Jump to content

steveg

Full Member
  • Posts

    1,200
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

 Content Type 

Forums

Detector Prospector Home

Detector Database

Downloads

Everything posted by steveg

  1. To all who have commented -- I appreciate your feedback, and am so glad that you all seem generally pleased! Thank you! Steve
  2. RSmith -- This is a highly interesting post, to me. The way you explained what you did, at the one site, running recovery up to 6 and then seeing the difference it made (WOW)....and then when you carried that over (Recovery 6) to the new site, and what you explained happened there (double-WOW)... I treated recovery speed on the EQX as basically a "set it and forget it" setting, for reasons I won't get into so as to not veer off into the weeds (i.e. away from the issue at hand). But, suffice it to say, I have not though much about adjusting recovery speed on the MC, as a result of my "bias" from the EQX. So, this is a highly interesting/intriguing post, especially the resultant that you described... It seems that while abenson is keeping things "close to the vest" for understandable reasons, he seems to imply in his post that he also feels that this "recovery speed" thing has merit as well, in his dirt/in his experience. This is some great information, and provides an avenue for me to go down, in terms of testing that is obviously in order at this point... Thanks! Steve
  3. Interesting post JCR...thanks for the detail. One thing -- what do you mean when you say "be careful about your 'signal balance'". That's not a term I am familiar with. Ground balance is something I've been trying to play around with when I locate a target that is suspect; my thought is that if I can be sure that balance is SPOT ON, in the immediate vicinity of a tricky target, I have the best chance of removing whatever amount of ground signal that may be "dirtying" the target response. This is somehting I am testing to see if this approach has any effect. But "signal balance" is not a term I am familiar with... Thanks! Steve
  4. Rsmith -- VERY interesting post. Yes, I recall speaking with you quite awhile back, and the USPS training facility trip that you were supposed to be assigned to. If that pans out in the future, let me know. I live very close by to that facility. VERY interesting how you described what the new update -- but with stabilizer and filter off/set to zero -- does for you. I can relate exactly to what you described about how the targets deeper than 3" or so sound "weak," for lack of a better word. Not "solid," like the Equinox. It's like the machine is "not confident" in IDing the target, and reports too many other tones concurrent with the target's tone...resulting in an "uncertain" hit on a "good" target. I also know what you mean about the pinpointer in the hole sounding off on the soil, on the machine "grunting" as if there is an iron target in the dirt but none is found (which I call "ground mineral grunts"), etc. I experience BOTH of these issues, both here, and in PA where I hunt. In fact, I specifically noted that I had a heck of a time with my pinpointer doing just what you described, in several of the spots I just hunted in PA. Not that it's anything new, but I had forgotten that it's even worse there, in some sites, than it is here. And yes...there are a good many nails that "sound good." Yes, most of them can be discerned pre-dig, using the various tricks we all use to interrogate a target to decide if it is "just a nail," or not...but I find myself having to really interrogate MANY more of these targets than was the case on the Equinox. And that really bogs me down... It's interesting, bottom line, that you feel that the new update, BUT WITH STABILIZER AND FILTER NOT BEING EMPLOYED, results in your good targets being "louder, crisper, and more detailed" than before, and with more depth... Intriguing. And like I said, this is going to require some extensive test-garden testing, if/when I finally do feel I'm ready to at least TRY the update; I could envision myself flopping "back and forth" a couple of times, between versions, while doing the test garden testing, to ascertain these details you have described... Steve
  5. Steve, Excellent post! First, thanks for the congrats! If I was only going to dig 3 silver coins, in limited hunting time, on my trip, those are 3 that I'm well-pleased with! Wow -- what a prescient post you made, a year ago. Reading that now, you essentially nailed it, now that the rest of us have the benefit of hindsight. I guess that's what 50 years of detecting experience buys you (that impressive level of insight)! You mention "low power modes," which I was not aware that the Manticore has. But, given this discussion, I wonder if a literal "switch" to "drop back" into "Equinox 600/800 power level" might be an interesting consideration for an update, for times when the ground conditions render the increased transmit power just "too much" for one's ears. And I specifically said "Equinox 600/800 power level," as it seems from others' reports that the 700/900 is ALSO less stable/falsier than the 600/800...which leads me to believe that transmit power was also boosted on the 700/900? Finally, the differences in how a machine behaves in magnetite vs. maghemite is beyond my understanding; I'm not familiar with maghemite. But, that's a very interesting observation; if Minelab does most of their "bad dirt" testing on one specific type of "bad dirt," and if U.S. "bad dirt" is different, then I can see where a given machine whose development occurred in Australia might not be as suited to dealing with U.S. dirt... Steve
