steveg

Brian, The word you used in the first sentence of your post, is the best one I can think of, to describe that...EPIC! One thing I don't recall from the video, is how deep you think the gold coin was...just curious, as you said the machine was rock-solid on the "12" VDI...I am wondering how deep the EQX can hold that solid of an ID, in the dirt, on such a small coin... Anyway, incredible job! Your persistence with this site really, REALLY paid off, in a big way! CONGRATS!! Steve

I agree with Chase, on the Miccus phones. Even though they are a BT80, they definitely sound different from the Minelab BT80s (ML80). The Minelab version IS a muddy-sounding, not-clear sound -- I totally agree with you and Chase. The Miccus phones are much more clear and crisp, especially on the high tones. I shot a video, but haven't edited and uploaded it yet, showing proper pairing technique -- AND doing so with a set of Miccus SR-71 Bluetooth version 5.0 headphones. They WILL pair with an Equinox (mine is an 800 running the newest, 2.0 version of firmware). Don't worry about the Miccus phones not pairing; if the WM-08 option with your Killer B's is too "wired" for you, try the Miccus. Steve

Bob -- that is just unbelievable! LOL! I am sure they are diligently at work, searching for it...a year later... LOL! (Meanwhile, glad you are still enjoying the shaft!) Steve

Really nice job, OkaraGold. That looks terrific, and strong, too... Steve

GB_Amateur -- 16 oz. sounds much more reasonable, for "complete" balance, at correct "detecting angle," when using such a long extension. And yes, WHERE on the handle you use as your "balance point" does matter; beneath the handle, on the bottom of the shaft, requires more weight to balance than -- as you found -- at the mid point of the handle. Finally, if you can find a way to use a shorter extension, but keep that same 16 oz., I'd be curious to hear your thoughts. Again, that won't give you "PERFECT" balance, but for many of my customers, that's enough weight, in a 4 1/2" long counterweight attached to the butt-end of the shaft, to bring SUBSTANTIAL improvement... And yes, you talked about the White's machines...I have never used one, but just looking at many of their units, I'd expect them to be much more balanced, and thus more ergonomically correct, than the Equinox, given that the "box" is mounted near the rear/butt-end of the shaft -- thus serving as effective "counterweighting." The moral of the story is -- "lightweight" is good, but NOT at the expense of proper balance. As such, given that we are using copper-filled coils, there is thus a limit there as to how light a coil can be made. And therefore -- assuming proper balance is desired -- that also imposes a limit as to just how lightweight a machine can be (since the weight of that relatively heavy copper-filled coil MUST be "offset" at the opposite end of the shaft, if you wish to achieve a balanced unit). Steve

GB_Amateur -- glad to see you experimenting! A couple of things; at 17.5" long for your "extension," it should not have taken that much weight (22.5 oz.) to "balance." So, my question is, what do you mean when you said "balance?" Remember, to "balance" the machine does not mean that you put enough weight in the butt-end until the machine sits "flat" -- i.e. parallel to the ground; instead, you only need enough weight so that the coil "rises" and the butt-end "sinks" enough, such that the machine rests in DETECTING POSITION -- i.e. roughly the angle that you use when you swing the machine (angle meaning the angle between the shaft, and the ground). And it takes much less weight to achieve "balance" that brings the shaft angle to "detecting angle," than it does to bring the shaft to "parallel to the ground" position. Using a 17.5" extension, and using DETECTING ANGLE as your goal, it should require quite a bit less than 22.5 ounces (with 11" coil attached).. I will also note that PERFECT balance (again -- meaning the machine "rests" at "detecting angle") is often not necessary, to achieve substantial improvement in comfort. Remember, with NO counterweight, your wrist/hand/forearm are doing ALL the work, to keep the coil "floating." BUT, with every ounce of counterweighting you add, you are REDUCING the amount of force you must apply, using your hand/wrist/arm muscles (i.e. increasing the degree to which you are allowing gravity to ASSIST you). The number is different for everyone, but many of my customers find substantial relief at 12 oz. to 16 oz. -- and remember, that's with only a 4 1/2" extension. If you used a 17.5" extension, that 12 oz. to 16 oz. number would be reduced substantially (maybe half?) Just some thoughts...but I suspect you would need to use a lot less than 22.5 oz. of counterweighting, to feel a substantial improvement in your machine's "swingability." Steve

