steveg

Huh.  Minelab down STILL.  1:22 AM CST (0723 UTC).  Interesting.  Updating?  Hacked?  None of the above?  A little bit of intrigue...

Steve

Hey, Cabo Chris --

Talking about used machines, and Explorers...

I have an Explorer SE Pro up for sale as we speak; it was my primary, personal detector until I got a CTX (and will be getting an Equinox).  I have lowered the price several times due to lack of interest.  If you are in the U.S., I will ship it to your door for $399...

Let me know/send a PM if you have any interest...

Steve

Not sure how this might relate, as I never used an analog machine -- and so I don't have the benefits some of the old-timers do of watching audio "evolve," from the analog era, to the digital era.

HOWEVER, I find it interesting that on the CTX, for example, you can choose "normal" audio, or, as one of the other options, "smooth."  As I understand those two settings, "normal" audio is a more "digital," rather rapid rise and fall audio, for each target.  Rise, peak, fall, reset, next target.  Something like that.  HOWEVER, as I understand the "smooth" option (never used it), it does not have the "rise, peak, fall, reset" response, but instead is a "smooth transition" from one target to another, with no threshold "reset" in between targets -- so I would imagine this to be a more "bleedy/blendy" type of response?  Not sure, as I don't know exactly what is meant by "bleedy/blendy," but in picturing what folks are discussing, I'm guessing that's what the "smooth" audio option on the CTX tries to emulate?

SO, what I'm saying is, Steve is implying that the machine is SO fast, that the audio "rise-peak-fall-reset" cycle for each target is so lightning-fast that you get good reporting of individual targets -- each target reporting separately and rapidly.  HOWEVER, I wonder if there will be a "smooth" audio option on the Equinox final version, which might be more of a "bleedy blendy" thing?  

Just thinking out loud here...

Steve

47 minutes ago, Wayfarer said:

How the MF works is what I am most interested about the Equinox.  It would be nice if ML gave us another installment on Multi-IQ, in particular, how (or if?) the MF differs between the modes.  

Minelab is SUPPOSED to be doing a third installment, a "Part 3" of their "Equinox Technologies" series under the "Treasure Talk" header on their webpage.  Like you, I HOPE we get a little more detail about Multi-IQ...

Steve

Chris -- I am pretty sure the tones will have nothing to do with how many frequencies are being run...

50 tones = 50 ID segments from -9 to 40...so that you could assign one tone per each ID number, I am almost positive...

Steve

3 minutes ago, Champ Ferguson said:

Steve, you really ought to put out a manual on the Equinox after it comes out. Even if it was just a compilation of your posts here, it would be a best seller. I feel like I already know almost as much about the workings of a detector that I haven't even seen yet as I do about the ones I have used for years.

Agreed!

26 minutes ago, Steve Herschbach said:

That probably only exhibits in real bad ground that is trying to pull targets into the ferrous region. I would not expect it in milder ground. And you have to be in full tones.

It is different from ferrous junk targets that also tend to fire off some high squeaks as the ferrous "wraps high". But on equinox there is more spread between the target id of a high ferrous wrap and silver coins then I have seen on other detectors, so they tend to be painfully obvious. I will be able to say more about that whenever Minelab tells me the target id numbers are locked in place but for now I am avoiding talking about specific id numbers and what they might mean. Things may shift still.

In other words, I can speak to generalities as best I can, but if I tell you that nickels ring up as 16 it could very well be that the number shifts to 15 or 18 in the final build. No big deal but I don't want to put stuff out there I will have to go back and correct or clean up later any more than I have to.

Steve,

Totally understood, on the target ID numbers and not being specific about them in your posts yet.

Also, I was wondering that very thing (about the ferrous "donut," and whether it might be more pronounced in bad ground, versus mild).  My thought though is that even if it is happening to you on 7" dimes, for instance, I might see the same thing but instead on a 9" or 10" dime (with my soil milder than yours, but still hot enough to cause your average single freq. unit to start calling coins iron at 6" to 7" deep...)  Will be interesting to test in my dirt, but my thought was that what you described might be a signature clue for identifying fringe depth targets even in my dirt.

