Chase Goldman

Dry sand, lowering recovery, I say go for it because there is minimal ground feedback to get in the way (which is the primary drawback to lowering recovery speed).  I wouldn't try pushing it too much in the wet sand or surf because you will certainly start picking up ground noise in the wet salt environment.  It is not a panacea.  You will gain perhaps an inch or two perhaps, but frankly, all you are really doing is giving a borderline target a chance to register.  Depth is really more significantly controlled by sensitivity and at the beach I have seen several inch difference between a 17 and a 22 setting in the dry sand, so go as high on sensitivity as the EMI environment will allow.   

But like NSC said, if the targets are there, then you may see an increase.  EIther your are sanded in or you are not.  If you are focusing on surface finds in the dry sand, I don't think increasing depth an inch is really going to up your finds, its not like relatively fresh drops (dry sand) are really hiding just out of reach at depth.  It is in the wet sand and surf where the beach conditions dictate your find count and in the off-season what you are looking for is erosion uncovering those old drops that have sunk in with time.  Probably preaching to the choir here when I look at your profile and detectors owned, but just thought I would mention it, nevertheless.

14 hours ago, staffydog33 said:

IMHO...you and Steve would never say a single negative thing about a Minelab and IMHO....you seem to try and seem to brush off any minelab problems and deny they exist.

Dude, FWIW...If the Equinox exploded when it turned on, you would brush it off and say it's not s fault etc.

Matt

Lol. Actually, Matt, I find your take on me humorous if not ironic as you have seen fit in the past to readily ridicule others for simply posting you tube videos critical of the Equinox.

I know you will find it hard to believe, Matt, but I’m actually brand and detector agnostic when it comes right down to it.  I’m a fan of having a relatively small but diverse mix of brands and machines (Deus, Equinox, GPX (PI), F75, MXT) that each do certain things well that the others do not, so I can use the right tool for the job.  And that’s about all I care about.  I am probably getting close to cutting ties with my venerable Fisher F75 (still the best ergonomics of any detector I have used) and/or the Whites MXT (love those analog controls) and likely will if a concentric coil suddenly shows up for the Equinox, but nothing on the horizon, yet.

Equinox happens to be perhaps the most versatile, but not necessarily the best for everything I like to do. 

Frankly, as far as my Equinox fanboy status is concerned, at the moment, I’m more partial to my Deus, especially with the new x35 coils, for relic hunting, specifically unmasking, in thick iron and mineralized soil.   There, I said it, and glad to get that off my chest.  Lol.

But since this is the “Equinox Fan Club” that is a story for another forum.  

Regarding the 6” coil you are so gutted about. I pointed out in my post where the 6-inch coil excels (which happens to be a very specialized, narrow situational application) and where it frankly is not so great.  Pretty objective post, I thought.  Guess I was wrong.

I read this thread in its entirety (as I am certain you have, too) and I see as much if not more praise (with some incredible finds shown to back it up) as I do criticism for the 6” coil.  As far as the criticism is concerned, some of it seems legit but tied mostly to the update which can be overcome by rolling it back.  I don’t know what all the other forums are saying, but nothing in this thread (or forum) would have dissuaded me from getting the 6” coil for my intended purpose, so I was having trouble reconciling why you were so down on it that you were going to pass.  I simply was just not getting that out of what I had read nor my personal experience with the coil.   That in a nutshell was simply the basis for my post.  But you have decided to deflect to me and the perceived bias you think I have for ML, rather than articulate YOUR specific reasons that you have soured on the 6” coil.  I am sure others could benefit from your reasoning beyond just reiterating that the inter-webs have deemed the 6” coil unworthy.

