Jump to content

Chase Goldman

Member
  • Posts

    4,131
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    16

 Content Type 

Forums

Detector Prospector Magazine

Detector Database

Downloads

Calendar

Everything posted by Chase Goldman

  1. As has been said before, it really comes down to how fast the detector can process and display target IDs - this is known as recovery speed and the faster you swing, you reduce the ability of the detector to fully process the signal for two reasons - it has less target data and closely-spaced adjacent targets can be missed or misinterpreted while the detector is processing the last target signal.
  2. Right - it is a matter of design tradeoffs to reach the desired objective. XP was gunning for reducing claptrap and sources of frustration IN THE FIELD with a completely wireless platform - i.e. dealing with coil wires to change coils, reducing weight to the bare minimum (again cables matter here) and enabling a verstile setup that enables various configurations including detecting without the need for the controller box because most of the processing is done in the coil and wireless phones provide for the essential detector controls (albeit with some limitations and a cumbersome interface). Achieving that objective and its resulting advantages results in most of the downsides mentioned here that tend to counter some of the advantages (i.e., coil cost vs. ease of replacement, fewer accessory coil options, limitations in underwater use, extra batteries to deal with but that is now a fact of life with ANY detector if you choose to use wireless audio and pinpointer accessories)). In Deus II it appears that XP has tried to address at least one of the most glaring weaknesses of a completely wireless platform - underwater usage - by dealing with the environmental sealing of the control unit and making the antenna a very simple clip on attachment (with the coil and controller designed to accommodate the custom clip) that now appears to have been thought out as part of the design rather than on Deus I where it was an annoying kludge that appeared to be noticed AFTER the design was set. Also, salt beach performance and the other general advantages that come with Multi Frequency VLF (even better iron handling potential a la SMF iron bias methods). At the end of the day there is no winning of the argument, and it is a foolish to focus on specific advantage OR disadvantage because it all comes down to how the individual detectorist prioritizes and values each of these advantages/disadvantages for themselves. Everyone is going to have a different prioritized list.
  3. The early manufacturer sponsorship probably gave them a boost in subscriptions (Garrett probably saw the potential early on) until they got popular enough they could "go it alone".
  4. Not 100% sure, but they are probably monetized enough by YouTube that they can shed the restrictions of sole detector manufacturer sponsorship to use whatever detector they deem best. Like Calabash Digger this gives them more credibility on their reviews and opinions ultimately giving them wider viewership. Multiple manufacturers still show them love by sending them advanced test units etc., as long as the reviews are balanced and they don't totally trash their products onVideo. Now we return to our regularly scheduled thread programming...Reasons To Hold Onto Equinox 800 In Light Of Deus 2...already in progress.
  5. You don't even need to buy the whole detector. ML will sell you the control pod standalone with warranty if it needs to be replaced after warranty for much less than the whole shebang.
  6. Yes. That is basically the question I am anxious to find the answer to. Will Deus II knock my Tarsacci out of the picture? Tarsacci is the best detector I have used that can reliably ID non ferrous at depth in hot ground. The TID may not be accurate but it does a good job of differentiating non-ferrous from ferrous at depth.
  7. I hear you but remember the quote you extracted was regarding "existing" Equinox users - not future Equinox users. I still don't think D2 is compelling to the majority of existing Equinox users because of its high price point and because the most compelling aspect is its purported better waterproof design (to be seen). The fact is, the percentage of Equinox users who actually dunk their detectors must be small because despite the number of reported water intrusion failures, ML apparently does not have a mutiny on its hands as it has been able to quietly address the issue through honoring the warranty. Regarding performance - until we have some real world operator feedback, I am thinking SMF on the D2 can only equal Equinox at best (could be wrong on that - the combo of the Deus I performance in iron plus multi F could potentially eclipse Equinox). Why would I pay an additional $1500 IF I already have that capability in hand? The few enthusiasts who would buy the D2 despite themselves and the fact they already own an Equinox could probably be counted on two hands and two feet and they all probably subscribe to this forum and likely already own a Deus. However, future sales is a different ballgame and yes, I believe that D2 will take a big