steveg

Nothing. You aren't missing anything; you are exactly correct. BUT -- you don't even need to pair two of them, if you own an Equinox, OR if you have aptX-LL headphones. In either of these cases, you only need one. IF you have aptX-LL Bluetooth headphones, just get one, set it to "transmit," and use your Bluetooth headphones as the "receiver." IF you have an Equinox, but no Bluetooth headphones and want to use "wired" headphones, get one of those units, set it to "receive," plug in your favorite wired headphones, and then use the Equinox's built-in transmitter to transmit the Bluetooth signal. The only time you'd need TWO of them, is IF you want to use wired phones, AND you want to use them with a machine that does not have a Bluetooth transmitter built in... Steve

Non-horizontal targets are NOT "extremely rare." And yes, a target tilted vertically will throw off pinpoint, for sure. It's pretty common to be off by several inches when detecting an "on-edge" coin. Steve

Beautiful ring! Steve

I agree with TedinVT -- if you have never seen a negative number, I'd bet it's because you have not hit the "horseshoe" button; Park mode defaults to discrimination of the lowest 11 digits on the display (-9 to 1), so that would explain why you haven't seen them. If you hit the "horseshoe" button, you have toggled off all discrimination, and then you will see negative numbers AND hear corresponding, low iron tones... Steve

NICE dig on a BIG ring! Steve

Wow, thanks for the extra info on the rings, guys! I did not know that's what they were Irish/Claddagh rings! Steve

Excellent post Steve. I've tried to push the idea of 50 tones, though I fully understand it's not for everyone; some folks don't hear tonal nuance as well as others -- and so 50 tones would only serve to confuse the situation, instead of help. With that said, though, I think many -- if they train their ears -- could learn to hear (and use to their advantage) the "tonal nuance" offered by 50 tones. However, while I talked about the benefits of the "extra information" offered by 50 tones, and just generically referred to the "tonal nuance," you spelled it out extremely well there, with a much more concrete example of what I meant when I referred to "tonal nuance." Indeed, if you have a "tone bin" set from 20 to 30, and you take two objects whose ID averages 25 -- one that reads consistently 25, with only an occasional 24 or 26, and the other that is exhibiting more varied 21, 27, 29, 22, 21, 27, 25, 23, 29, 21, 20, 22 types of numbers -- both would sound identical in a "5-tone" setup with a 20-30 tone bin set. However, in 50 tones, there would be substantial tonal differences there between the two targets, which could be exploited by someone who is listening closely, exactly as you described, Steve. You laid that out excellently, as one example of a situation where multitones can offer a benefit over 5 tones. There are other "nuances" that can be exploited when using 50 tones, but this is certainly one, and an important one IMO. Steve

Joel, First off, that says 925 -- sterling! BINGO! Second, you won't believe this, but yesterday morning I dug a VERY similar ring!! Smashed, but VERY similar!!! What are the odds of that?! Check it out...

Tometusns -- thanks very much for those numbers. Your numbers make total sense. Rich -- sounds good. I'd like to hear what yours read. Yes -- unobtanium! I think that is definitely it! Happa -- I hear you. It made me crazy too. My buddy dug one -- told me about it, and I didn't believe him. 12-43 on his CTX -- penny number. I made him re-check it in an air test, same thing...and then made him air test it with his Deus. Penny ID on his Deus, too. If that's not bad enough, a month later he dug another one! '43-S again, and penny ID on his CTX again... ??? Steve

Happa -- Thanks for the pics, and info. VERY interestingly, my hunting partner dug two of these "high-reading" war nickels so far this year, and both were 1943-S. Your high-reading one was 1943-S. Meanwhile, you dug a 1944-D that read "properly;" I dug a 1945-P last week that read "properly." This makes me feel like I need to start collecting data from detectorists as to the year and mint mark of any high-reading nickels, in order to try and unravel this mystery. I have posted to a well-known numismatic forum today, asking for info -- and if anyone knows of any alloys that have been known to have been used that deviated from the final, officially-decided-upon 35% silver, 56% copper, 9% manganese alloy. No one has come up with anything yet, still suggesting to me that we, as detectorists, may be "onto something" here that is not known, or at least, not WIDELY known, in numismatic circles. There may have been no reason for numismatists to ever SUSPECT, and thus no reason to think to "check for" different compositions. Meanwhile, our machines are very likely, inadvertently, acting as "alloy irregularity" indicators, without the need for expensive XRF equipment... I find this fascinating... Steve

VERY interesting, GB_Amateur. I sure would like to hear more about the "incorrect proportions..." If "incorrect proportions" could mean "forgot the manganese," then this could make sense... Steve