I frankly don’t overly weigh what the forums or you tube say to make my final product decisions as I like to put the equipment to the test in the field and then make up my own mind.  If it works out, great.  If not, I try to cut my losses as much as possible, sell or return the merchandise, as appropriate, and move on from the duds.  But if you never put your hands on the equipment, purely due to what you read or view on the internet, you may truly be missing out on some gem.  It’s like passing on a target because your machine is telling you it might be junk.  You can’t really be sure unless you dig it out of the ground.  Totally your call, of course, but if you think I have some vested interest in you picking up a 6-inch coil, sorry to disappoint you.

So, in conclusion, as far as my Equinox fanboy status,  I believe you have me pegged all wrong.  But if that’s how you feel about it, fine with me. There’s not a lot I can do about it except not lose any sleep or quit posting my opinions.  Peace.

HH

41 minutes ago, staffydog33 said:

All the complaints in the different gforums about the 6" coil has definitely put me off getting one.

 

Gutted, as I was soooo looking forward to it.

 

Matt

Kind of an over-reaction IMHO, but suit yourself. I understand how you wouldn't want to throw away money.  But IMO, the coil works great for what it is designed to do, hit small areas where it is hard to swing the stock coil.  It’s not an everyday coil or a big beach and field coil, for sure. Perhaps a tad falsy in bed o nails post update but not enough to make me regret the decision or even roll back the update (audio still provides the subtle ferrous cues).  I have recovered some deep, high conductors in swing-restricted situations where I would have no hope swinging the stock coil.  So for me, it is more of a special, situational coil. If that is not how you intended to use the coil, then you are probably not missing much by passing on it.  FWIW.

Nice saves.  The audio can definitely be a telltale to ferrous junk, even if it rings up high.

10 hours ago, Vez said:

I personally have issues with iron in any machine.  Now since the update has come out, the area that I live in has become more precipitous and as a result the ground is more wet.  This makes the iron halo more conductive and appealing to the machine.  The science behind this is actually pretty interesting.  Iron can actually become water soluble when iron oxides (rust) are put in an anoxic (low-no oxygen) environment.  What happens is microbes will cleave the oxygen off of the iron reducing the electron charge of the iron.  The gain of an electron by the iron makes it behave dramatically different and when they are making algorithms for machines they are probably using Fe(III) and not the reduced Fe(II) when creating the way the machine behaves to a metal in the ground.  Makes me wonder if I could take some anoxic ground water loaded with Fe(II) and get it to ring up on my machine. 

 

Anyways, what I am trying to say (in a long winded way) is that ground conditions are changing a lot from day to day and I would give it more time before chalking up to the update being bad for the 6".

As an engineer, I love the science behind this theory, but since I have two Equinoxes, I have purposely kept one dialed back to the original firmware for comparison purposes and while I have not had a chance to do exhaustive, controlled A to B comparisons, I have observed the falsing (or should I say high tone ferrous affinity) associated with the small coil and even the stock coil to be relatively slightly more pronounced with the post upgrade machine vs. pre upgrade at the same site under the same environmental conditions.  Again not scientific, I did not walk around my iron field site carrying two detectors at the same time, just observed switching off between the two over the course of back to back multi-day hunts at the same sites and my qualitative observations. The effect you describe, however, is real and affects ground noise feedback, ground phase variability, and the ground balance tracking algorithm, as well.   The enhanced halo effect in moist ground can definitely result in more falsing overall, but there is something definitely different in the way Equinox responds in this regard post upgrade. 

Frankly, overall I have not seen anything that tangibly compels me to go solely with either the post or pre upgrade firmware versions.  I like that the known User Profile reset bug has been addressed in the update and low profile, high mass, high conductive coin target ID (aka as the quarter on edge issue) response has been improved but perhaps with the subtle downside of falsing being introduced, but I don't think they "broke" anything.  To me, the upgrade is kind of a move sideways from a performance standpoint rather than a full on improvement.  Perhaps that is a function of the Equinox performance being pretty damn good and dialed-in out of the gate, so all ML can do with SW performance tweaks is nibble around the edges which just results tradeoffs while fixing fringe "issues" like this low probability on-edge coin thing and depth meter performance which is inherently unreliable outside of dime-sized targets, anyway.  Regardless, looking forward to the next upgrade.