  6. Dave, I appreciate the advice (about not doing the upgrade), and will further delay any inclination to update, accordingly. That said, I would like to have thought that dirt like mine, that seems to exacerbate the "falsing" issues on the MC, especially in ATHC, is EXACTLY what the new update was supposed to address!! Ugh! Yes, I agree with you, the MC is pretty good in the nickel range, on ID. I did dig a "V" that was reporting as low as 23, so it seems that maybe the 23 to 28 range has to be dug, to get all the nickels. I'm not sure I've seen one flash any 29s yet... BUT -- that 5-digit range, centered on something close to the air-test value, is not an issue at all, in my books. Like you said, it's good in the nickel range. I just wish deeper silver coins would have a similar range, but MORE IMPORTANTLY, with that range centered near the air-test number. A 79 air-test coin should not ring up high 90s consistently, at 7" to 8" deep... Just my two cents. Steve
  7. Chesroy, In my case, it's not that I'm "trying to convince myself to like it" or result of "peer pressure." What it is for me, is that I am CERTAIN there are some benefits (albeit possibly small in most scenarios) within the MC, once once "masters" it. I have a hard time believing that a company as solid as Minelab (in terms of their engineering/physics departments) would work for 5 years on an update to M-IQ, and then release a machine that does not have any additional capabilities. So, I guess you could say that it's my trust in Minelab's engineers and physicists that has me sticking with it; I simply believe at this point that if I can tough it out, and work through the frustrations, that there will be some degree of "payoff" in the end... Steve
  8. Yatahaze -- I HAVE seen that video, and it's a good one. I plan to refer back to it, as soon as I decide to download the update. THANKS! Steve
  9. Interesting observations, RSmith. ONCE I get to the point where I feel I know the machine enough to perform the upgrade, I am going to have to spend some serious time in the test garden, to see what exactly the stabilizer, and stabilizer filter, will do... I will say that rusty bolts can be tough. From one direction, I find that bolts can sound pretty good. I wonder, instead, what results you might have if you tried it with a target that "almost" fooled you, but did not. In other words, if stabilizer can help with those targets where you have to stop, and interrogate, and instead allow you to much more quickly say "nope, not digging that," that would also be helpful...as that's what I am dealing with. I am not sure I get FOOLED all that more often, with the MC than I did with the EQX on iron targets, it's just that I have to spend alot of energy and brain power really working a target hard, to make that dig vs. no dig decision, whereas with the EQX, it was MUCH more easy to do. And so, that, combined with how much more "noisy" the MC is, means I'm spending WAY more time thinking/interrogating crappy targets, than I would like to be. SO, if stabilizer helps turn a "not quite good-sounding" target, that you need to stop to interrogate just to be sure, into a "pretty bad-sounding" target, to where you could quickly ignore it, that would be a plus in my mind... Steve
  10. Clive, Interesting that you should ask. I am definitely an "audio first" guy, and a "numbers" guy, second. But also, one that appreciates the idea of having the 2D display. The way I'm approaching the 2D display, is trying to learn what I feel is most important (the audio), and then let it (the audio nuances) teach me something about how to decipher the 2D display, and then HOPEFULLY, learn that it can also (hopefully) work vice-versa -- i.e. that at times there may be clues in the 2D display that will teach me something about the audio output I'm hearing... MANY or MOST of the high tones, that end up being nails, I've found to be "off center," usually "smears" to the high side. I do NOT yet have a feel for exactly how much faith to put in the 2D display, but I WILL say this...on that 1876 dime in particular, I could hear soft grunts, and could hear a repeatable high tone as I rotated and swept the target. Not ENTIRELY unlike what I would hear