bite out of FUTURE Equinox sales (or replacement sales associated with users whose Equinox has either failed or is simply out of warranty) and many existing Deus fans will likely spring for D2 and I think that is where XP is hanging their hat from a business and market share perspective - at least until ML comes out with an Equinox successor or Nokta really, really surprises us. So while I definitely think that future potential Equinox buyers will gIve D2 serious consideration as an alternative and the dual Deus/Equinox users, those needing a lighter detecting, and water hunters will likely "jump ship" from Equinox (I plan on keeping my Equinox and Deus FOR NOW even though I will get a D2) - we'll see how many of the "casual majority" of Equinox users take the D2 plunge. Will be interesting.
  8. The "automatic" one-way relief valve Equinox uses may be one of the contributing factors to the Equinox water integrity issues. This seems to be a more robust approach even though it requires the user to manage it. They made the dive plug red so it is something a diver can quickly check before they get in the water. Forgetfulness on dive equipment configuration is not a trait that bodes well for a serious dive enthusiast/dive detectorist. I would imagine they would simply add this to the checklist of things you want to make sure are up to snuff before you put yourself and your equipment in deep water.
  9. Because the SMF Excal is still deeper. Just kidding. To be serious for a moment, I think two things are in play here: First -XP is not being super explicit about the coil to control box antenna wire configuration and what that practically entails (looks like they provide a custom antenna assembly with clips on both ends to enable easy attachment to slots in the coil on one end and slots in the remote on the other), and Second - People were burned on Equinox waterproof claims, I am sure plenty of folks are taking wait and see approach regarding the water depth claims.
  10. Just my take on what you mentioned for what it's worth - not trying to win an argument or anything but thought I would respond. I know none of this is going to change your mind. I just thought is was interesting that you previously said, the Equinox appeared to perform better but it was not just good enough to be better overall, it was also important to know "how much better" - so I wanted to see what was prompting that statement. Other than coil selection and waterproofness, was not seeing much on the list that would sway me back to a lesser performing detecting platform. Re waterproofing: I didn't know you were a water hunter. Fresh or salt? Better waterproofing is great unless the detector can't do what you need it to and the Max tends to false out in salt being high gain and single frequency. Re S-shaft: I like the APEX Design and S-Shaft (great control module design) but the balance of the AT series did a number on my wrist with that large, retro control module just sitting there like I am trying to swing a side-view mirror around. Not really ergonomic. Nox has different issues, but an S shaft would have been a nice option. Re looks: Something to be said for looks but Max "looking better" is definitely in the eye of the beholder. Lol. Re smaller coil: I noticed you mentioned the Equinox 6-inch round accessory coil but you have never mentioned the Coiltek Nox 10x5 coil. I have owned both and the 10x5 is the accessory coil Equinox users should not have been made to wait 3 years for. It is a great coil and, yes, improves the Nox looks as well. Lol. Aftermarket Coil Selection: No argument there. Coil selection for the Nox is disappointing (but at least we have that 10x5 now). Would be a great "bake off" competitor to the 8x5 you speak so fondly of. Simpler Settings: OK, again, somewhat debatable - Equinox 800 is one of the few mid to high end detectors I have used where the default settings seem to be right where I need them to be making it a true grab n go. Equinox 600 is even more straight forward with fewer adjustment choices. Really shouldn't have to tweak settings much at all after you get it set up for your typical situations just switch modes, GB, noise cancel, adjust sensitivity as necessary. I have found the navigation to be pretty intuitive too. My only gripe is the inability to go back and forth in the menus. I guess ML considered that there were few enough settings it was good enough to just enable cycling through the settings in one direction. I disagree. On the AT I owned, I really struggled with settings navigation. It seemed less intuitive and there are some quirks to things like iron volume and tone settings that vary depending on where you set the ferrous breakpoint. Weird. Customer Service: I agree that Garrett's customer service is top notch. Having dealt with both companies over the past year or two on non-warranty repair issues - they both provided great customer service in terms of accessibility, communication, and turnaround time. Thanks for responding back with your points. Great dialog.
  11. It's 4.X or higher for the HF coils. 5.X or higher for the x35 coils.
  12. I'll bite - besides replaceable batteries, what else do you see is an advantage of the Max over the Nox?
