Chase Goldman

Are you frustrated about not having a published price or because they likely won’t be available before Equinox ships?

Regarding publishing the price, there is no reason why they couldn’t.  But from their perspective there is also no reason why they should (annoying, I know).  In comparison, publishing the price for the Equinox as early as they did, on the other hand, was purely a marketing decision to capture buyers and keep them from plunking down cash on an AT Max.  They are only selling the coils to Equinox buyers so putting a price out in advance of sales will not Impact whether someone will buy a coil especially since there is no 3rd party competition (for now).

However, I do agree, as Steve and others have pointed out, that they have missed an opportunity to make some sales by not having accessories also available for preorder.  But this is generally par for the course for detector manufacturers.  Accessory coils and even the compatible wireless headsets for the Nokta Impact were not available for several weeks after Impact launch.

As long as they post the price when they are actually built and for sale, that’s good enough for me.  It’s going to be what it’s going to be.

You lost me on the criteria you specified on coil height, coin composition, and nail corrosion.  Can you elaborate on the "whys" behind your specific controls?  Thanks.

I truly wonder what percentage of detectorists are actually able to pay for their machines with their finds.  To me, as a working stiff and family man, I cannot find enough time off to be able to detect as much as I would like to or would have to to be able to "pay for my detector."  If I had the time due to being retred but on a VERY limited income or even unemployed, it seems that more import life expenses would take priority.  If payback time were a factor in my detector buying decision I would be just paying off my Tek Delta.  I only ever cash in clad and selling "collectable" finds is not an option and I do not find enough unreturnable jewelry to really cash in.  Also, thinking about my detector that way smacks of work and getting as far away from the stresses of work is a primary reason why I detect.  Lol.

BTW Steve has taken the time to consolidate Minelab information about Multi IQ and how it is used by the various detect modes.  This page also includes a link to the quick start guide for the Equinox which has additional info incuding detailed information regarding differences between the 600 and 800 models.

http://www.detectorprospector.com/metal-detecting/minelab-multi-iq-technology-details-explained.htm

Based on user testing, other reading and quotes from XP folks like Gary Blackwell on other forums, I think I have pieced together what this Ground Sensitivity thing is doing.

First of all we need to take a look back at what XP was trying to accomplish with GB tracking.  

This is speculation because XP does not discuss much about secret sauce, but I believe prior to version 4 software, XP executedGB tracking as a time based feature.  In other words, while in tracking XP simply periodically measured ground phase reading and adjusted accordingly (say every 1.0 seconds).  This had the unfortunate drawback of cause ground phase reading to abruptly change when you were swinging over a ferrous target that had a pronounced effect over the localized ground phase reading and resulted in the dreaded disappearing target trick, wherein the target would simply disappear if you swung the coil over it enough times while in tracking mode provided the target affected the local ground phased reading (e.g., large iron target or hot rock). 

To solve this problem, I believe that in version 4, XP decided to use ground mineralization index as a trigger point to initialize a ground phase measurement.  Changes in subsequent mineralization index readings above a certain threshold would initiate a new ground phase reading.  The problem with this approach was that in highly mineralized soils you could get large swings in mineralization index which could result in unstable ground phase readings.

In an effort to fix this issue, I believe,  XP in version 4.1 implemented a user adjustable ground sensitivity setting that determines how much of a relative change in mineralization index needs to occur before the Deus takes a new ground phase reading for tracking purposes.  If the sensitivity is set low (e.g., towards 1) then a really significant change in mineralization index needs to occur (think of this as a large spike occurring on the mineralization bar graph meter before a ground phase reading is taken for tracking purposes.  If sensitivity is set high (e.g., towards 10) then only small changes in the mineralization index need to occur before a ground phase reading is taken for tracking purposes (think of only a small blip change in the mineralization bar graph changing).  So a 10 setting would be good if you wanted ground tracking on dry white sugar sand beaches with little mineralization and little change in mineralization and a 1 setting might be good in Culpeper which has high mineralization and large swings in the index.  What is unknown is what threshold change in mineralization is required for each sensitivity setting, whether the effect is linear, whether the magnitude of the mineralization index and not just the change in the index has any bearing on what you should set ground sensitivity (i.e., is it a percentage change in the baseline reading or an absolute change), and, finally, whether positive AND negative changes in mineralization index are tracked or only positive/increasing (or negative/decreasing) changes.  We do know that if a change in mineralization index above the threshold is not sensed for 7 seconds, ground phase defaults to 88 (this might happen, too, if the coil is stationary for greater than 7 seconds).