1 hour ago, Matt in IL said:

Also, I do not use the pinpoint button generally. I isolate the target then approach it both ways to locate it. This will tell you A LOT too.

I use pinpoint, but it’s less about pinpointing and more to get a bead on the depth and profile/footprint of the target.  I use the wiggle off method to actually PP the target (if the target ID confidence is high and I don’t feel I have to interrogate it using PP mode).

On 11/27/2018 at 5:35 AM, Randy Dee said:

With your current settings your Equinox will for ever give falsing on iron as first of all you don't have any BIAS against iron set your "Iron Bias" to 3 or 4 and back off a bit on your "Recovery Speed" to 3 or 4 and work your coil sweeps slightly slower you should then be able to have a higher "Sensitivity" setting of 18 - 20.

And unless you want to hunt for small iron relics and nails whilst using 5 tones, in "Tone Break 1" which is -9 to 2   turn down the " Tone Volume" to 1 and the "Tone Pitch" to 1.

Hope this solves your 6" coil problem.

Randy,

The reason why many relic hunters here in the US shy away from using any iron bias is that it has been shown to exacerbate iron masking of non-ferrous targets in thick iron situations.  I think the downside is that you will then get a lot more falsing and just have to take your medicine then and dig all repeatable falses.  Or you can take the iron bias route and take the chance of missing a masked target.  In these tough bed-o-nails situation it's a pick your poison proposition. 

Amergin-

So the message I have for amergin is, no one said treasure hunting is easy.  The hobby is really all about managing tradeoffs whether it is machine performance quirks, soil conditions, or trash.  Sounds like your best solution (aka tradeoff) is to just roll back the update when using the 6" if you found the perceived pre-update performance to be acceptable and hope 6" performance improves at the next update.  HTH

I found single frequency at 20 khz eeked out additional depth or cleaned up iffy mid-conductive relic signals for me in gold mode at a highly mineralized, high iron site in Virginia.

Otherwise, as others have mentioned it's a last ditch EMI mitigator at noisy sites or can sometimes help pick high conductive keepers through modern trash (use 5 khz) or as a ferrous falsing telltale on bottlecaps (10 khz).

Note that if you go to single frequency while in ANY of the Park or Field modes you remove the Multi IQ frequency weighting and processing that gives each of those modes their unique target optimization "personality" with the only thing left that differentiates them being their tone/disc pattern and user parameter settings (e.g., recovery speed).  Note that you also may lose some of the on-the-fly Multi IQ signal processing ground balance compensation that mitigates less than ideal ground balance settings (though ground balance setting mode works just as it does in Multi).  Finally, iron bias is non-existent in single frequency mode.

3 hours ago, Cabin Fever said:

That is definitely not the norm for us and I can see he is getting discouraged.

He shouldn't get discouraged, he should get Equinox!  ?  

I tell them that I am not poor, but I am unstable, so please don't get me agitated by pestering me with unintelligent questions.

On 11/19/2018 at 2:44 PM, dewcon4414 said:

In the Salt water Chase 50 tones drives me nuts with this machine.   Each of these modes or styles of hunting require us to adapt this machine to those conditions.   But most whose been detecting for many years tend to adjust and get the best out of any detector they use.   Those who cant...... normally were those blind squirrels lol.

Agree, but Randy was talking about gold chains in the context of (UK) field detecting not salt water detecting so in that regard, my comment regarding use of 50 tones or gold mode was applicable to relic hunting using Field 2 in fields or woods.  Obviously, these do not work well in wet salt sand conditions where I typically rely on the default Beach 1/2 mode settings, but that was not the point of the original post.

I work almost exclusively in 50 tones or Gold Mode so N/A for those of us who use those tone options.  Good advice for 5-toners, though.