  13. You may already have your answer. The versatility of Equinox likely enables you to set up the Equinox to spank the AT Max for your specific different circumstances. My advice to you is to do some book study and practical validation on test targets before head-to-head testing to really learn how the various Equinox mode settings are set up for different circumstances and target objectives including how settings such as the ferrous break, recovery speed and the two iron bias filters affect response. The descriptions in the Equinox user guide manual are a pretty good place to start as is Steve’s compendium of informative Equinox forum posts. That way you can anticipate what you should do to set up Equinox to be optimized for a given situation then verify expectations with head to head testing. There may be some odd corner case where the AT Max excels over the Equinox, but that shouldn’t necessarily win the day. If you don’t learn the modes and settings before you test then you are just guessing and basically flying blind. Give it a shot.
  14. Agree. To that point the Deus II SMF probably does not bring that much to the table for the mild soil UK relic hunter. Certainly not improved depth vs. Deus 1 with the only possible area of interest being any refinements XP made to the audio in D2 vs. D1 and perhaps improved iron filtering a la Equinox’s iron bias filtering which can only be implemented when operating in multi.
  15. That’s not apples to apples if you are focused on determining separation. You are going to great pains to standardize the target setup, you should try to match coil footprint also for this purpose. Also, getting adept at how to “handle” the detector to wiggle into a partially masked target with coil control is skill-based assisted by a detector’s recovery speed capabilities. Some detectors are suited to this zero in method, some are not. Using equivalent sweep speeds and spans may not bear this out. Also, make sure you test all Equinox mode combinations, variable settings (primarily recovery speed), and single frequency setups to gather your info. BTW - If you want max funding for accessories, simply sell off the Equinox. Hope it works out such that you get a clear winner.
  16. I didn't say it was not interesting but the same folks who are swayed by marketing mumbo jumbo are not going to be convinced by FFT traces. This is a world that rejected a 1/3 lb hamburger vs. the 1/4 pounder because, well 4 is bigger than 3. I’m totally serious. I’ve given up trying to enlighten people regarding the fact that ML does not actually transmit 5, 10, 15, 20, and 40 kHz, simultaneously. It really doesn’t matter whether or not people think that’s how it works. In the end they are either convinced or not by what they find with the machine. It settles nothing when people are obsessed with meaningless marketing jargon and getting the actual waveforms does little to really inform even the technically savvy when 1) You can’t do anything about it 2) It only tells you less than half the story because the meat is in the signal processing end (and no manufacturer is going to spill the beans on that) and 3) I seriously doubt any company with a high profile like ML, XP, Nokta, or Garrett is going to fraudulently misrepresent that they are using SMF when they are not actually doing so, so the scope is not going to blow the lid off some purported manufacturer’s plot to pull the wool over the eyes of its customers. Whether or not they mix F1 and F2 or shift to F3 and F4 in another mode, or whether they transmit sequentially vs. simultaneously, though intellectually interesting, doesn’t allow me to conclude much about how “good” their implementation is without knowing the signal processing algorithm on the receive end and no one is going to give us that info. In other words, a lot of undue attention is directed at what is being transmitted into the ground when the real story is how the machine processes the that complex induced magnetic field associated with the target. Let’s say they do implement a sophisticated and “mode variable” ratio of frequencies, that’s all well and good but it can all be for naught if the processing is not up to snuff. Furthermore, scopes matter less than real world performance. I can easily bake off Deus lI against Tarsacci with targets in hot ground and know what I need to know about whether the Deus II SMF is all that it is cracked up to be without the test equipment. Won’t keep me from looking at the traces, though. I am curious but really wouldn’t base a buy decision off that info good or bad.
  17. I saw a similar design mentioned on this site that consisted of a large slop bucket with slits cut into the side of it where multiple targets attached to paint stirring sticks could be inserted via the slits at various heights and orientations.
  18. Ah, got it. I see it now. My guess it is simply the coil to lower shaft attachment bolt and grommet hardware and something got lost in translation. I suspect the coil "antenna" cable will come with the coil (it may also be sold separately as a water hunting "accessory") but it appears to be attached with locking snap clips on the coil rib and top of the control box. Since it's an antenna, no hardwired connection is required unless screws are used to provide a more secure attachment. Guess we'll find out.