From reading information from a variety of sites and forums, it seems, according to Gary Blackwell, that XP had the version 4 software set to an equivalent ground sensitivity setting of 10 (!).  Also, Tn's testing has shown for some reason that the effect of the ground sensitivity setting seems to be less pronounced when using the HF coils.  Strange... (note that the HF coils are not "updated" when the version 4.1 update is applied to the Deus).

Bottom line, if you want to play it "safe" for most circumstances and soil mineralizations, using the default sensitivity of 6 is a good start (anywhere between 5 and 7 should work). 

To me the Equinox is like having simultaneous multifrequency on the Deus, if recovery speed is actually in the same ballpark as the Deus which it appears to be.  With the Deus HF coils, you can still push the Deus above the maximum frequency of the Equinox which may afford some advantages in specific situations and of course the Deus is more compact to travel with and still only 67% the weight of the Equinox.  To compete, Deus needs to come up with its own version of Mult IQ and really Minelab has cornered the market on that innovation both in terms of patents AND optimizing the feature.

Yeah, I figured it was an early "prototype" coil.  But gotta keep those conspiracy theorists busy.

Anything we should know about the white colored coil on that Equinox, Steve?  LOL.

26 minutes ago, Chase Goldman said:

Hostility?  Seriously?  Are we talking about human rights or metal detectors?

 

Actually, I think I can make the same argument for the Deus vs. the Equinox.  In my opinion they will compliment each other.  I can see myself using the Equinox under many situations (definitely over the Deus at wet salt beach hands down and possibly over the Deus in highly mineralized soil for relic hunting, we'll be testing that this spring).  But I still see situations where the Deus with the small elliptical coil may be the right choice over the Equinox for both accessibility, weight, and the fact that I can operate the Deus at frequencies higher than the Equinox can achieve.  I think less of a "complimentary role" argument can be made for detectors such as the Garrett AT series, Whites MXT,/MX Sport, Nokta Impact, and Fisher F75 (except for coil choice) and similar First Texas detectors vs. the Equinox which appears to eclipse those detectors across the board.

Apologies for quoting myself, but with respect to the Deus vs. Equinox argument (or CTX vs. Equinox, for that matter), I think a valid point could be made that my perspective for the above is that with the exception of the Impact and CTX which I just mentioned,  I have or presently own all of the above detectors.  If I did not already own a Deus, and purchased an Equinox and it lived up to its promise, would I run out and buy a Deus to compliment it?  That is a key question.  I am thinking, at this point, no.  Same thing regarding a CTX.  Even knowing they are likely complimentary to the Equinox (i.e., superior to the Equinox under some specific circumstances), it would need to be a very compelling gap before I would pony up the $ to purchase either of these high end detectors on top of the Equinox.

In other words, asking those already owning a Deus or CTX and who are thinking about getting an Equinox if they would then get rid of their Deus/CTX would be quite a different answer than asking those who presently own neither and who are getting an Equinox if they would then buy a Deus/CTX (unless selling the Deus/CTX was necessary to make purchasing the Equinox viable).   Just because someone answers "no" in the second scenario does not mean that they do not necessarily consider the Deus/CTX complimentary to the Equinox.  It is a nuanced argument, but an important aspect to consider, IMO, when discussing the concept of the flagship detector.  It certainly should not be something that should generate hostility among existing CTX owners or those who are contemplating either the CTX or the Equinox.

Similar to the point Steve was making earlier, I understand that folks are uncomfortable with the whole Equinox vs. CTX thing because most people look at the Flagship detector as the detector that encompasses all the features of it's lesser cousins, an evolutionary paradigm.  Using the evolutionary metaphor, I think of the Equinox as a parallel branch off the multifrequency evolutionary tree, and as such it cannot hold up to a pure apples to apples comparison with the CTX or Excal or eTrac etc... (that is somewhat borne out by Minelabs own multifrequency evolutionary technology charts).  The thing about the Equinox is that it is ALSO fast and light weight and that makes it truly "disruptive" tech as is the popular term for such things whether you are talking cell phones, laptops, virtual reality headsets, or automobiles.

1 hour ago, Bayard said:

This ambiguity is the source of resistance and hostility.

 

Hostility?  Seriously?  Are we talking about human rights or metal detectors?

7 minutes ago, Steve Herschbach said:

Equinox was made to compete with the Garrett AT and XP Deus, not the CTX. Now think about Deus versus CTX. Which is better? Most reasonable people would say there are things each excels at, and that a CTX and Deus complement each other well. Only partisans insist on going further and making one out to be “better” than the other. One is not better than the other per se, they are just different. Which is “better” depends on the task at hand.