Happa -- I agree. It IS an interesting subject. I learned ALOT about this, years ago, when watching a couple of my hunting partners, who are very talented/experienced detectorists. There is a lot more to "finding stuff" than one might imagine, at first blush. Anyone can pick up a machine and swing it, but those that can find what they are searching for, consistently, have a good many "tricks up their sleeves," that are not always readily apparent. Having a "mentor," or two, has been invaluable for me, and I can't begin to describe how important all that knowledge that they are willing to share, has been for me. Steve

Steve, Just to add to this, a bit, I can also confirm that the 5.0 Miccus set paired on my Equinox, which is running the newest firmware (2.0), for what that's worth. This has been a difficult "mess" to try and get to the bottom of...like you say, it's obvious Miccus has heard from a number of folks with pairing issues (hence, their statement about possible incompatibility). From what I can tell, and as you noted, it is most likely largely a "user error" situation, with respect to the pairing process. Couple that with perhaps a few cases where the EQX control boxes actually are at fault -- i.e. have pairing issues, AND then perhaps a few sets of defective headphones themselves...mix it all together...and it makes it tough to sort the fact from the fiction and get to the actual, root cause of the situation. Steve

Happa -- those honey holes don't show up too often; not here in Oklahoma anyway, and not on public property! I have found a few more of these little "hot spots" when hunting back home in PA, but even at that, they are still pretty rare for me to stumble into! I am usually somewhere between what you describe as to how you hunt, and that of the others you described, who cover large areas, until they hit a "hot spot," and then pound it thoroughly. I move a bit more slowly in general, than some, while evaluating a new site and looking for those possible productive portions of the site, but if/when I find those areas, I absolutely slow WAY down, and really focus on what I'm hearing, and my swing technique... Happy hunting! Steve

Thanks everyone! It was a fun day, for sure. GB_Amateur -- yep, that's pretty much how I hunt, in a spot I haven't been to before. Kind of "survey," until you hit a good target, and then slow down and hunt more carefully. That's exactly how it went, on this particular day... Steve

GB_Amateur -- I totally hear you, on the thick grass exacerbating the issue. No doubt about that. As I understand it, "tennis elbow" results from grip pressure, and obviously, just the machine being nose-heavy means you are gripping it tighter, as you fight to keep the coil "floating" above the ground (whereas, a fully balanced unit can be gripped with just your thumb and index finger -- it's amazing)! But, the grip pressure issue is exacerbated EVEN MORESO, when you are fighting through thick grass; you will be gripping tighter as you try and force the coil through the grass -- and thus that "tennis elbow" issue can become irritated even more. And yes, I hear you about the "counter-intuitiveness" of counterweighting. The knee-jerk reaction is "I bought this machine because it is touted as being super-light; why would I want to turn around and add weight to it?!" I totally get that. But, think of it this way. What if I asked you to carry two 2x4 boards, both four feet long. One is dry, and weighs 3 pounds, the other is wet, and weighs 4 pounds. Naturally, to carry either board for any appreciable amount of distance, what you'd tend to do is grab either board right at the center (i.e. where it is BALANCED), and then you'd carry it at your side, parallel to the ground. As long as you are carrying it at the balance point (which is how you intuitively do it), you could carry either the 3-pound board, OR the four pounder, with little issue. The extra pound of weight, between the 3-pound and 4-pound board, makes very little difference. BUT -- try carrying EITHER the 3-pound OR the 4-pound board by holding it a foot from one end (i.e forcing the board to be imbalanced, and "nose-heavy" on one end), and see what happens! Of course, the "imbalance" of the board thus causes carrying it to be quite a struggle, as one end of the board wants to tilt toward the ground, and you are fighting to keep the end of the board from dragging... If the S-shaft doesn't fix the issue for you, counterweighting is your solution (or a harness, as Nig the Dig mentioned). Steve

