steveg
-
Posts
1,207 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Forums
Detector Prospector Home
Detector Database
Downloads
Posts posted by steveg
-
-
19 hours ago, abenson said:
It's more than just recovery speed. I hesitate to say much because some are running the new software and some the old. Some have mineralized dirt and some mild so what works in one scenario, might not work in another. And if Minelab does another update things could change again.
I started to realize about 2 weeks ago with all this testing between the 2 software versions (I've been back and forth between the 2 probably 6 times now), that I was trying to run the Manticore like I did my Equinox 800. What I really needed to do is look at the Manticore as a totally different machine, which it is.
Lets just take recovery speed as an example. Like UT Dave, I for the most part set my recovery at 3 or 4 on the Equinox 800 and it did great at the majority of the locations I hunt. Recovery at 3 on the Manticore (most recent update) causes some real issues in my dirt. Recovery at 6 is much better.
I'll just say this. Once you have the Manticore dialed in on the right mode, with the right sensitivity, recovery, ferrous limits, swing speed, etc. It's a totally different Machine and I can with confidence say it's deeper that the Equinox and just as stable once you set it up right. For example I have a 7" clad dime buried in my yard that has 4 bar dirt and I can not only get that dime with clear audio, but I can also get the ID to within 2 or 3 numbers consistently.
But like I said, what works for me might not work for someone else.
abenson,
This is very interesting, and hard for me to imagine, at this point. Stable unit, clear audio on a 7" dime in bad dirt, with ID within 2 to 3 numbers consistently? That does NOT describe the Manticore, as I know it, after 50 hours use so far.
This tells me I have alot to learn, but that there is a definite light at the end of the tunnel...
Steve -
19 hours ago, JCR said:
What I mean by Signal balance is matching the available adjustments a detector offers to the specific site conditions, day to day and even during the same hunt. The more challenging the conditions, the more important is is to run the detector in an optimized configuration. Signal balance is the combination of frequency choice, sensitivity/gain of the RX, Tx power level, recovery/reactivity, filtering, disc level, ground balance/suppression, iron bias, threshold level/ISAT, coil size/type......... all the wonderful, adjustable controls we have in our modern detectors effect the performance of the unit. The only way I know to learn is to have a basic understanding of what each adjustment does, in theory and in my real world. Thoughtful time in the test garden & in the field. The goal is to use all of these factors in harmony to get the most out of the detector for the site you are hunting right now. None of this applies to easy sites with easy targets. Factory default settings are a good starting point. It is more about understanding what the detector is reporting and why and what you can do to improve performance to be more successful.
In practice, I am usually running a bit too hot, but I can listen thru a little noise.
JCR --
GOT IT. Makes complete sense! I have never heard the term, but TOTALLY agree that having a basic understanding of what each setting does, and how adjusting one setting can affect others...and then using this to your advantage, is KEY with your unit, when trying to dig tough targets (which, in many cases, are all that are left).
I am not at a place where I can effectively employ all that the MC has to offer, adjustments-wise; the EQX was certainly a more simple machine to utilize in that regard. Lots still to learn, for me to begin to "tame the beast..."
Steve -
To all who have commented --
I appreciate your feedback, and am so glad that you all seem generally pleased!
Thank you!
Steve -
5 hours ago, RSmith said:
That’s a great point JCR brought up about the recovery speed being one of the most important settings. In my opinion THIS setting affects the Manticore more than any other setting.
We need to find a way to know how to adjust this quickly at each site. A mineralization meter on the Manticore would help a lot.
On one site I was at I was running I think 2 maybe 3 recovery speed. I hunted for 1-1/2 hours with no targets I went to my truck to get my Equinox 800 and immediately had 4 good targets in 5 minutes searching the same steps as I jut left. So I grabbed the Manticore to see what was going on I tried changing all my settings one at a time. Setting the recovery speed to 6 the Manticore jumped to life and started out preforming the Equinox 800.
so now I think recovery speed of 6 is the magic setting so I started using it as my goto settings. A couple days later at another site the same thing happens. I am using recovery speed 6 and no good signals. Remembering my last experience I started adjusting the recovery speed and once I set it to 3, I was getting great sounding signals.
Now the best idea I came up with is to set it at 4 and when I find a target (the deeper the better) I play with the recovery speed before I dig to find the number that gives the hardest and clearest tones.