The same story is true with CTX versus Equinox. Seeking clear, pat answers smothers the reality that one is not better than the other. There are targets a CTX might do better on and targets a Equinox might do better on. The CTX in some ground will have an edge for depth on some silver. In other ground the machines will be a match. Equinox has the clear edge in trash, and can easily find coins that the CTX can’t find due to masking. CTX is likely to be more stable in saltwater, Equinox a little less so due to being the “hotter” machine.

Trying to force detectors into a “lineup” is something done for marketing purposes, and they always line them up by price. Does that mean more expensive detectors are always better? Of course not.

I would love to be the provider of easy pat answers but that would be misleading people and is not true. Anyone that clearly states that a CTX is a better machine under all circumstances than an Equinox or that an Equinox is clearly better than a CTX under all circumstances is either ignorant or a liar. It just does not work that way in real life. I am therefore planting my feet firmly on ambiguous ground because that is where reality is. Those seeking to pigeon hole one detector as “best” are closing their minds to the concept that all machines excel in some ways for some people. My advice is keep an open mind and realize no detector has a corner on “best”. The goal for me is to figure out how to get any one detector to do the best job it can, but I don’t insist the detector must be perfect at everything.

Actually, I think I can make the same argument for the Deus vs. the Equinox.  In my opinion they will compliment each other.  I can see myself using the Equinox under many situations (definitely over the Deus at wet salt beach hands down and possibly over the Deus in highly mineralized soil for relic hunting, we'll be testing that this spring).  But I still see situations where the Deus with the small elliptical coil may be the right choice over the Equinox for both accessibility, weight, and the fact that I can operate the Deus at frequencies higher than the Equinox can achieve.  I think less of a "complimentary role" argument can be made for detectors such as the Garrett AT series, Whites MXT,/MX Sport, Nokta Impact, and Fisher F75 (except for coil choice) and similar First Texas detectors vs. the Equinox which appears to eclipse those detectors across the board.

52 minutes ago, dirtyntx said:

You can always grab one of those portable battery packs to charge your headphones and Nox...

The only drawback being that while you can run the Equinox while charging, you typically cannot run BT headphones while charging them.

In the other APT X headphone thread are some links to $30 US sports style (i.e., moisture resistant) APT X earbuds.  They are not bank breakers, but you should definitely look for APT X vs. run of the mill bluetooth earphones to avoid lag.

2 minutes ago, Toddbbq said:

I am considering modding a magnetic charging head to use as a terminal protector sealed with  dielectric grease to keep them protected from the saltwater and to prevent voltage bleed which may be possible but wont know for sure till I test with multimeter in the water.

 

 

 

 

That is actually a GOOD idea based on anecdotal stories of corrosion causing battery drain and damage on Deus coils where the charging terminals are exposed to salt water.  Some folks have used simple electrical tape solutions, but the magnetic protector would be cool (perhaps with a lanyard if it gets accidentally bumped in use or in the surf).

Ditto.  You have received several "Trophies" from me.  I feel almost like I've already been swinging the Equinox based on the info you have provided here.

Folks if you are spending 12 straight hours in the water, might need to take a break for lunch (and you can recharge then) but don't go back in too soon so you don't get a cramp.  Lol.  Seriously, if you charge up your battery pack fully b4 your hunt, it should basically last you ALL DAY unless ML botched it.  Should not have to rig up an in water charging solution.  If you are not in the water you can also charge on the fly, but that should be a rare necessity.  This is based on my experience with the Deus where I have to worry about FOUR LiIon batteries (coil, control box, headphones, and pinpointer) and it has NEVER hindered an ALL DAY relic hunting session like a DIV for me.

Steve - thanks for the tip on the user profile button.  That is a great feature.  When I am using a Deus I like to "interrogate" the target using both tone and pitch modes at different frequencies and this can easily be accomplished using the +/- buttons on the Deus remote.  Though not as flexible, having the user profile button will enable a similar approach with different "modes" of Multi IQ.

Regarding Gold Mode VCO, similar to but not as responsive as Gold Field on the Deus but I see it can be a useful tool for more than just nugget hunting.

I take it that VCO cannot be selected as an "audio tone" choice for any of the other search modes - only Gold Field?

Finally, after viewing your video, and listening to Lunk's discussion of how the detector was set up when he had the chance to swing it at the conference, it really sounds to me that he was NOT in gold mode.  He seems to be describing the Park or Field tone.  But you would know best having actually swung the Equinox.  I guess the only way to know for sure is to have Lunk weigh in on which of the tones most closely matched what he was hearing when he got to swing the Equinox.