Phrunt, I thought it was possible that perhaps this could be the case also, but one thing I can confirm is that I spoke on the phone with someone having trouble pairing their Miccus 5.0 headphones. They had a recently purchased EQX. After we stepped through the pairing process together, the headphones paired with no issues. That is NOT to say that none of these pairing issues reside within the EQX units themselves; I have a friend with an Equinox that has to go through the FULL pairing process EVERY time he turns on his machine (i.e. the machine is not "remembering" the fact that he has paired his headphones before, and therefore pairing up quickly -- which should be the case after the initial pairing process). So, it seems to be something quirky with his machine. Along those lines, I have also heard of others who can't get their headphones to pair (ML80, or other versions of BT80 phones), and Minelab had to replace the control box. So, there is that issue on occasion, as well -- which "muddies the water" in terms of figuring out exactly what the issue is, when there is a pairing problem. The bottom line though, is that I'm pretty sure at this point that 5.0 Bluetooth headphones will work properly with the EQX, and that most if not all of the pairing issues are either "user error," in the pairing process, or an actual problem with either the headphones, or the Equinox, themselves. The last thing I will say, is, ALL Bluetooth 5.0 products are required to be "backwards compatible" with earlier Bluetooth devices, as I understand it. SO, a Bluetooth 5.0 headphone receiving a Bluetooth 4.1 transmission (i.e. from an Equinox, for instance) are supposed to work properly, even though they are a newer (5.0) version Bluetooth than the device they are pairing to. Certain "profiles," that are a part of "Bluetooth 5.0," like the A2DP profile mentioned in Steve H's. post initially, require that BOTH devices are capable of utilizing that profile, and so you won't experience the full benefits of Bluetooth 5.0 unless both devices are Bluetooth 5.0. That's similar to how even though the Equinox transmits aptX-LL, the Bluetooth phones you choose must ALSO support aptX-LL, if you wish to utilize the aptX-LL's improved speed. But, you can still pair, and use, a pair of non-aptX-LL headphones with the Equinox (you won't get the aptX-LL functionality unless BOTH devices support that profile). Bottom line, the basic Bluetooth functionality (i.e. pairing, etc.) should be version independent, between devices. This is my understanding of how all of this works... Steve

Outstanding information, RME. Thanks for posting. I was going to call Miccus today, and I still may, but what they told you is essentially what I had figured -- that some customers had issues pairing (for whatever reason), and so Miccus is "offering a disclaimer," just in case. I know that I have had success pairing the 5.0 version to my Equinox, as I said, so I really believe it to be mistakes that some have made in the pairing process that are leading to the issue. I can't figure out a logical reason why the 5.0 would pair with SOME Equinoxes, and not others; I've verified that the 5.0 version of the SR-71s DO PAIR with an Equinox running the latest Minelab firmware version (2.0), as some suspected that maybe Minelab's 2.0 version of firmware caused the Equinox to be incompatible with the Miccus phones (it did not). I also take interest in their note that the SR-71s are more "tuned" to the Equinox's tones/pitches. I can confirm that to be ABSOLUTELY true; several other-branded BT80 phones sound very much superior to the ML80; the ML80 are more "muddy," more "bassy," and less clear on the high tones especially, than the other-branded BT80 phones I've used. It's very noticeable... Steve