If anyone has a better strategy I would love to hear about it!This Manticore has been the hardest detector I have used to understand and try to learn it’s language. Like Steveg mentioned it false a lot and it sounds and looks so good on the screen. ——But at the same time it is finding me great finds in spots I have been over many many times with multiple detectors
WE MUST LEARN TO TAME THIS BEAST!!!
RSmith
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 -
16 hours ago, JCR said:
@steveg Maghemite is in your Oklahoma red dirt, same as my East Texas dirt, I also have some sites with Hematite hot rocks. You probably do to. It is huntable if you are careful about your Ground and Signal balance. My biggest problem is deep coin size targets get swallowed up by the ground signal after 7 inches or so. It also up averages TID at depth even to the point of Iron wrap. Recovery speed seems to be the key available adjustment, and it is a pretty narrow window for best performance. Soil moisture is a big factor in how it effects the detector. True All Metal is less effected than Motion Disc but you still can't trust the ID system at moderate depths .In a Mixed Mode even the Disc Audio will have some Iron response approaching fringe depth on a clean Non Ferrous target. You just have to dig those Iffy signals on a good site.
None of this may help much with the Manticore if the Tx signal is too strong.
Have you played around with any of the Beach Modes? They may have some interaction between the measured Mineralization and the TX output. That would help on your hot ground sites.
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 -
1 hour ago, RSmith said:
Chesroy —- in my case you are missing the point. It’s not the feeling of peer pressure —- but a knowledge that this machine is finding many great finds in places I have hunted many times with explorers and equinox’s and others over many years. ——— this is what makes me want to study and put in the extra hours to learn to better understand what it is trying to tell me.
Abenson—— my experience in my soil is opposite of yours. I find with the update (stabilizer =0 and filter off) my good targets sound louder, crisper and more detailed than before the update. I am also getting a lot more depth. Before the update my good targets (unless they were shallow like 3 inch or less)would sound weak, thin and scratchy like a piece of iron or tin foil. They were very hard to tell apart. Now it is much easier. My soil has a lot of minerals and every swing has multiple grunts like I am over several nails —-(but nothing there when I dug to test) Even using a Pinpointer is hard (tried several brands) because it sounds off on the soil in the sides and bottom of the hole. I struggle to find a spot clean enough to ground balance. It’s not the fault of the Manticore as all my detectors have done this (although with the Manticore the nails false a lot more and they usually sound really good). I suppose this is why the stabilizer really doesn’t help me and degrades the coin as bad or worse than the iron. I assume it sees all the minerals in the dirt and applies it to the target?
Steveg—- you may want to do the update and just turn the stabilizer to zero and that also turns off the filter. This is how I run it now. If I remember right your soil is about like mine (I’m the one that goes to your stomping grounds for training with USPS and you were going to show me some of your spots, but you got detained at the last minute and couldn’t go)(not been there in 4 years or more)
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 -
4 hours ago, Steve Herschbach said:
No matter the circumstances, great finds Steve!
Results are as I’ve been expecting and reported almost a year ago based on my prototype experience with the machine and what I know about the main thing Manticore adds to Equinox - a large boost in transmit power.
Sparky target id is also an artifact of boosted transmit power. Basically Manticore is a high strung Equinox with a graphic display and main way to tame the beast is reduced sensitivity until you get a handle on its high performance engine. This would be directly via the Sensitivity control, or through the use of lower power modes, or both together.I’ll point out there are two major types of “high mineral” to deal with. The western U.S. we mainly deal with magnetite. In Australia it’s maghemite, and the way of dealing with either is different.
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 -
19 hours ago, UT Dave said:
I actually really quite like the Manticore. Even though, I have gone through much of what @steveg has described. Before the update, I was getting into a really nice groove with the machine. I think it is deeper than the 800. And the audio and ID splatter can be learned and exploited. The ID splatter is only a thing, for me, in my dirt, in the copper penny/clad dime range where I typically dig everything anyway. On low conductors and in the clad quarter and silver range I don't see much ID splatter at all. Especially on the low/mid conductor. I can call nickels on the Manticore crazy good (except for gold rings and broke in half oval tabs - the only two surprises when I'm thinking nickel). I still have my 800 and have even used it more than a couple of times recently for the 6" coil. No flies on the 800. I think it's an awesome machine. But, I don't see myself going back to it.
I don't like the update though. Just rolled mine back (again) today. Had decided to give the update another try, but it really seemed like what you just said @Chesroy. Like I was punishing myself to try and learn something that I didn't like. After my initial learning curve on the old version though, I really do, quite, like the Manticore.