Sounds about right.  And I guess soneone else has $600 to spend towards a new Equinox.  Win-Win!

2 hours ago, NSC said:

Thank you kindly.

I did look at those but I prefer the type with wings that wrap around the ear, they hold on and do not move around.

Anker Soundbuds Curve aptX look to me  like what I have been using.

Heres to sweet tones 

Those are the ones I have.  Just waiting for an APT X comoatble metal detector to testvthem out on.  Anyone know where I can get one? 

4 minutes ago, Lunk said:

Perhaps, or maybe the machine was in another mode and I just didn’t notice and thought it was in Gold Mode.?

That sounds more likely than the oddball configuration I was postulating.  What's cool is, if that was the case, that you were hitting on such small targets and could pick up the gold test target just fine even when you were not in gold mode!  It's intimidating to be handed a machine cold and then swing it when you are not intimately familiar with the user interface.  It's almost a little like flying blind (or when you swung a metal detector the first time out without out knowing what all the adjustments actually do) because its hard to pick up the visual clues of your selected mode off an unfamiliar screen.  Until you are used to the icons and layout, it just looks cluttered plus you are mainly focusing on the audio and target id when you have such limited time to play around with it.

Sounds like what Steve was describing in his Gold Mode write-up is the audio you desire.  Perhaps Mark's machine didn't have this latest audio tweak that Steve was describing for some reason.  Thanks for the info.

17 minutes ago, Lunk said:

Just as a matter of my personal preference, I hope there is one more tweak to the Gold Mode, and that is the audio response; I mentioned to Mr. Lawrie that typically with Minelab gold machines (and the prospecting mode on the X-terra 705) the audio response changes in pitch and volume, increasing as the coil gets closer to the target. This allows the operator to approximate how deep a target is. The audio response of the EQX gold mode, however, was just a single-tone beep of constant volume and pitch, just like the other modes.

Are you saying that the audio did not respond as a VCO (variable volume/pitch) as described in Steve's post here:

Also, you mentioned multifrequency was an option in your original post.  Did you get to swing it in multifrequency (the default) AND single frequency during your test?  If so, was there any difference in responsiveness that you could observe?

I know they are not the minelabs, but should be similar with respect to battery life.  Specifically, I have never had the Deus detector outlast the Deus wireless headphones on a charge.  I would suspect that would be case with both the supplied Minelab APT X headphones AND the supplied WM 08 wireless module that you can plug your existing wired headphones into.  Believe me, wireless really frees you up during target recovery in farm field relic recovery where, as you know, you typically have to maneuver around to dig larger, deep holes often with the detector lying on the ground.  And remember, you can stay wireless longer by using the APT X phones, and then if they somehow do not last the entire session, you can, in a pinch, whip out a set of wired phones WITH the WM 08 wireless module and still stay untethered from the detector. HTH

I think the 600 will serve you well as a starter unit you can grow with.  That being said, the value of the 800 may be greater than the 600 because of the included wireless hardware.  But are the bells and whistles of the 800 needed for the beginning detectorist?  No.  If you can afford 800 (i.e., price is not an obstacle) can the 800 be a good machine for a beginner?  Yes.  The additional bells and whistles are not going to get in the way of learning the machine and the provided wireless audio components are very convenient accessories to have.  Note the 600 also supports wireless BT headsets and proprietary ML wireless modules but you will have to bring or buy your own.  HTH

The flip side to my discussion is that there is no point in relearning something  2 or 3 times because it is in a state of flux, so it makes sense to not lean forward too much.  It’s always good to occasionally tell yourself “don’t forget to breath.”  Lol

Sorry, guess I’m splitting hairs but just trying to get a handle on the Gold Mode SW version Lunk was using.  I latched on to his statement that Multi was an option (vs. stating it was the default) which could have meant it was earlier than when ML recently made Multi the default setting.  Guess I was mistaken that there was an interim iteration.   Thanks for correcting my misinformation.  

It’s hard being on the outside and trying to piece the bits of info together to get the big picture or to correlate operational reviews especially when the target is moving (e.g., the “recent” change to Gold Mode) and as ML trickles the info out in multi part bog posts. So bear with us not in the know folks just trying to differentiate between fact and fiction as we piece the puzzle together.

Why bother now when all will be revealed once it is released?  Because I am aiming to get a running start on understanding this beast so I can minimize the learning curve in the field once it finally delivers.

Plus as an engineer, I tend to go a little overboard on precision in communicating technical information.  My apologies.