ALSO, (you must be reading my mind), as I am reading and pondering your posts, I had been wondering about the details of how you were able to recognize that "ferrous donut" around a non-ferrous target, because I'd think you'd still have "falsing iron" to deal with, which might act somewhat similar, audibly.  But, you offered up some unsolicited explanation that answered that for me, as well!  I knew you were good, but a mind reader?  ;)

To be sure I understand -- and I'll just use numbers for the sake of the argument (realizing as you said, that they may change)...when you talk about the spread between the "iron wrapping" tones/IDS, and the high-toning in that "ferrous donut" that suggests "good target" to you...are you saying that any "wrapping" or "falsing" iron is constrained to say the 39 or 40 ID, while the highest "non-ferrous" high tone might be limited at the high end to say 36 or 37 -- and thus you have a "gap in there" (say, around that 38 number) between REAL high tones and iron falses -- that stands out audibly as being pretty obvious when running multi-tones?  As opposed to a situation with say another machine, where the highest of non-ferrous IDs/tones might "overlap" with the ID/tones generated by the iron "falses?"

If what I just laid out in trying to understand what you are saying is correct, then WOW.  That, for me, is a BIG, BIG deal.  It's in my opinion one of the hardest things to "master" when hunting in thick iron and trying to "unmask" -- i.e. with some machines you have to spend too much (in my opinion) time and brain-power to filter the FALSE high tones from the potentially REAL high tones; if this machine puts some "separation" in there, so that you can have more faith in your ability to hear what is likely just a "false," versus what a likely clue of a non-ferrous target hiding in the nails?  That is potentially HUGE.

Steve

Steve,

This is just great stuff.  Every time you post, about using this unit, I am gleaning more and more info that will be so helpful once I get mine.  That "ferrous donut" around a fringe-depth good target, with a high-tone "squeak" in the middle?  I'm going to remember that one...

Steve

Steve,

Excellent posts, excellent information.  Impressive, what the Equinox is doing for you, in your soil.

My dirt must be VERY similar to Cabin Fever's.  In my dirt, most VLFs read a dime beyond 6" deep as iron, but in my case, like his, and UNLIKE yours and Daniel's, the Explorer/E-Trac/CTX can see a dime to 9" or 10" deep and ID it pretty accurately, with an 11" coil.  If the Equinox can do that, AND be the fast, very good unmasker I expect it to be, then I am going to be LOVING this machine...  :)  And the more I read of your posts, the more confident I am that it will do exactly this...

Steve

OH, Ok.  Now I get it, Ridge Runner.  You are thinking that since Steve just announced he's been testing the Equinox, you assume that means he just got it.  OK.  I get what you were saying now.

Reason I didn't know what you meant is, I -- just like DDancer said -- assumed that while Steve just "announced" his testing, that it had been ongoing for a LONG time.  I didn't interpret his "coming out" to mean "hey I just got a prototype Equinox today," in interpreted it as the opposite -- "I've had this thing for a long time, testing it, and we are near the end now so I feel like it's OK with Minelab if a now say a few words here, near the end of the process."  

Don't mean to speak for Steve, but I am almost sure he didn't get the Equinox in his hands at the same time he made his post.

Interesting note though...if I recall, the prototypes at Detectival were said NOT to have the 20 kHz ad 40 kHz single freq. options included on those particular units at that time; since those are clearly the "prospecting" frequencies, I wonder if Steve had been giving them lots of feedback on the "prospecting" skill of the machine, and this was something they were working to finish up at that time?  :)

Anyway, it makes total sense to me, given Steve's knowledge, reputation, AND his prospecting skill, that Minelab would have wanted his input on this unit...and I for one am glad they did.  It will be a better unit, for it...

Steve

Chuck,

Don't know what you are referring to about Minelab "sending an Equinox this late in the day for testing..."

Steve

I agree with wanting to know coil cost.  I'm trying to budget money, and it would be helpful in that regard to know what the coils will cost...

Steve

Steve --

Not trying to "argue," nor "win;" I apologize if it came across that way.  Only trying, through back-and-forth discussion, to exchange ideas --hoping things come up, and points are raised, along the way, that are helpful or informative.  While it's all speculation at this point, "informed" speculation is fun to banter about IMO.  