@steveg, with your typically red Oklahoma dirt, I don't think I'd be in any hurry to try the update.
- Dave
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 -
21 hours ago, Chesroy said:
It does come across to me that some users really are not totally satisfied with the machine and feel that they should spend hours and hours trying to convince themselves to like it otherwise fellow users will look down on them for not trying. Peer pressure I suppose.
I look at this way if a car handles badly or you do not like driving it why spend hours and hours driving it to get used to driving a badly handling car.
All your doing is getting used to driving a badly handling car ! and forgetting about the fact that it handles badly lol.
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 -
7 hours ago, Yatahaze323 said:
Check out this video on the Stabilizer, it described how it functions pretty well.
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 -
7 hours ago, RSmith said:
I am having the same issue as Steven. I have 211 hours on my Manticore. I did do the update and I have Equinox 800 that I have been using for many years. Before the update in my soil the Equinox 800 would go deeper and with better sound. The Manticore would false on every iron and even just dirt at times.
Since the update the Manticore will hit a little deeper than the Equinox 800. However I am not having the great experience with the stabilizer as most are. In my soil (maybe my machine is bad?) using the stabilizer, it degrades the sound of coins but does nothing on the false.
to test this further I buried a dime 5.5 inches (that is as deep as I could go and still detect it). I also buried (at 5.5 inches) a rusted bolt with nut on it that tricked me earlier that day at the park.
1- with filter off—- raising the stabilizer from 0 - 12 my dime would go from a good signal and get worse - to no signal at 11 —— BUT the false on the bolt would be the same all the way from 0 thru 12, it would sound like a good target the whole time.
2- with filter on —- both the dime and false on the bolt would sodium’s good at 0, but starting at 1 they both would degrade equally getting worse as I went up until around 7 they both were gone.
I was using AT-HC noise cancel- ground balance- sensitivity as high as I could without chatter- 1 region all tones-normal /simple- ferrous limits 8/3
RSmith
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 -
On 7/26/2023 at 8:14 AM, CliveHamy said:
Hi Steve, thanks for that. You did not mention what was showing on the 2-D display for the coins. I assume it was just mapping the audio you were hearing? Was everything along the central line, or where some of the high tones and grunts shown off the axis?
Cheers Clive
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 -
On 7/25/2023 at 9:12 PM, abenson said:
What I've found from probably about 100+ hours is AT HC is basically worthless for the type of hunting I do in the moderate to high mineral ground I have. The only place I would use AT HC is in a relatively free from iron field with low minerals. It worked great for me in North Carolina. But around here I have found AT LC to be my go to mode for most of my detecting. AT LC has way less falsing and a more stable ID in sites with lots of iron and on deeper targets in my moderate to high mineralization. I've got a few videos I'll post over the next week or so showing the Manticore in action using AT LC. The M8 coil is also proving to be a real asset to the Manticore in iron and in high mineraliztion. I've toyed with the idea of going back to the 800. But the more I use the Manticore and learn how to set it up correctly for different sites the more I like it and doubt I'll go back to the 800.
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 -
On 7/25/2023 at 7:55 PM, midalake said:
Awesome dime!!!
Thanks, midalake!
Steve -
On 7/25/2023 at 4:55 PM, Jeff McClendon said:
I hate to hear this from you Steve G and from many others.
I have about 30 minutes just playing around with a Manticore so I don't have much of an opinion.
I however do consider the Manticore to be a much more feature rich and slightly more powerful version of the Equinox 900 which I did own for almost 5 months and which I put over 100 hours of careful time on.
As you regulars know, I too found the Equinox 800 to be beyond belief when I first started using one and about 40 hours in I started to make some incredible finds after I got used to its sensitivity and tendency to hit everything (I thought) in the ground.
The 900 at least where I most often detect, took the hitting everything in the high iron mineralization ground around here to a whole different and very unpleasant level both with extreme iron falsing and with multiple beeps and wide ranging target IDs on seemingly easy, mid depth targets that the Equinox 800, Deus 2 and Legend lock onto like they should with no fuss or disagreement. It was like the Equinox 900 was constantly arguing with itself and could never make up its mind which drove me honestly, nuts. It was like the experiences I had with so many single frequency high gain detectors out here that would just go crazy on simple targets.
So, Steve G's post rings very true with what I experienced with the 900. It looks like Minelab made some fairly extensive software changes and the Nox 700/900 Multi IQ and Manticore Multi IQ+ just don't behave like the Equinox 600/800 Multi IQ which really shocked the excrement out of me.