with about 1000 deep rusty square nails. BUT -- one thing that did push me to make a "dig" decision on that particular target, was that there was a very consistent, fairly round dot on the center line, without any "smears." The only other thing I saw, was a smaller/less obvious dot straight above the dot on the center line, but all the way at the very top of the screen. It was definitely a "different" 2D plot, and it intrigued me. Otherwise, though, I need much more time on the unit to understand the audio, and then make the visual (2D screen) connections as well. It's almost like you have to learn TWO things, with this unit. Learn all the AUDIO nuances, and ALSO learn all the VISUAL nuances. I have a sense that there will be valuable information in BOTH, but it will take alot of time to gain expertise on this unit. It is NOT, in my view, not the best-suited machine for a novice hunter. Nor for someone without alot of time and patience, to invest in learning it. But, I am pretty sure at this point that sticking to it, and learning this machine, will be worth it in the end. Steve
  11. abenson -- Interesting to hear that you think ATLC has more stable ID. I TOTALLY agree that it's way less falsy; interesting, on the ID observation. ALSO interesting are your comments on the M8 coil (enough that it pushes me to get on when they are available), and what you've said about how you toyed with the idea of ditching the MC for your 800, but over time, as you've learned it, you feel less likely to do so. I was at that SAME point, 2 weeks ago...now, I'm more thinking I'll stick with it... Steve
  12. Jeff --excellent post. Even though you were using the 900, and not the Manticore, I could have written exactly what you wrote and it would have been precisely correct/identical to my experience with the Manticore thus far. The paragraph of yours that I bolded, in the quoted part above, is simply spot-on, in my opinion. As I alluded to in a post I made a few minutes ago, it turns out it WAS INDEED you, that made the comparison to some of those older single-freq. high-gain units. YES!! Running the Manticore reminds me alot, in terms of its instability/uncertainty on even relatively simple targets, of my experience running the F-70, as I mentioned in that prior post. I was so frustrated that I got rid of that unit in just a couple of months...and I have felt that same urge, at times, with the Manti. The problem is, I AM finding stuff with it; GOOD stuff. But, like you noted...it seems almost "by accident" at times, because I am -- in your words -- distracted and befuddled by what the machine is doing audibly. In fact, if it was indeed me that put that scratch on that 1876 dime, the Manticore has ALOT to do with that. I almost NEVER scratch a coin, and yet, when digging that Seated, I had VERY little confidence that it was even a coin. I dug so many deep rusty square nails that day, that were giving off nice high tones, and high 90s VDI, that when I got that fairly nice high tone, mixed with iron, but high 90s VDI, I CONSIDERED not even digging it. When I DID decide to dig, I was FAR less careful than I would have been with the Equinox, as I would have KNOWN with the Equinox, on that specific target, that I likely had something good. I didn't scratch it due to a missed pinpoint, or not digging a wide enough berth around it; it was a case of where it was not in the initial plug, but still down deeper in the hole, and so when I was "scraping out" a couple more inches of dirt, that's when I scratched it (if, indeed, it was me that cause that scratch). Point being, YES, I was not near as careful as I would/should have been, but that was DUE TO the "uncertain/not solid" way that it hit that coin, and the very high up-averaged VDI that had me thinking "square nail" when I was digging it... Anyway, your experiences with your 900 sound SO familiar... Steve
  13. Thanks, GB! I am sick that I apparently nicked the back of that 1876, ESPECIALLY since it's been suggested that on top of the condition of the coin, grade-wise, it ALSO seems to have a cracked-die error on the top rim, which may have made it somewhat valuable. Too bad I didn't nick the 1837 instead. Scratching that coin may have improved its condition, LOL! Seriously, though, yes -- I totally agree with you on the ATHC vs. the other modes, and in fact, at the start of the trip, I did exactly what you said (i.e. instead of using the much-less-falsy ATLC, I forced myself to utilize AT-General, which is sort of a middle ground). YES, I agree that soil mineralization seems to be a big factor. Apparently, anything but the mildest of dirt, and you are in for a noisy, difficult ride. I don't know if I have noticed up-averaging earlier, depth-wise, than my 800. I was trying to describe two things... 