I look forward to the machine in any case, and I think it will be a winner.  I know you do, too.  

Cheers!

Steve

Redneck, you and Steve H. MAY be right.

But I'm sticking to my guns.  The "obsoletion" is going to be based on the performance of the Multi-IQ technology, is my guess...

We shall see.  The word "obsolete" usually involves a technological advancement.  I'm not sure "packing a bunch of features that already exist on several machines, into one single unit" is enough to use the word "obsolete."  Very, very nice?  Yes.  Extremely convenient and enticing?  Yes.  But "obsoleting?"  I think that word implies a technological leap, and I think it's Multi-IQ that Minelab is referring to, with the use of this particular word...

Just my two cents!  We will certainly see, before too long!

Steve

Steve,

I totally agree with you about "making machines out to be something they are not," and I also agree that it's almost beyond question that the Equinox will be a "good" machine, if only because -- as you said -- they took numerous existing technologies and wrapped them into a nice, lightweight, waterproof package.

All I was saying is this -- I don't think that MINELAB believes that just taking, let's say, Deus performance, and putting it into a waterproof housing similar in appearance and weight to the Deus is what will "make other single-frequency detectors obsolete."  I think -- as you said -- they are staking their future bets on multi-frequency.  I think we are saying the same thing in a way, but in different styles.  My point only was that as good as the Equinox looks EVEN WITHOUT Multi-IQ (given all the qualities that it has rolled into one machine), I don't think that would "obsolete" anything.  I believe what will allow the Equinox to either live up to, or fall short of, its "obsolete" claims, is how well Multi-IQ actually performs.  My only point was, all the other stuff is GREAT, but at the end of the day, I really believe that it's more like Brandon said about the Deus/CTX mix.  This machine will be the amazing innovation that Minelab claims, because where else can you get a Deus, that ALSO has Minelab's legendary multi-frequency ability included AS WELL?  Two detector platforms in one (single-freq, and multi-freq).  And not just ANY multi-freq, but a NEWLY ENGINEERED version of multi-freq, from the long-time, in-the-field-proven industry leader in multi-frequency technology.

That's all I was trying to say...

Steve

On 11/9/2017 at 8:17 AM, Steve Herschbach said:

Was it a question? Updates via the internet were announced in the very first video out of Detectival. Anyway, it does give at least some insurance that if a bug is found an easy fix awaits without the need to mail the detector in. This should be standard on any new detector that has even a hint of complexity.

I said it before and will say it again. There is nothing in the Equinox that can't be found separately in other detectors. What makes the Equinox unique is the number of features in one detector. It can't be duplicated in other detectors without having at least a couple machines. And in a light weight package at a very low price.

Steve, 

Agree with your post in all but one respect.  You said "there is nothing in the Equinox that can't be found separately in other detectors."  I'd say that at this point, we can't know that for sure.  And I hope you are wrong there, becuase I think Multi-IQ is going to be KEY for this machine.  I HOPE it proves to be something that CAN'T be found in other detectors.  

While taking different qualities that different detectors offer, and wrapping them all into a single, nice package is a great idea, I don't think that's all that Minelab has done here (and I hope I'm right on this).  I personally think Multi-IQ is going to eventually prove to be the reason that they keep claiming the Equinox "will obsolete all single-frequency detectors."  This statement by Minelab, in my opinion, will stand or fall almost entirely on whether Multi-IQ is a substantial technological advancement, or is not...

Steve

Really like the screen protector thing.  It's such a small cost to Minelab to include them, and it saves us from having to purchase something designed for a cell phone or tablet, and then try to cut it to size...

Nice touch, Minelab!

Steve

I totally agree, Chuck.  I keep waiting to see prices, ESPECIALLY on the accessory coils; no idea why they can't let us know what the coils will cost.  I'm trying to budget for the 800, which is tough to do when I don't know if an extra coil is going to run me $150 or $300...

Steve

Really sorry to hear that you haven't had any luck yet, Monte.

Don't give up on it (I know you won't).