Another cold weather battery warning - if you are using your detector in cold weather, p. 65 warns that you should not charge the battery if the temperature is below 32F.  This is because the chemical process that occurs when charging a Li Ion cell is altered if the temperature is too low resulting in conversion of Lithium to metallic form which will prematurely lower the capacity of your battery.    It is ok to discharge the battery at less than 32F (in fact the manual lists the minimum operating temperature as 14F), just don't attempt to charge the battery on the fly (such as by using a strapped on power bank) when out in the cold.

I was blown away by the light weight of the big coil.  Still running it through its paces performance wise, but like what I see so far.

Beside the incredible jewelry finds you post, your consistent recovery of older nickel, wheatie, and silver coins from your beaches impresses me most.

Single freq is pretty obvious from a quick glance at the display.  Since I run Multi most of the time it always stands out if I am in single and I see the frequency displayed vs. the multifrequency "brackets" or whatever that symbol is.  It pretty much alerts me to the fact that I am in single if I didn't otherwise know that I was because the display looks noticeably different than normal.  Alarm not required imho.  Just my two cents.

I also agree with Steve on the swap of the user profile and frequency buttons.  That would be ideal based on how frequently I use User Profile vs. frequency switch.

If there was a alarm or alert provided, I wish it was like the beach mode high mineralization alert symbol but without any control function like in the beach mode which reduces transmit power.  Just something to let you know that there is high mineralization (in the absence of a mineralization meter which would be ideal but a significant modification at this point) present regardless of mode.  Since the warning symbol and algorithm already exist, it seems it would not be too difficult to implement without significant code changes.  Again just my two cents.

Had the name mixed up.  Here's the link:

66 AUDIO - BTS Pro - Wireless Bluetooth 4.2 Headphones https://www.amazon.com/dp/B01M8M4PU7/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_apa_2LQ6Bb4TQYHV5

Don't get the newer (blue) model, it is not APTX LL.

Update the headphone firmware per this post to get the BT+ symbol on your Equinox:

3 hours ago, dewcon4414 said:

Steve...... does the larger coil loose sensitivity to your smaller gold pickers.........but gain more on the coin end?   Was the coil shaped this away to try and maintain some of that low conductor sensitivity?   In the water i dont have a lot of trash right now ..... or any targets much because of the sanded conditions.......but minerals and iron do seem to gather requiring me to run recovery at 4 for less chatter.   im still wondering what the depth difference would be between the two coils on say a 5 gram ring IN the water? 

I know you directed your questions to Steve but allow me to pitch in with some conments as I recently acquired the 15" coil:

Coil Shape/Depth:  The elliptical shape simply enables 15" swing coverage while conserving weight vs. a 15" round coil.  ML was going for a high coverage coil that provides slightly more depth performance than the stock 11" coil (which is a fairly deep coil for its size already) with a MINIMAL weight penalty.  Having swung this coil for a few hours, I would say "Mission accomplished!"  The depth performance is subject to SO many variables that in fact you may find that under certain conditions for certain specific targets you may actually find the 11" gives better depth.  So you can say that in general you would expect to gain an inch or two perhaps in depth over the stock at best.  In beach mode (most sensitive to high conductors), not sure there would be that much difference between the two coils in depth on your heavy mid-conductive (gold) target. But would have to explicitly run a test to be sure.

Chatter and recovery speed: The interaction of recovery speed, proper ground balancing, swing speed and sensitivity is complex.  If you find you have to lower recovery speed to reduce ground noise chatter due to black sand mineralization which is what I think you are describing, that is actually odd because lowering recovery speed usually tends to increase ground noise effects.  Are you running GB tracking?  In your case, lowering recovery speed is not otherwise detrimental, you don't run a high risk of missing masked targets since your trash is low density.  But if I was getting a lot of chatter I would ensure I: had a good noise cancel; had sat GB or use tracking; and perhaps back off on sensitivity; with lowering recovery speed last on my list.  But that's just me.