1. The Manticore seems "confident" and "solid" to me only on coins to about 4" deep. Beyond that, there is almost ALWAYS at least SOME mixture of iron grunts mixed in. In other words, it seems like a 4" or less coin's audio is simply SO dominant, that it gives nothing but a nice clean, clear signal. My Equinox would give this nice clean, clear signal MUCH deeper. A coin at 6" to 7" deep on the Equinox, though quieter, was still a good, solid, clear "coin signal." On the Manticore, it still SEES the target just fine, but lots of other tones start mixing in...whether it be nails falsing, or rust/decomposed iron, or soil anomalies, I'm not sure. Toward the end of the trip, I began trying to be REALLY careful with ground balance, to see if that helped eliminate some of the tones that were "dirtying-up" my coin targets...my next testing will be to locate what I think are some deep coins, and then ground balance immediately, and re-sweep the target, to see if I can "clean it up" a bit... 2. But as for the specific issue of up-averaging, I would probably say that while a coin signal on the Manticore gets "dirty" for me after about 4 inches, it doesn't really "up-average" substantially, until deeper depths, probably similar to the Equinox 800. I will say this, though...it up-averages WORSE than the Equinox. I don't think I got an ID number on that 1876 Seated dime that was under 95...LOTS of 96 to 98 VDI. And on a 79 air-test coin, that's awful. Sure, the Equinox would give me a bunch of low 30s (maybe as high as 33 to 34) on a deep dime, but you'd have some 28s and 29s mixed in most of the time. On the Manti, that Seated at 7" to 8" deep was SOLID high 90s. YES, Minelab still has work to do IMO, on M-IQ+. I'm still perplexed that with such harsh soil available in Australia, that they couldn't get this taken care of PRE-release...ESPECIALLY since they did such a good job DECADES ago, with FBS VDI, at least in the types of dirt I hunt in. It's amazing to me that, with experience, you could confidently "call" a deep silver coin, and oftentimes, what TYPE of silver coin it was, whereas with the Manticore, I'd be a FOOL to try that (at least at this stage of the game). Steve
  14. Chesroy, I HAVE heard many beach hunters who are REALLY pleased with the machine, as you alluded to. But -- all the dirt hunters that I trust, have struggled with it. I heard someone (Jeff McClendon, I think it may have been) compare this unit to a high-gain single-freq. VLF, in terms of all the noise, and I have to agree. I recall back when I started really getting serious about this hobby, and "upgraded" to a Fisher F-70 (a "little brother" of the F-75). That machine drove me absolutely nuts -- SO much noise, SO many tones, and...for me anyway...very limited ability to figure out what was under my coil at any given time. I can still remember the absolute, 180-degree turn-around, when I ditched that unit and got an Explorer (SE-Pro). I IMMEDIATELY realized that I had entered a whole different world, and within a couple of weeks, the situation entirely changed for me. YES, it took a long time to master the Explorer, but my "understanding" of the audio and what it represented, was almost immediately just night-and-day different, from the chatty/poor ID unit that I found the F-70 to be. Well, with the Manticore, I've been similarly frustrated at times, as I was way back when running that old F-70, and at times JUST as uncertain as to what was under my coil, as I was all those years ago. It's been a LONG time since I flushed those memories from my mind, and did NOT expect that the Manticore would dredge them back up! But, like I said, I feel much better about the machine now, than at the start of my trip. So, I'll hang in there. The 800 is -- as you said -- SUCH a great machine, and for me it's like putting on a nice pair of cushiony running shoes. It's just COMFORTABLE, and it's fun, and it flat out finds stuff. Meanwhile, the Manticore remains like that new pair of stiff leather golf shoes...that...while you keep on wearing them because you appreciate that the spikes that keep your feet from slipping, at the same time, you sure do hate the cramped/sore feet you get after playing a round in them. I have that same "love/hate" relationship going on, with the Manticore...and I sure am tempted to put on those nice, cushiony EQX 800 running shoes again! Steve
  15. fishersari -- YES. ATHC is definitely the worst, in my dirt, when there are nails in the ground. And YES, very early on with the machine, I was forced to "cry uncle," in ATHC, and found that switching to ATLC improved the situation significantly. So I agree with you. On this trip, I tried a middle ground -- All-Terrain General. More falsy than ATLC, but much less-so, than ATHC. I will continue to push forward, trusting that with time, my ears and brain will get used to how the Manticore likes to "speak." It's certainly got its own language... Steve