OK -- I found this...(with apologies up front for a bit of a "threadjack.") With the entry of the United States into World War II, nickel became a critical war material, and the Mint sought to reduce its use of the metal. On March 27, 1942, Congress authorized a nickel made of 50% copper and 50% silver, but gave the Mint the authority to vary the proportions, or add other metals, in the public interest. The Mint's greatest concern was in finding an alloy which would use no nickel, but still satisfy counterfeit detectors in vending machines. An alloy of 56% copper, 35% silver and 9% manganese proved suitable, and this alloy began to be coined into nickels from October 1942. So -- Congress initially authorized a 50/50 silver/copper coin, initially? THAT would certainly confirm my "missing manganese" theory, and would explain the "penny" type readings on some war nickels. But, it never says if that mix was ever actually minted, and it further says that by October 1942, the silver/copper/manganese mix was being used. The problem is, I know for a fact that in the last couple of months, my friend has dug two of the "high-reading" (12-43 on a CTX, i.e. penny range) war nickels, and both are dated 1943. SO, even if some were minted through the first half of 1942 with the 50/50 silver/copper alloy (prior to a switch to silver/copper/manganese in the fall of 1942), then why the 1943 coins that read in the penny range? More questions...I'll keep looking for answers... Steve

WOW. Very interesting chart, EL NINO. Amazing differences on some of those items, between the "1" modes and the "2" modes... Steve

Yep, Happa. We've had a few discussions lately about those "high-toning" war nickels. They are relatively "rare," but they DO exist. I can find no published documentation, thus far, from the U.S. Mint, or elsewhere, that might shed some light on possible differences in metal composition on some of those war nickels. MOST read at, or just above, regular nickels, as we all know. But there is this distinct "breed" of them that reads up into the penny/dime range, and that HAS to almost CERTAINLY imply different metal composition. My theory is, they had a few batches minted which contained ONLY the silver and copper portions of the mix, but somehow forgot (or purposely left out) the manganese. A silver/copper mix makes sense with a "penny" type of ID; otherwise, I know of no reason for these extreme "outliers," as the silver/copper/manganese ones clearly read down in the nickel range. I plan to continue trying to follow up on this; I'm almost CERTAIN that it's a "metals composition" issue, but -- like I said -- I've found no documentation to support this, and there SHOULD be something from an official source, somewhere... Steve

NICE digs, Cal! Looks like a tough site to hunt, based on the amount of non-ferrous junk. Has the Merc been through a fire? Also, that round-ish piece with the "keyhole" in it -- is that a lantern piece? I have dug those before, on sites of that same era... Neat little bottle, too... Steve

Ha -- you nailed it, Elf! I went to bed right after you posted that! ? Steve

Makes sense, Elf. When beach hunting, you'll be using a "wired" connection, so it's all a moot point. I'm not trying to make a mountain of a molehill, just trying to find out if there may be an issue where your machine SAYS it's using the low-latency codec, but it's actually not -- and is instead using a standard Bluetooth connection and thus the delay you are experiencing... Steve

Elf -- From my perspective, the comparison is not audio-video, but audio-audio. You are hearing a "wired" connection and a "wireless" connection, AT THE SAME TIME, both playing the same source. If the audio from the wired connection (zero delay) and the aptX-LL connection are being heard by the human ear as occurring "at the same time" (no "echo"), then that means that whatever amount of delay is inherent in aptX-LL (32-40ms) is "imperceptible," as compared to a "zero delay" baseline, right? This is why I really wonder if there is something wrong with your unit itself... Steve

I am really, really surprised that anyone notices delay with aptX-LL. Here is a video that shows (i.e. illustrates audibly) the "delay" associated with aptX-LL, aptX, and standard Bluetooth (SBC). AptX-LL should be essentially imperceptible. I wonder if there are issues with your ML80 headphones? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4_bypcPW5O4&feature=youtu.be Steve

Won't be long, now! ? Steve

Nice digs! Hilarious that some kid buried his toy truck -- and then apparently forgot about it! LOL! Steve

NICE job, once again, Elf! Those old military houses have been good to you! Superb! You really have a great training ground there, for the Equinox! Steve

I agree with everyone here. My nickels are generally 13, deeper (older ones) are 12-13 bounces, in many cases. I've had a VERY occasional bounce down to 11, or up to 14, but mostly 12/13. I did dig one Jefferson that was a 12 in the ground, and a perfect 12 even in an air test, but those are usually solid 13. Deeper/older ones, I expect some 12s mixed in. But, like others have said, for me it's location dependent, and also depth dependent, as to what I dig. In an old location (especially a home site) with old coins, I'll reach for a slightly larger range around that "13" number when trying to dig nickels...but in a trashy park, an 11 or 12 is usually a beaver tail, and a 14, or even a 13/14 bouncer, is usually a rectangular tab. For what it's worth, I personally have yet to dig a nickel where I have seen a "10" show up, even once, or a "15." All have been within the 11-14 range, and ALL of them with plenty of either 12 or 13 numbers -- usually both (on a deep one). Steve

VERY nice job -- excellent digs! Steve

WOW! Cool story, great digs! Steve