At about 20 ms the WM08 indeed does have less latency/delay than the APTX LL at about 30 ms, but am hard pressed to be able actually perceive the difference between the two vs. even wired headphones.  But APTX and non-APTX BT headphones are really not useable for detecting because of the 100 to 200+ ms delay.  I like the WM08 for the ability to use any wired detecting headset but wish it used a 1/4" plug so an adapter wouldn't be necessary.  

On 11/7/2018 at 4:32 PM, Cal_Cobra said:

Looks like a cool feature, but has a ton of limitations.  For example, must be on a cellular network (perhaps WiFi networks too), and everyone has to have an iWatch:

https://www.zdnet.com/article/apple-watchs-walkie-talkie-is-practically-useless/

For me and my friend, when we're in remote areas with no cell reception it wouldn't work,  and more importantly he's an android user, and it only works from iWatch to iWatch.

I ordered that walkie talkie Bluetooth adapter under the premise that it will work with my Minelab BT headphones (vendor is saying it will pair with any BT device).   Should be an interesting test, and I love being wireless.  Once you go wireless, you don't want to go back to cables!

So you have a pair of walkie talkies/FRS radios that are compatible with this BT receiver/transmitter gizmo you previously mentioned as this in itself is not a standalone walkie talkie?  Care to mention the specific model, because the Baofung ht mentioned in the Amz listing of the gizmo requires an amateur radio license to be legal.  Would be convenient to use with a compatible FRS/GMRS ht when out of cellular range,  I suppose.  But since I wouldn't be continuously talking on the radio, just having a wired speaker/mike clipped to my shirt/jacket would probably work just as well as this thing, with less claptrap (additional batteries to be charged for the receiver/transmitter/ptt unit etc.).  Interesting gadget, nevertheless.  Let us know how you like it after you put it through its paces in the field, CC.  Thanks.

On 11/8/2018 at 7:49 PM, Dubious said:

Well, for anyone who isn't a fan of the 800's stock headphones, or who like me has the 600 and a choice, I like my Avantree Audition Pro low latency headphones.  Better yet are my Sennheiser CX 6.00 low latency earbuds, which don't interfere with my hat.

 

While I applaud the ML designers on the multitude of built-in wired and wireless options in the Equinox itself, I, like Dubious, do not count myself among those overly enamored of the ML BT headset (or more accurately, the mass produced clone/knockoff headset that ML chose to stick their logo on) so pardon me if I get real for a minute or two with some constructive, real-world criticism, even though I am an unabashed lifetime member of the Equinox fan club.  Lol.

It works, true, with good, low-latency audio, ok comfort, and decent battery life as others have said, and I like that you can use it in wired mode should the battery die in the field, but it also has several drawbacks for in-the-field use including: 

 - No IP rating for dust and weather/moisture resistance.  These will last about as long as the Wicked Witch of the West if you are caught out in a drenching downpour without a means to quickly protect them from the rain drops and forget about chancing it in shallow water hunting (one inadvertent dunk or slip off your head and they are done).   While this is true of many wired detecting headphones, I would think that ML might have gone with a third party model (or even an in-house designed model) that had some moisture resistance (they do exist, but are hard to find - see below), since the Equinox itself is designed to weather the elements.  Granted this might add to the overall cost, but based on where ML has priced the headset as a separately purchased accessory, I think it really could have been done without moving the needle on the Equinox 800 MAP/MSRP.

  - There is practically no tactile feel from the control buttons, even bare-handed (fuggetabouttit with gloves on) and if your hands or gloves have any dirt or mud on them, God forbid that you get debris lodged in the button cavities as this will cause them to cease functioning properly. 

  -The charge port seems a little flimsy too (thin plastic shell) and may not be able to take several years of even non-abusive plugging/unplugging for charging at this high stress point.  Certainly, not as beefy as the Equinox and WM-08 charge ports, though those are proprietary vs. using the industry standard micro USB or USB-C plugs which, itself, is a drawback.