  16. Dug D -- Thanks for confirming the things I'm experiencing. No, it's not "just you;" this machine will audibly fatigue you to death, when there is rusty iron in the dirt. I have hope, though. I can say that by the end of my vacation, I felt MUCH more comfortable with it than I did early in the trip. Part of that was that the first hunt of the trip was in AWFUL dirt; I was about to put the unit up for sale after that hunt! But, after taking it to some sites I was familiar with, from past hunts, it allowed me to compare its behavior to how the Equinox behaved on these sites. That was VERY helpful, and helped me to begin building some confidence. I hope the confidence building can continue, gradually, as I invest more hours on it... Steve
  17. Brad, Thanks for the kind words! Yes, I will admit that the 800 can just "find stuff," period, and it's a much easier machine to both learn, and to decipher audibly. I do believe that with more time on the machine, I'll understand the audio better, for sure. But, I am having a hard time imagining that it will become as "second-nature" for me to hunt with, as the EQX 800 became. For me, the Equinox was FUN to hunt with, and the MC is definitely more "tedious," at this point. But, again, there's no doubt it's finding me stuff...so it's an interesting dilemma... I think there is NO doubt that the machine is MUCH more pleasant to deal with, for you beach guys. I have not heard a single beach hunter with anything but praise for this machine. But get it in mineralized dirt, where there are a bunch of targets including old/rusty nails, and -- at least as a new user -- you have a headache on your hands! Steve
  18. Well, I know I've been somewhat "radio silent" since getting my Manticore. I simply haven't had enough hours on it, to offer much of any substance. Even now, 6 months in, I'm still trying to wrap my head around the Manticore, and its audio (in part due to lack of hunting opportunities). Still, one thing I can say, is that this is one FALSY machine, for sure (I haven't downloaded the update yet, as I want to really learn the machine FIRST, and I only have about 40 to 50 hours on it...nowhere near enough). But WOW. Falsy, falsy, which makes the audio VERY busy, and fatiguing to decipher. And that is with near-factory limits settings... I am on vacation in PA now, and have gotten some hours on the machine on consecutive days. I've hunted a couple of sites with a good many square nails. As always, the deep square nails are my nemesis...as many of them sound "good" from many directions. I STILL have not learned how to decipher this machine's audio...but at the same time, it's hard to complain as I'm having some success. Sunday, I dug two deep, old coins -- a very nice 1876 Seated dime, and a 1783 1/2 Reale. On NEITHER of these targets was I sure I was digging a coin (versus a good-sounding, falsy square nail). I THOUGHT they both sounded better than a square nail, but I have been fooled many times. BOTH had quiet iron grunts OVERLAID with high tones; not the solid, louder grunts from a more substantial iron item, but more like the type that you get from soil mineral. Still, both coins were a mix of high tones and those quiet grunts, overlaid on top of each other. Both were about 7" to 8" deep; the high tones on the dime were solidly upper 90s (WAY too high), and those on the Reale averaged lower, 70s and 80s. (The dime air tests 79-80, and the Reale 64 to 68). SO -- on both, I felt that I had to dig, BUT, on neither did I feel confident at all as to what I'd be digging. I venture to guess that on both targets, the EQX 800 would have hit them solidly, without the iron grunts, and with less up-averaging...and I would have been very confident that I was digging a coin. I would expect the dime would have ID'd low 30s, and a very soft, clean hit on every sweep. I do NOT like that the Manticore seems much more "unsure" than the EQX, as to what the target is, when deeper than a few inches, in both Oklahoma and Pennsylvania dirt. Meanwhile, on Monday, I managed a 6" to 7" deep 1837 Seated dime. This one was registering mid 50s ID, pretty much from all angles. I was NOT expecting silver, but thought maybe Indian Head. I was SHOCKED when I popped the plug, and the silver coin fell from the bottom of the plug. I immediately put the pinpointer in the hole, and from the sidewall, pulled about a 1 1/2" long, 1/4" wide rusty blob of iron. I was surprised that I didn't ever hear a high tone with this target, but instead consistent mid tone. This was clearly a case where the two targets "averaged together" to report a MUCH lower ID than I'd have expected. I've never dug a silver coin before that was that far off, in terms of ID. I wonder if this is something that the MC will do, moreso than the EQX would have? Based on what I assume to have been the distance between the two targets (both at roughly the same depth), I would have expected to hear at least SOME high tone reports, from some angles, as I circled and swept the target, instead of the fairly consistent, averaged mid 50s ID from pretty much all angles. So, overall, I