Steve

Monte --

Not to derail the thread, but any luck recovering any of your stolen gear?

Steve

Tim --

I would offer a counter-point.  I think target ID will be a little bit better on THIS unit (even better than FBS).  Obviously, this is all speculation, but from what I can gather, reading between the lines (while given my lack of electronics engineering knowledge), it sounds like one of the big improvements/technological advances that is Multi-IQ, as compared to prior multi-frequency technologies, is revealed in that first paragraph that Dr. Wahrlich is quoted.  While he gets into a bunch of stuff about phase- and amplitude-locking, drive voltage, etc. etc., my read on that, pondering it, and then putting it into a "conclusion" is as follows...

It would seem that apparently when prior multi-frequency units arrive at target ID, they are comparing receive waveform to an ASSUMED transmit waveform.  I say ASSUMED, because apparently a drive voltage is sent to the coil, and it is from this DRIVE VOLTAGE that the transmit waveform's "properties" are "assumed" (amplitude, phase, etc. etc.)  But, I can see where that would be "idealized," because ANYTHING between control box and coil that would alter that drive voltage, even SLIGHTLY, would result in a correspondingly, slightly different transmit waveform.  So, if, for illustration purposes, 1 volt is the "drive voltage" but only .99 volts is used at the coil to generate the transmit waveform, then the transmit waveform (resulting from the .99 volts) would be slightly different from a transmit waveform that would be generated by 1 volt.

AND SO, if all of your calculations of target ID, soil mineralization, etc. etc. are based on comparing a tiny, weak receive signal to an ASSUMED, IDEALIZED transmit waveform, but the transmit waveform the machine ACTUALLY produced (and to which the receive waveform SHOULD HAVE BEEN compared) is slightly different, I could see where this would introduce ID inaccuracy, etc.  And according to Dr. Wahrlich, THIS is apparently one of the advances that is going to show up in Multi-IQ -- that they are measuring the transmit voltage/waveform AT THE COIL, not at the control box, so the receive waveform to transmit waveform comparisons/calculations performed by the unit will be MORE ACCURATE than before, in prior technologies.

My conclusion -- if all of my understanding of the technical part of this is correct -- is this:

We all KNOW that multi-frequency technology is an improvement over single-frequency technology in terms of target ID; now, this new "breakthrough" that is part of Multi-IQ technology seems like it would mean that Multi-IQ technology is an improvement over prior MULTI-frequency technologies in terms of target ID.  

If my conclusion is correct, then we may all -- even users of FBS/FBS2 -- be in for a pleasant surprise.

(I might also note that improved ability to deal with soil mineralization and the associated positive effects on accurate target ID basically implies, for all intents and purposes, as a necessary side effect, improvement in depth capability as well....because after all, we know that deterioration of target detection ability with depth is largely due to the effects of soil mineralization "drowning out" the target signal; improving your ability to deal with soil, all else being equal, means an improvement in depth capability...hmm!)

Steve

I agree with everything Swampstomper Al said above; I will elaborate some.

First question,

How long have you been using your X-Terra?

I have never hunted with an X-Terra, but I do swing a Minelab Explorer, and you definitely do have to hunt those machines slower than others.  I will guess that the X-Terra is somewhat similar.  The benefit is that (at least with an Explorer) you will be able to dig deeper (and thus often older) coins than many other machines.  HOWEVER, if -- as you implied in your other post -- you are concerned about "covering ground fast," like your partner does, I would not suggest an Explorer for that task.  A faster machine that can be effectively used with a faster sweep speed, such as an AT Pro, would be better if you are just trying to quickly cherry pick coins and such from large areas.  It's all about what your goals are; what you are hunting for, etc.

With that said, if you haven't been using the machine all that long (and it sounds like maybe you haven't), then unfortunately there are no "short cuts."  Each machine has its own language...subtleties and nuances in the audio that you learn, over time, to understand and become "in tune" with, which -- as you gain experience with the machine -- then helps you make your dig/no-dig decisions quicker, and more accurately.  And what I mean by "no short cuts" is, in order to learn your machine's nuanced language, you must LISTEN CLOSE to the audio, watch the display's output carefully, before you dig...and then when you dig the target, to mentally relate what the target turns out to be with the audio and visual output your machine gave.  And you have to do this OVER AND OVER with THOUSANDS of targets of all types, before you get really in tune with your machine's language.  Many long-time hunters will STILL dig trashy signals at times, ON PURPOSE, just to "prove to themselves" that they know what they are passing up...

