steveg

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

MontAmmie -- Gotcha, on the unit's language. I'm sure EMI was part of it, no doubt. But wow, as a VLF-only person for all of my time in this hobby, I just could not get "comfortable" with what it was trying to say to me, in the relatively short time I ran it! Destin is a real nice place, beautiful white sand and turquoise water -- but don't take my finds as any evidence as to whether you want to try hunting there, or not! I am clueless! Plus, Hurricane Nate had things pretty well "sanded in" from what it seemed like to me, and from what others more experienced with such conditions told me after the fact. I managed about 5 bucks in clad, a junk earring, and a junk necklace pendant, plus the usual assortment of pull tabs, ring tabs, lead weights, zipper pulls, etc. etc. Like I say, nice place; it would probably be worth it for you to stop and check it out. The Gulf beaches in north Florida and vicinity are really nice IMO. I grew up in PA and so all of my "beach experience" is on Atlantic beaches. Now that I've experienced both, I MUCH prefer the Florida Gulf beaches... Steve

MontAmmie -- VERY nice find! LOVE the ring (along with the possible Reale)! I just got a taste of beach hunting for the first time (down in Destin, FL); let's just say I have ALOT to learn! Also, I borrowed an Infinium LS from a friend, as I had considered taking it with me on that beach trip (instead of a Minelab FBS machine)...but...WOW. Having never swung a PI unit before, that thing was CONFUSING! I tested it for quite awhile in my "test garden," and I simply could NOT wrap my brain around how to decipher all the noise that thing made, and how to decide which noises "mattered" and which did not! Sure, I could hear many of the coins I have buried, but I could also hear a bunch of other stuff that was noise/falsing/EMI and who knows what else! So I gave it back, and took my trusty Minelab! I am impressed not ONLY with your finds, but your ability to understand the Infinium's strange language so well as to be able to MAKE those finds! Steve

http://www.detectorprospector.com/forum/topic/4419-minelab-equinox-multi-iq-technology-part-1/ Very interesting, IMO. Steve

Gotcha! I know I have seen outbuildings and such, but hadn't recalled seeing trees! In any case, Sanborn maps are very helpful, especially in small towns that haven't grown significantly in the last 100 years or so...I use them quite a bit. Steve

I'd be interested in hearing your take on interpreting Sanborn maps; I have used them and generally know what they show for the most part, but you mentioned that they'd show "where the biggest tree in the school yard was." I guess I don't know everything there is to know about reading the maps, because I don't recall seeing trees noted on the maps. How are they depicted by Sanborn? Steve

Tim, Gotcha. I know how that is...can't tell you how many times I get "just enough of what I want" from the machine -- i.e. enough of a clue in the tones to make the "dig" decision, and then, once I have the target, I end up "surprised," and wished there in hindsight that I would have "interrogated" the target a bit more, from different angles, for the "educational" aspect the machine might have offered on that particular target. I recall that specifically, awhile back, on the last half I dug. I was hunting in trash, and had already dug a few rusty iron things, and got another tone that didn't sound all that great, but kind of hastily said "what the heck, I'll just dig it" and then, up popped a Walker! My partner said "how did it read on your machine," and would you know, I couldn't even tell him? Other than to say "kind of crappy?!" Wished I would have been more careful, rotating around and listening to it...it would have been a good target to "get an education on," as it was certainly in no way CLOSE to the textbook air-test 00-27/00-28 (that they read on an Explorer). BTW -- I didn't make it clear (for the sake of others), I am talking about FBS machines specifically, in terms of how they report co-located targets (especially that "HIGHLOW" or "LOWHIGH" blurb), because obviously each machine does things differently in terms of how they report co-located or close-proximity targets. Anyway, Tim, I am going to guess that your two coins were probably on top of one another, or even touching, if you had a pretty stable ID and tones, at least as far as you can remember. That "12-30" is obviously a clue, in that if it was stable, as you noted you recall it being, then the machine WAS treating it as a conglomerate, and not two separate targets...so they were likely touching, or close to it... BY THE WAY, really good post just awhile back, GB_Amateur... Steve

Tim, I have had this happen, also (two coins, screwy ID) but usually, there is an angle -- or sector of angles -- that as you rotate around the target, you get some indication in the audio that there might be two items present...like the machine (at that angle or sector) can't decide what it wants to report audibly so it kind of "reports both," and it has some semblance of a HIGHLOW or LOWHIGH blurb of tone. That's not always true -- especially if the coins are touching, or right on top of one another (then, it's often just a cleaner, single tone representing the "conglomerate" of the two coins). But often, I get this really weird tone -- hard to describe -- that I have come to recognize as co-located targets. Did you get any of that, or was the tone "clean," and indicative of a solid 12-30 ID? Steve

LOL! Good one, goldbrick.