GB_Amateur -- Nice job, on the mod! I would like to note that this (your arm and wrist pain) is almost definitely due to the nose-heaviness of the Equinox. You have to use your wrist/arm to "counteract" the force of gravity pulling down on your coil, since there is no weight on the "other end" (butt end) of the shaft to assist you. So, you end up doing all the work with your wrist and arm, fighting gravity in order to keep the coil "floating" above the ground. Hence, fatigue/pain often results. My way of addressing it, is to add counterweighting. The proper amount of counterweight allows you to use gravity as an ally -- your hand and wrist are freed up to simply act as a "balancing point" or "fulcrum," as opposed to those muscles having to exert all that force to counter the effect of gravity on the coil. The counterweight, acting in opposition to the coil weight, helps to "lift" the coil end of the shaft, meaning your hand/wrist/arm don't have to do all the work -- you use gravity as your "ally," instead of letting it be your "enemy." The "s-bend" shaft will change which muscles you are using to keep the coil floating, and for some folks, using different muscles, helps. In some cases though, it's still not a solution, as an S-bend shaft doesn't solve the underlying issue -- which is that the Equinox has all of its weight on the "coil end," and none at the "butt end," and therefore YOU have to counteract the force of gravity acting on the coil, using your wrist/arm/shoulder muscles. It sounds like in your case, changing the muscles being used to counter the weight of the coil when using the S-shaft, has brought relief. The muscles you are now using, are apparently more capable of applying the needed forces, and thus are not negatively affected (as were the muscles being used when you were running the straight shaft). So, it sounds like you have creatively arrived at a solution that works for you -- which is of course the objective! Well done; very nice job, on the mod! Steve

Hi all! It was a beautiful day here on Monday -- and my buddy and I got out for some digging. We hit a park that I had never hunted before, but he's been there several times over the years. As all of our city parks are, it's been well hunted, but after a couple of hours I lucked into a little "hot spot." It was a very small area, as it turns out -- maybe 30' x 30' maximum -- but I started hitting deep coins. Each one was at least 7" deep, but most of them were Garrett Pro-Pointer deep (8" to 9"), the deepest pushing 10". My guess is that for whatever reason, the coins ended up deeper than normal in this little area (I know a layer of sod had been installed here, as I was cutting through that plastic "mesh" underneath the grass layer), and that they ended up just deep enough that they were missed by most other hunters/other machines. Whatever the case, it's always nice to get into a little area that gives up coins like that; after I had hit several coins (enough to convince me there was something going on there) I called my buddy over to join in on the paydirt. All told, we managed 14 old coins from this tiny little area, plus a few buttons and other interesting items. It's been quite awhile since I've hit a little "hot spot" that was that productive, in a public spot... Here are my digs; I got several of these as "live digs" on video, so I may try to piece together a video (if I can give myself a crash course, and learn how to edit well enough)! (The Mercs are 1935-D, 1942, 1944, and 1945; the Rosie is 1959; the Wheats are 1920-D, 1937-D, 1941, and 1946, and the Buffalo is 1937). Thanks, all! Steve

Dan, That's a great story! Nice job! Steve

Hi all, As Chase noted, I DID test a new pair of 5.0 Bluetooth Miccus SR-71 (at least, that's what the label on the packaging said). In my testing, they WOULD pair with my EQX 800 -- no issues at all. I've been working to get to the bottom of this "headphones won't pair" issue that has cropped up on the forum recently, and after testing a set that paired properly, I had concluded that there was no issue pairing them with the Equinox. But then, Miccus started including this disclaimer...Hmm. I will see if I can produce a video showing the Miccus phones, pairing flawlessly with my Equinox, and then post it one the forums. I will also try giving Miccus a call, as I wonder if they haven't put that "disclaimer" on these new SR-71s, simply due to some folks who were having trouble pairing for OTHER reasons (user error, for instance), assumed the issue was the 5.0 Bluetooth, and then contacted Miccus. I do not think that Miccus has actually tested the phones on an Equinox themselves, so I will see if I can't get this cleared up. I have also looked into purchasing a bunch of these BT-80 headphones directly from the manufacturer (not from Miccus, but from the actual factory that produces them), in the 4.1 Bluetooth version that we know FOR CERTAIN will pair with the Equinox, and then offering them for sale through Steve's Detector Rods. However, the factory requires a minimum order quantity of 1000 sets! I "sweet talked" them down on that number, to the best of my ability (LOL), but the smallest number they will sell me is 100 sets, and that's still a big number, given the price per pair (especially since I don't know how many folks would actually be interested in purchasing). I'm still considering... Anyway, I'll offer an update as soon as I can... Thanks! Steve