You probably already know this, but CALLING YOUR TARGET is, to me, the way to learn the machine's language.  Before you dig, say to yourself what you think the target is.  Do not dig it, until you have an idea.  "I don't know, this is some sort of junk, like a piece of can slaw" is a fair guess, for a scratchy mid-tone signal.  But try to call EVERY ONE.  Eventually, you will be able to say "clad dime, 7 inches deep, next to a nail."  When you are right, remember it -- and what the machine was telling you.  When you are wrong, see HOW WRONG you were.  In other words, if you hit a target, you rotate around it while "working the target" listening to the audio and glancing at the visual ID output, and then you decide it's a penny...and then you dig and it's a copper washer, yes, you were wrong, technically, but really, that's likely the best you can do.  That's a "successful call."  Not much difference between a coin, and a copper washer; there aren't many clues your machine can give to differentiate, so really, that's a "success."  Conversely, if you call "quarter," and it's a crushed aluminum can -- what went wrong?  What can you do different next time, to get a hint that it's not a quarter?  

Anyway, I ALWAYS call EVERY target, before I dig.  It's a constant learning experience.  Time, time, time, repetition, repetition, repetition, dig targets, dig targets, dig targets.  There are no short-cuts.  You have to learn the language of the unit, and your brain learns by repetition...trial and error...associating audio and visual ID to target type, and then making mental notes.  

Finally -- decide what your goals are on each hunt, as I said above.  If you are out at a new park, and hunting with your buddy, and just want to come home with a pocket full of clad, you don't NEED to carefully interrogate every "iffy" signal.  Pick out the obvious ones, dig them, and move on.  Conversely, if you are trying to hear the deeper whispers, because you decided that on that particular hunt you are after the deep, old coins, then you need to KNOW your machine and its language, and move more slowly and carefully, really listening to the audio as you slowly rotate around the target making multiple sweeps of the coil over the target from all angles.  It really depends on what you are trying to do on a given hunt, what your goals are, what you are trying to dig.  

This is getting WAAAAY long-winded, so I'll stop here.

Hope some of this helps...

Steve

Welcome!

Steve

Sherry,

Of COURSE you can ask!  No secrets here! 

If I had to guess, I'd say 12-15 hours probably.  I was digging ANY tones above low foil; there just weren't a whole lot of targets -- barren, as you said, was how I'd describe it.  I was surprised at times how long I could go without getting a signal.  

Again, though, my inexperience as to "which parts" of the beach to hunt means I am sure I spent a lot of time on unproductive areas where a more experienced hunter would have immediately ruled out.  Sand bars, for instance.  I tried the offshore sand bars, thinking maybe I'd get a recent drop from someone out there playing in the water when the tide was higher.  But those sand bars produced almost nothing, and in hindsight that was probably wasted time.  Most of my finds were either along the towel/chair line, or on the sloping wet sand.  Nate (which came onshore 12 hours prior to our arrival) had things stirred up, too.  Lots of sand -- sanded in, I was told.  So lots of things going on, such that I'm not sure my experience there would be real applicable for an experienced hunter like you, in terms of trying to decide if it would be "worth your time" to try a hunt there.

Wow, that is strange, how on some of your beaches you find very little, but if you do, it's often gold or silver...but then on another beach you find lots of jewelry, but almost always junk.  Beaches, I can already tell in that short amount of time, are strange animals.  Head-scratching, for a beach newb like myself!

Steve

Yep, I saw that, Steve.  It absolutely caught my attention, and piqued my interest.

I agree with you that so far, the Equinox looks like it is going to come as close to anything I've seen at competing with my Explorers, and in a much lighter, waterproof, less-expensive package...

I'm on a wait list now, as I've been convinced enough to get my hands on one and put it through some testing...  :)

Steve