ground at a site I only had limited access to a few times a year, so you go when you get the chance, no matter the conditions.  Did it stop me?  No and I was rewarded with some cool relic finds.  We were thawing out dirt clods next to a fire pit we set up for warmth breaks.  Lol.

5 hours ago, RobNC said:

Mine at times beeps for no reason. It also interferes with my XP ORX and Teknetics T2

It's a nice pinpointer but at the point I can't use it due to the chattering it causes on detectors and also the chattering rants it goes off on by itself

I think a production batch of defective pro finds exhibited the behaviors you are describing.  Sounds like you have a valid case for warranty replacement so you should take advantage of that option.

2 hours ago, Jeff McClendon said:

I should have just said that the same large numerical target ID screen is used for all the modes on the ORX.

Jeff,

Oh yeah,  got it,  I am with you! I love that ORX VDI popup feature and the iron probability display.  If ORX had pitch on the coin modes and GB tracking, it would be able to do 90% of what I need it to do vs. Deus.  As it is, it makes a serviceable backup to Deus.  I hope XP incorporates the ORX display features as an option on a future Deus update, probably unlikely, though.  I would also take an ORX update to add pitch audio, which seems lije a trivial upgrade to accomplish.  HH.

The ORX limits on tone ID with just 3 tones is in play here.  I could live with that tone limitation if XP saw fit to also provide pitch tone as an option.  Be careful about Coin fast.  Coin fast utilizes an automatic silencer filter which quiets the machine down in thick iron but can also exacerbate non-ferrous masking.  Overall, the signal processing of coin fast vs. coin deep results in quieter overall operation even if you take silencer out of the equation.  If auto silencer is implemented on ORX similar to Deus than it should be turned off at Reactivities 2.5 and above (which is also where you probably want reactivity to be in super thick iron anyway).  I would give high reactivity coin fast a spin at this site.  Also, you might want to experiment with Gold mode.  It can ultimately give you a pitch-like tone deeper than the coin modes but of course no Tone ID (only visual target ID) and takes some getting used to because it also does not use traditional discrimination but instead an iron audio cancel setting that just breaks up signals it thinks are probable ferrous.  Good luck.

On 4/25/2019 at 3:10 AM, Jeff McClendon said:

In both ORX Gold modes target IDs are displayed, another helpful difference from the Deus Gold mode.

Target IDs ARE displayed in Gold Field mode on the Deus as well.  The ORX implementation of Gold Field mode is almost identical to Deus Gold Field with the exception of the range of adjustability of reactivity and no GB tracking.

Unlike the HF coils, the new x35 coils do not have external batteries so they must use the coil charging clip as the only option.

That i

5 hours ago, Againstmywill said:

I really thought I was going to like these, but after a couple hunts with the Q12 set, I know they are not a good fit for me. The speed and sound is great--right there with the supplied Bluetooth headphones. The fit and ability to stay in my ear, not so great. I had to have them in front of me under my chin for them to even stay in my ears. Every time I would move my head to look up, I had to readjust one of the sides and reseat it in my ear. It seems the weight of the buds themselves is the issue. I assume that the batteries are in the buds and causes them to fall from position easily. I will go back to the wireless module and use my Skullcandy buds that never fall out unless the wire gets pulled while bending over or snagged on a branch. 

That is the very reason I went with the Soundpeat Engine buds I posted earlier.  They have a little thick collar section that surrounds your neck and rests on your shoulders so the ear pieces stay in your ears as the wires are no longer pulling on the buds due to gravity.  Works great.  Only problem is they have been replaced by a newer Engine model that does not support APTX LL, but the older, less expensive version does still occasionally pop up with some inventory for sale or used units.

https://www.amazon.com/SoundPEATS-Headphone-Earphones-Sweatproof-Smartphones/dp/B07KPWCTDR/ref=pd_ybh_a_2?_encoding=UTF8&psc=1

You are going to have to decide if filtering out the nuisance coinage is worth all the other headaches you have articulated. You seem to be really frustrated, annoyed, and disappointed by the Nox ever since the headphone adapter debacle and continuing on through the latest excursion where having to simply adjust sensitivity on the fly drives you nuts.  I say give your blood pressure a break and try another detector that doesn't have a single F on it's report card much less the 3 F's Equinox scored for you.  I wouldn't stand for such poor performance and neither should you.  Dump it, is my advice.  Not a good fit for the one thing you want to use it for.

2 hours ago, midalake said:

I have been salt water beach hunting for over 20 years. I have used A sovereign XS, XS2a, Elite, GT, Fisher CZ-21, Garrett beach hunter AT-4,  Minelab Excal. I have tested several whites machines as well, but never owned one.  I am always open to helpful hints! ?

Dave 

  

Dave,

I think I could make a pretty strong case that you are really not all that open to helpful hints. ? But that is beside the point and just poking a little fun.

Not knowing how much run time you do have on Equinox (I know I was not singing its praises after my first few outings with it) or what you were specifically hoping to for it to bring to the table over the other machines you mentioned above,  it is hard to ascertain if the issues you are having stem from inexperince with Equinox after one and a half extended Mexican beach trips or a possible defective machine (the need to use different sensitivities on wet sand vs. in surf is hard to analyze without knowing the specific beach environmental characteristics and yes cell phones are going to be a problem if you are forced to detect when and where the beachgoers are also swarming, something I tend to avoid, but have still not experienced the issues you have even with crowds).

Regardless, I think the answer you are looking for is plain as day and you know what it is.  Cut your losses, stop being frustrated, and simply chalk Equinox up to being a fail for your situation.  No one here is going to give you any advice that is magically going to recover your Equinox grade.  You are either feeling it or not.  And if not, then no sense banging your head against the wall.  Grab whichever machine you still own that out performs that C+ Equinox and enjoy beach hunting again.  You deserve it.  Sell Equinox and the rest of the dust collectors and use the bucks towards your next plane ticket down south.   I believe that approach is a win, win for everyone involved.  Maybe a less annoying machine will come down the pike soon and you can give that one a go.  Life is too short to stay annoyed because of a metal detector. HH.

Great digs, Steve.

The brass U.S. plate stamps are similar on the belt and box plates so without the backing, it's anyone's guess.  I've seen pictures with very faint/delicate script "I"'s or anchors on those pre-war eagle shield buttons.  Great finds!

Dan - if the lead backing on the U.S. plate is intact and there are wire loops, then the plate is a cartridge box (flap) plate.  If the back has a hook and two "puppy paw" feet, then it is a belt plate.  Either way, something I am still trying to scratch off my bucket list, though I did snag an Eagle Breast Plate that fastens to the cartridge box strap at a site last year.  

Also, the Dragoon Eagle (Eagle "D") is very nice but that pre-Civil War Eagle shield button is really interesting.  Can you make out any letter on the shield?  Possible War of 1812 vintage button.  Nice.

2 minutes ago, Dan(NM) said:

Those are spent blank casings, they used to do reenactments here in the day. They are a major pita ?

Ah, I saw the crimps when I zoomed in.  Yeah, that would be fun to deal with, lol.  But hard work did pay off.  Great saves.  Was that a cartridge box plate?

"GB Auto" - does that mean you were not using Tracking GB (which is recommended in moving salt water)?

Backing off on sensitivity 1 or 2 points out of 20 nets an EMI of F? Uh, OK.

Can you explain in a little more detail how you had to set up the machine differently in wet sand vs. surf?

Nice keepers, esp the plate and those buttons.  Lot's of dropped live ammo in that trash...wow