Balky control button and charge port issues have been previously reported by a couple forum members.  Thankfully, ML covers the headset with the same warranty as the detector so you can get it replaced (perhaps repeatedly so, if necessary) within the first three years and if you are beyond the warranty period, you can get the 3rd party clone/knockoff branded version for about 1/3 the price of the identical ML branded accessory.  So while not exactly hassle free in terms of having to ship stuff back, etc.,  ML is standing behind their BT accessory headset, and that is a really good thing, especially in this case, and it can be replaced, relatively inexpensively, out of warranty if you can stomach not having the ML logo on your headset.

As a result of the issues cited above and for warm weather comfort, I chose to go with the relatively more expensive (and slightly more rugged) Audio 66 APTX LL BT Pro back phones, recommended by another forum member, that are IP rated for dust, sweat and moisture resistance (but not immersion proof) so should stand up better to field use and they also boast great comfort, and audio as well as positive control button engagement.  I will save the ML BT headset for occasional cold weather use in those situations where they will be less subject to in-the-field abuse from the elements and my dirty digging gloves.  Perhaps they will outlast the warranty period if I use them in this occasional manner.

When I'm covered head-to-toe in wet, red Virginia clay next week after 6-days of relic hunting, hopefully I will still have a functioning set of ML branded BT headphones at the end of it all (it will likely be a little too cold for my Audio 66 backphones and a perhaps a little too wet for the ML BT headset on some days, so I will likely mostly go with my waterproof wired phones for next week's adventure when I'm using the Equinox instead of the GPX).

In any event, kudos to ML for giving us no less than four built-in audio options with the Equinox 600/800 (speaker/wired/low latency non-proprietary bluetooth/ultra low latency/multi-user wi-stream wireless (WM 08)) which provides amazing audio flexibility that far outstrips just about any other detector out there and should be the audio template for all future ML detectors (i.e., hoping ML does not come out with yet another model-specific, proprietary wireless solution and perhaps more rugged wireless headphones for their next detector model).  This flexibility provides you with the ability to use at least a couple of alternatives to the wireless BT headset should the conditions preclude you from using the headset (e.g., rain) or if they do break.  It is because of this overall audio design flexibility provided by ML with the Equinox that I have basically not bothered mentioning the admittedly relatively minor flaws of the provided BT headset (until now) and is also probably why ML was willing to cut a few minor corners in their BT headset choice, which mostly gets the job done.

1 hour ago, dewcon4414 said:

No I didn’t go back through the thread.  My phone for some reason won’t let me do anything except first and last page.   I appoligise for any toe I may have stepped on.  Was he hunting salt water?  I’ll have to get on the computer when I get home.   But Chase still not a lot of buzz on the coil for this machine.  I’ll do more research....thanks

well I went back and seen his thread.  Very little info since he hadn’t hunted but a couple of times in the water and seemed to be addressing his park hunts.  

No worties. I just thought it was notable because his was the first in water report I had seen of the big coil, especially addressing coil drag, so it struck me when you said you hadn't heard any.  It is going to be Spring/Sumner for our friends Down Under so we should be getting some additional reports of water usage from them.  Only the real hard core US and UK/European users getting in the water at this point, so that could have something to do with the sparse water reporting in addition to being few coils on the street at this point.  Wish I had one for my upcoming Central VA relic hunt in hot ground.

1 hour ago, dewcon4414 said:

Seems there are a ton of them out there now......... wheres the reviews or whats being found with them at what depth?   Normally by this time we have the placebo affect on new products.   Ive not seen anyone using them in the water yet or talking about it.

Well, Dew, you posted right in NSC's thread and he discussed actually using it in the water...so at least give him some love...or acknowledgement.  Perhaps you just missed it when you read his post...