Very good point, johnedoe. I have obviously read, and heard, several people showing a pile of nails, and a coin, and say "I dug out all these nails, and then finally the coin, at the bottom...my machine heard the squeaks of high tone to clue me in that the coin was down there." My question always was -- and how do we know that the squeaks weren't, in fact, just the nails falsing, and that it was just fortuitous that a coin was down there, too? I am sure that is not ALWAYS the case -- sure, you can pull a nail and a coin from the same plug, having had the machine see both targets. But when it's a handful of nails? How can you really know? I have dug more than my share of bent, rusty nails that sounded like there should have been a coin down there, only to dig the plug and find "nope, only a bent rusty nail." If I dig another similar-sounding target, and find a bent rusty nail, and then a coin two inches deeper, should I assume my machine heard the coin, or just the nail falsing (and the coin was a "nice accident") Steve

au, I am NOT saying this is THE explanation, just A POSSIBLE explanation... Falsing off of the plough itself. Another, possibly more LIKELY scenario? Detecting and then mis-IDing (and thus allowing to sneak through the discrimination) the iron plough? Not uncommon at all, of course, for large iron to not be "discriminated," as the large size of the iron fools the detector into IDing it as non-ferrous... Steve is correct, detectors cannot see "through" iron. Steve

Unmasking a tiny gold coin underneath a plough blade? Respectfully, J, I will not believe that until I see it with my own eyes. That does not only NOT match my experience, it does not make physical sense, either. Steve

I hear you, khouse. Makes sense. Every move toward a lower number of iron reject, you will dig fewer nails, but also fewer "partially masked" coins. Every move toward a higher number of iron reject, you dig more nails, but also have a better chance at digging a few more partially masked coin. Anyway, like I said, a very, very good video. I learned a couple of things about the E-Trac (and probably SE Pro also) in your video. Thanks! Steve

If only that were true, auminesweeper. Actually, Tom Dankowski would say the OPPOSITE is true. At some sites with heavy iron contamination, 99% of targets are actually SO masked, apparently, that even the very best, fastest "unmasking" machines are rendered entirely blind to those 99% of targets, by the iron. Dankowski would say that even our best machines are NOT truly "unmasking," we are nowhere NEAR that, technologically. The only thing we are actually doing is seeing "around" the iron -- I.e. we have gotten a bit better a "separation" -- seeing targets "adjacent" to iron. But iron SEE THROUGH -- i.e. seeing a target UNDER a piece of iron, is something that NO machine can do, period. Here is my opinion. We, as detectorists, are "misleading ourselves," in a way, by watching these videos where people put a coin next to a nail on the ground, and then test various machines' ability to see the coin. We are drawing the wrong conclusions at times, I think. That is NOT "unmasking!" While tests are valid, in terms of seeing which machines have the best "separation," that is NOT the same as unmasking. Coins in the same horizontal plane with nails (as all of these tests are) is a "separation" argument. YES, it helps us to see which machines are best at SEPARATION. But put those targets in a DIFFERENT plane -- with the iron in a plane a few inches above the coin, and see what happens. THAT is where masking starts to be a problem. Then, an even more extreme scenario, slide those coins (in that lower plane) UNDER the nails...THAT is "masked" target, and NO MACHINE AVAILABLE TODAY is going to find those. We are nowhere near there, technologically... And thus, to say you will get "99% of targets" with a fast recovery/single-frequency machine is entirely not true, in an iron-infested site. Steve

Excellent video, khouse. Really, really good. Main problem I see with that, in reality (out on a hunt in a trashy iron site) though, is -- how do you know how high to set the disc? Sure, setting the iron reject at 32 worked in that "controlled" experiment, with non-rusty, non-bent, same-sized nails. But in real-world scenario, in dense iron, that 32 iron reject would leave me digging TONS of nails, I am guessing. (And I'm "guessing," because I run an SE Pro, not an E-Trac, so I am not sure exactly how the FE numbers on nails translate over to an Explorer...I usually run my Explorer at Iron Mask 22, but I am guessing that 32 on the E-Trac would be something more like 26 or 28 on the SE Pro... Steve

Indeed, Tim. I am one who has always shied away from the iron, instead tackling the challenge of the targets that have been missed due to being "too deep" for most. I have had good success that way, but it's time for me to expand my skill set, put a "new tool in the toolbox," so to speak. I am indeed willing to "work for it." I am really, really hoping the Equinox 800 turns out to be the perfect tool for the job... Steve