NICE digs, Dan! You have FAR more patience than I do! 🙂 But, it's paying off for you, with some nice keepers, no doubt about it. NICE! Steve

Hi all!I wanted to give an update on the GARRETT shafts (middle and lower sections) that I've been working on, at Steve's Detector Rods. The first batch of 10 prototypes are complete (I made them in four different colors -- black, green/black, red/black and blue/black), and I am VERY pleased with the result -- I think they have turned out great! The two shaft sections are connected by one of my heavy-duty clamp-type cam locks (as used on my Equinox shafts), which eliminates the twist-lock and the spring button/button-hole design that is used for attachment of these two shaft sections, on the Garrett shaft.AS A RESULT, my shaft offers four benefits over the stock middle and lower shaft sections... LIGHTER WEIGHT. My carbon-fiber middle and lower shaft sections offer a 20% weight reduction over the stock Garrett middle and lower sections. (My two-piece shaft weighs 5 ounces +/- .1 oz or so, whereas Garrett's two sections weigh 6.1 ounces +/- .1 oz or so). FASTER/EASIER INSTALLATION AND SHAFT LENGTH ADJUSTMENT. With no twist lock and no spring button/button holes to fumble with, attachment of the lower shaft to the middle shaft is quick and easy; simply flip open the clamping lever on the cam lock, insert the lower rod section into the middle shaft section, and lock the clamping lever closed! UNLIMITED ADJUSTMENT LENGTH OF THE LOWER ROD SECTION. Again, with no spring button/button holes on the shaft, you can quickly and easily adjust the lower rod to ANY desired length, as opposed to having your lower rod adjustment length confined to pre-determined button-hole locations. IMPROVED AESTHETICS/VISUAL APPEARANCE. The high-quality, attractive look of carbon fiber offers an upgrade the look of your Garrett machine. And, you can add even more visual appeal -- making your AT- or Ace-series machine really "stand out" from the crowd -- by choosing one of a number of custom colors for your carbon-fiber shaft. A green/black prototype shaft is pictured, below! If you have any interest in upgrading to a carbon-fiber shaft for your AT- or Ace-series machine from Garrett, contact me via PM, by email at steve@stevesdetectorrods.com, or via Facebook message (www.facebook.com/stevesdetectorrods).THANKS!Steve

Dan, GREAT job fighting through all the mid-tone trash, to recover the goodies! NICE! Steve

Holy cow! THAT IS TERRIFIC, Peg! What a nice surprise! Steve

Cal -- I can provide you with a good, light two-piece shaft that will result in ZERO wobble. I know there are shafts that are very slightly lighter than mine, but this is accomplished by thinner tube wall diameters. I try to strike a good balance between strength, and weight. Steve

Hey all! Just for clarification's sake, I assume, relicmeister, that when you say "telescoping shaft," you are referring to shafts like the "Tele-Knox," that are comprised of several small tubes that "slide into each other" telescopically, through the use of multiple cam locks? I ask, only to perhaps clarify, for some folks. Reason being, I personally call nearly ANY shaft for the Equinox a "telescopic" shaft, even just a two-piece shaft, since the smaller tube "telescopically" slides into the upper tube. So I have always called two-piece shafts, or even the stock three-piece shaft, "telescopic" shafts, since they all have at least one piece that "slides into" another, larger piece above it. But I don't THINK these types of shafts are the ones you are specifically referring to, right? I think you are asking about shafts that are designed with MULTIPLE telescopic sections, which then collapse down to a very small length, correct? Steve

Nice digs, Peg! It looks like you had some fun, and did a good bit of digging! No idea, on that "silver sandwich..." Steve

Cool dig! Interesting! Steve