  19. Yep other than from a single frequency perspective and "range" perspective (i.e., 4 to 45 khz), the individual frequencies matter little to determining performance and the number of frequencies simultaneously transmitted is also matters little to the "layman" detectorist. But the marketing folks know numbers sell and there is a general misperception that the more frequencies the better as far as SMF is concerned. The key "secret sauce" is weighting and filtering via the signal processing algorithms. Something that can't easily be conveyed via pictures and numbers. Basically, the only number that really means anything has nothing to do with fancy pseudo tech marketing speak...the number that is key is the number of keepers in your your pouch at the end of the day. Ignore all the SMF numbers and fancy diagrams mumbo jumbo. And frankly, putting an FFT Scope on the end of a detector to count generated waveforms to settle the "number of frequencies" debates is really meaningless and a waste of time, also. Either the detector is stable in salt or black sand at or near max sensitivity or its not. That tells you all you need to know about the SMF implementation. Simple as that. After that, trust the designers to be putting the sampling weighting, filtering, and processing where it needs to be to fairly optimize the conditions and targets described in the mode blurbs and get on with validating them in real world situations.
  20. Why would I bother wasting my breath. [Ugh -that came across with more attitude than intended as I read it again but will leave it in and own it] . You've made it clear that wireless coils are a non starter and frankly Deus II is not out there to sway existing Equinox users (unless they are water hunters looking for an arguably more robust water platform - which you have stated is not a thing for you). It's out there to provide another option for those considering moving up to a higher end SMF option (not necessarily better than Equinox but def better than Apex/Vanquish in terms of features and ergonomics but at a significant high price point hurdle) and like the configuration versatility of the Deus platform (don't need to use the control module, instant coil swaps, great iron discrimination performance, ultra light and ultra portable). No, Simon, Deus II is not targeted for you (or most who already own an Equinox), so a hard pass in your case makes sense. Deus users understand why this is an exciting development and those who have yet to take the plunge into higher end SMF now have an option besides Equinox and CTX. It is certainly not priced to entice people to switch to Equinox and is only a “bargain” in the context of comparing it to the existing Deus I pricing, which frankly seems inflated at this point. I am not expecting Deus II to necessarily eclipse my Equinox in terms of performance. I am hoping it is on par with Equinox or close and maybe it brings something to the table to challenge the performance of the Tarsacci in hot dirt which for me is the gold standard for reliably differentiating non-ferrous from ferrous targets at depth (>5 inches) in extremely mineralized soil. Other than that I like how Deus enables me to interrogate targets, it's performance in iron polluted sites, it's weight which allows me to swing it all day, and it's ability to be easily packed into and out of remote sites. The multi may help in hot soil and will definitely boost salt beach performance. The lack of a small elliptical coil option for now will ensure I keep my Equinox and the excellent Coiltek 10x5 in reach for the time being. I really only see Equinox water hunters and perhaps those who are looking for a more ergonomic, light detecting alternative to Equinox "jumping ship", no reason for Equinox users to jump purely on performance. I also think Deus II and Equinox make a formidable complimentary pair of detectors covering practically all the bases except in situations where a PI is clearly superior.
  21. A software update isn't going to fix the Equinox water intrusion problems and that is the only real reason why an Equinox user might jump ship to the Deus II, especially at the Deus II price point.
  22. First of all, Chuck, grab the version off the the English language XP website (language selection upper right corner). Your takeaways are mostly valid. However, I learned a long time ago to basically spend as little time possible scrutinizing or attempting to understand pseudo-technical marketing diagrams masquerading as scientific principle “explainers” from detector manufacturers. Generally a waste of time, especially when they include the obligatory get out of jail free disclaimer such as the one that accompanies the subject graphic: “The above graphic Illustrates the sensitivity and the iron discrimination capability depending on frequency and the advantage of Fast Multi Frequency programs covering a large spectrum of targets. This is only a basic schematic which can vary depending the programs and real terrain conditions.” Way to not let yourself get boxed in XP.
×
×
  • Create New...