On 10/31/2018 at 4:17 PM, steveg said:

Hi all!

I have a site where -- for some reason -- I dig a TON of moderate-depth wheat cents, but very little silver.  It's a small strip of grass, next to where a pool used to be located, on a former country club site.

ANYWAY, I went through there many times with my old Explorer, and pretty well "cleaned it out," as far as the Explorer's capability goes.  The coins are intermingled with quite a bit of iron/nails, and so many are masked by the iron.   But given that caveat, there was not much else there, once I "finished," that the Explorer was able to "clue me in on," in terms of there being any coins left.

Well, when I got the Equinox, I thought it would be a great "test site."  I went through that small strip of grass with the 11" coil, as a "test," to see how well the Equinox's improved ability to work in iron (compared to my Explorer) would actually show itself "in the field."  Well, it did not disappoint.  I believe I turned up about a dozen wheats and a Rosie, all from a this small grassy area that I'd hit MULTIPLE times with the Explorer and various coils, and all of the coins under, or very near, iron.  I had nails in just about every hole -- which explains why the Explorer missed these coins.

Having said that, I did have to "work" each one of those targets with the Equinox pretty carefully, listening very closely to hear the chirps of high-tone mixed in with the iron tones, and then to try and figure out which of those high tones were just "falses," and which ones were hints of a coin.  Still, though, like I said, the Equinox enabled me to pull roughly a dozen coins out of a small area that -- after many trips with the Explorer -- would have suggested a conclusion that the site was about "played out."  NOT SO, though, for the Equinox!  This was a great testimonial to the ability of the EQX, from my perspective. 

I had not hunted the site again, since.

So, fast forward to few nights ago.  I headed back to this same spot, still with the 11" coil, but this time with the updated software version.  In a very short hunt, over this same, small grassy area, I recovered three more wheats, and several '60s Memorial pennies, all of which were "missed" when I hunted it with the Equinox before.  While it's not surprising that I "missed" several coins the last time, as it was only one hunt with the EQX, what WAS surprising is that several of the ones I dug this time were OBVIOUS -- yes, they were still within iron, but I was able to get the machine to really "lock on" to the high tone, from several angles, that left almost NO DOUBT that there was a coin down there, in the nails.  The targets were so "easy" to pick out from the iron, that I'm surprised I missed them last time.  Now -- I'm not sure if the fact that it was "easier" to hear these particular coins in the nails (coins that literally stood out to my ears like a "sore thumb" amongst the iron tones), was simply due to several more months of experience on the machine since the last time I hunted this site, OR whether that new software build is allowing the machine to "unmask" in iron even better than it did before.

Any thoughts from anyone?  Has anyone else perhaps noticed the new software build offering better ability to "unmask?"  (Or, was what I experienced more likely to be simply additional experience on the machine?)  It was a pretty stark, obvious observation, and the several months that have elapsed between these two hunts (with two different versions of software) offer a unique scenario to "analyze..."  Was it "more experience," or was it assistance offered by the new software?

Steve 

Steve - here is my thought - why aren't you hitting that spot with the 6 inch coil.  Lol.

It is on my to do list to do some side by side comparisons of pre and post update firmware.  I donated my 600 and have 2 800's now and can do some true side by side.  Some non-exhaustuve side-by-side testing indicates differences between the two firmware versions both good and bad.  Want to do coil comparisons too.

In addition to the swing angle of attack as pointed out by Sinclair and the detect ability variations that come from using different detectors, other factors that keep sites from being hunted out include the different moisture content of the soil on different days, target corrosion rates, and the fact that targets in the ground ARE CONSTANTLY ON THE MOVE due to frost heave, tilling, plowing, fertilizing, aerating, rain, and root action as well as other reasons.  Not only does this change the depth of the targets or their relative locations, it changes their orientation in the ground (edge up to flat up) or their proximity to masking junk.  So even if a site us not being refreshed, if it has absorbed a lot of targets, it will be difficult to fully clean it out.  A "proclaimed" hunted out site is usually a fallacy.