Like Steve G, I made some really good finds with the Nox 900 but that was almost by accident since I was so distracted and befuddled by the way it behaved. I enjoyed and appreciated absolutely everything about the Equinox 900 except for the most important part....how it detected.
So it has nothing to do with how much I like or dislike a detector like the Nox 900. The thing just didn't work very well where I detect most often. The tougher the ground conditions and man-made iron conditions, the worse it detected. SAD.
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 -
On 7/25/2023 at 6:37 PM, GB_Amateur said:
Nice condition on the 1876, Steve. The 1837 is considerably lower mintage but the condition wipes that out in terms of value.
I felt on one early hunt that falsing was worse in All Terrain High Conductors than other AT modes. (Personally I'd go to General instead of Low Conductors if searching for coins in iron trashy sites.)
The soil mineralization seems to be a big factor in Manticore performance currently. Still very early for me, too, but I don't notice up-averaging with the Manticore any earlier (depthwise) than with the Eqx 800 in my test garden, contrary to what you just reported. My ground is moderate (2-3 bars on the F75 and Gold Bug Pro Fisher models).
It seems Minelab still has work to do on the MC for stronger mineralized ground. I hope they don't settle for "good enough" syndrome....
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 -
On 7/25/2023 at 5:53 PM, Chesroy said:
I have not heard one person say that the Manticore is a brilliant machine or have said that they are blown away by it. I have owned one and then sold it as I was not impressed(I dont beach hunt but I do take onboard that the Manticore is great on the beach), I did however intend to buy again if improvements after an update were noteworthy and if a module was made available.
Today I spoke at length with 2 dealers in the UK regarding customer feedback and their take on the Equinox 900 and Manticore as my desire to buy a new Minelab to replace my 800 and have a new toy to play with still burns within me.
The 800 is a great machine and it never fails to suprise me with what it uncovers. Anyhow both dealers said that they and their customers concluded that the 900 basically was a hardware upgrade and was a little better in and around iron and the Manticore was noisey and chatty with posibly a little more depth, however they felt the price tag for the minimal amount of improvement over the 800 was not justified.
Both dealers basically advised me to save my money as the 800 was still a great machine(I knew that anyhow) and can still hold its own.
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
-
On 7/25/2023 at 5:41 PM, fishersari said:
I got the same problems as you describe when I use AT HC, now in iron patches I use AT LC. The stabilizer didn't help much in iron situations too because I need to stop and sweeps the target multiple times to properly trigger the stabilizer..
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 -
On 7/25/2023 at 5:14 PM, Dug D said:
Hello Steve, you have perfectly documented my exact experience with the MC, prior to update.
I have more than 50 hr in for sure and have now updated, since the update my depth arrows seem to be not even close (like 3 or 4 arrows for a 2 to 3 inch coin) and overall depth seems to be less, but more testing/comparison needs to be done.
I am glad its not just me with how you described your first 50hr.
thanks🙂
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 -
On 7/25/2023 at 4:55 PM, TampaBayBrad said:
Doesn't sound like you and Manti are getting along Steve. Sounds like you wished you never broke up with the 800. I respect your opinion, maybe some more time will allow you to figure her out. I'm a beach guy, so I don't see what you dirt guys are seeing on the false front working around a bunch of iron all the time.
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 -
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
-
On 6/29/2023 at 9:00 PM, abenson said:
Minelab called me this evening and I'm sending my Manticore in to have them look at it. The person I spoke to said the machine should act similar to the old software with the stabilizer off. So there maybe something else going on. I'll let everyone know what happens once I get a replacement machine. However, Dave is experiencing similar issues so hard to say what's reallt going on.
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 -
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 -
20 minutes ago, Chase Goldman said:
This is similar to Deus 1 in Gold Field with the Iron Audio Reject Filter (similar but different than discrimination). Works fine in thick iron in mild soil - it breaks up iron target signals. But if you use it in ferrous mineralized soils like heavy magnetite, then both ferrous and non-ferrous targets get chopped up.
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
A Few Observations On The Manticore, After About 50 Hours (and A Few Recent Nice Finds)...
in Minelab Manticore Forum
Posted
Interesting for sure. I believe I was running sensitivity 25 -- no issues at all with EMI -- the day I dug the Seated and the Reale. I was at recovery speed 4. Looks like I have some ideas to test...i.e. to bump UP on the recovery speed, and DOWN on the sensitivity, and scrutinize to see how this changes the response on deep coins...
Steve