thus far have a love/hate relationship with the Manticore. It is finding me stuff -- and some GOOD stuff, and yet I do NOT understand the machine's language. Nearly everything, except shallow coins, have some amount of iron grunting, and pretty severe up-averaging. Meanwhile, the falses on this machine are overwhelming. A large number of nails false, and NOT just high-tone falsing. Some false mid-tone, also. So, overall, at any given time, I largely have no idea what is under the coil, and thus knowing "what to dig" is very difficult. And I have yet to dig a deep silver coin, that sounds "clean" and lets me know what I'm digging. Several years back, I dug an 1888 Seated dime about 30 yards from the 1876, above, and at similar depth -- with my Explorer SE Pro. I KNEW I had a good target. With the Equinox, it is pretty easy in many cases to call an 8" deep silver coin. I do NOT have the sense that the Manticore will give such clean, clear reports on deep silver. But, again...I'm finding stuff...so it's not like the machine isn't quite capable. It's just perplexing, and somewhat maddening for me, at this point... Just my two cents, after my first 50 hours or so. Steve
  19. THAT is what I would have HOPED -- if no stabilizer is being used, NOR the stabilizer filter, then I would have hoped that it would behave nearly identical to the "old version." It's good that Minelab is implying that this is how it SHOULD work.... I'll be following this, to hear what Minelab has to say... THANKS, abenson, for documenting this... Steve
  20. abenson -- OH, while I was typing my question, I think you may have just answered my question in your most recent post (that posted while I was typing). SO -- to reiterate, EVEN IF you keep everything "new" turned off (stabilizer, stabilizer filter, whatever), it STILL performs worse for you than the original? In other words, you can't "turn off" a setting and get it back to the performance you were used to with the old version? Steve
  21. This -- while it may or may not be the proper explanation for what abenson is experiencing -- makes ALOT of sense to me, logically. And it further cements the idea that UNTIL I really learn the Manticore, I should NOT update to the new version, given the irony-red dirt here in Oklahoma. I think I need to get a very good feel for the machine's performance, BEFORE I consider trying the new version, so that I will have a sense if switching to the new version degrades my performance, given my irony soil. My apologies if the question I'm about to ask has been noted already, or shown in abenson's video (that I am about to watch), but... Is abenson's performance degradation when using the new version, true ONLY with silencer "on" (or however that works)? In other words, I would have HOPED that the new verison would perform "the same" as the old version, UNTIL you turned on the "silencer." But otherwise, with silencer off, nothing would be different. That way, you could essentially use it in the "old" configuration, simply by keeping silencer "off," but then, if you are in a very heavily iron-polluted site (where Minelab recommendes using "stabilizer"), you could turn it on and see if it helps IN THAT SPECIFIC SITE. But otherwise, you could turn off silencer and essentially achieve the same performance as the pre-update version. This is what I EXPECTED to be the case. I am assuming that abenson found this NOT to be the case? In other words, even with silencer OFF, he was still seeing degraded performance? Steve
  22. John, I've found several of these, though it's been awhile. Always gives me a chuckle when I dig one! Steve
  23. OK, I'm now officially spooked about updating... I do NOT have enough hours on my Manticore to feel comfortable with it, and its performance. And my concern is that until I DO, I may not notice, as abenson did, a degradation of performance. I'm still at the stage where I don't get the performance from the Manticore that I did from my Equinox (which I know is largely if not entirely due to knowing my Equinox so well), and so I'm thinking it would not be wise to update to the new version, until I'm fully comfortable with the ORIGINAL version... I will be following this thread closely, to see abenson's continued reports, and to see if anyone else has issues with the update... Steve
  24. Jamie -- my apologies that you were not aware of something you would have preferred! I'm always happy to do "custom" shafts, and I try to make it known that this is something I do rather frequently. I have considered the 3-piece shafts "custom" shafts, as opposed to advertising them as a "standard" offering particularly because of the need for the customer to file down that "nipple" on the shaft. But, perhaps I need to do a better job getting the word out that it's definitely "do-able" (the fully telescopic 3-piece shaft). In any case, I'll be happy to help, if you'd like one! Thanks, Steve
×
×
  • Create New...