57 minutes ago, Tnsharpshooter said:

Try the following experiment.

First check your ground doing a manual GB (preferably in medium mineralized ground).

Note number in window when balancing is complete.

Next Manual dial in 0 GB.

Select tracking and start sweeping your coil in area where you balanced above over clean ground.  Do this for 2-3 minutes and then go check what Equinox GB is reflecting in window.

I posted about this when I first got my Equinox.

Now, could higher mineralization ground levels make Equinox track faster?

I haven’t checked.

see this link page 5 where I comment on this.

I will check again today and compare to a few other detectors.

May have to post in detectors comparisons subforum though.

 

Your comment about using tracking using gold modes have merit.

One thing though.

Gold modes can be killer modes to use even in milder ground especially seeking relics in ferrous and even deeper.

Folks should remember Imo less filtering is happening therefore a more spot on GB is necessary in order for Equinox to identify tonally ferrous vs nonferrous.  Definitley more latitude here using more typical detect modes on Equinox.  I use gold modes quite a bit especially in already hard hunted sites.

David, thanks for linking back and reminding me about your original test thread.  Good info.

I think it is a good reminder that if you are going to use tracking GB at a site, be mindful of where GB is initially set in the mode that you are going to use as it may indeed take awhile for tracking GB to "catch up" if there is a huge disparity in the actual ground balance vs. the setting when you start to swing.  So it DOES make sense to always do a manual GB before you start if you are using tracking just to make sure tracking starts at a number near the actual ground phase for the site you are detecting.

But as long as you start tracking near the actual ground phase reading, even in highly mineralized ground, I have not seen huge swings in ground phase that would result in the inability of tracking to keep up.  I base this on two experiences.  I rarely get canary noises or ground noise grunts (in All Metal) when using tracking in mineralized ground. If I forget to use tracking in mineralized ground I do start to get the ground grunts or canary sounds, switching into tracking gives me a much smoother "ride" and keeps me from having to constantly rebalance.

Your experiment and test results also made me think of a lot of questions:

1) I know that we have always treated each of the search modes like a separate detector (requiring us to EMI noise cancel and ground balance each search mode separately when using at a site) particularly, as evidenced by the different ground phase readings each mode generates on the same plot of ground when doing a manual/auto ground balance (e.g., Park 1 may generate a 10 while Field 2 may generate a 35 when GB on the same patch of ground).  That tells me that the Multi IQ  "personalities" may have some effect on the GB algorithm either due to the unique mode signal processing algorithms or the frequency weightings, so I wonder if tracking works "better" on certain modes vs. others.

2) I wonder why it takes so long for GB tracking to catch up the "real" GB number if there is a huge, say 50+ point< difference in real and "starting" GB number while auto GB seems to be able to readjust after just a few pumps.

3)  I wonder if recovery speed has any effect on GB tracking responsiveness.

4) Finally, I wonder if tracking performance is affected by single frequency ops.

Might have to try some experiments and welcome your thoughts.

But as far as tracking is concerned, in general, under real life conditions in mild to hot soil, I have found it to work out just fine. I think it is prudent to always do a manual/auto GB before starting out in tracking to normalize your initial GB setting close to the actual site conditions. Thanks!

9 minutes ago, Alluminati said:

I agree that it looks like it would gain you more coverage then depth compared to the 11" coil.

The 15" is elliptical, which may not be as deep as if the coil was actually 15" wide.

The stock coil is 11" round DD, almost as wide as this 15"x12".

Making this particular coil egg shaped brings back some sensitivity to smaller items that may have been lost when up sizing the coil. Its a similar aspect ratio to the little 5"x10" prospecting coils etc.

The other thing the elliptical shape does is make the coil lighter.  You trade off 15" coverage at a lower weight for a small decrease in depth performance vs. a 15" round coil.