mh9162013

I learned that a few months ago! While I didn't expect my Equinox 600 to work like magic, I had hoped that it would work significantly better than my F2. I know it does, but I was unable to put in the time to see those results. It did have an amazing recovery speed that helped me understand what I did wrong with my F2 in my most recent competition hunt where I got skunked.

It can be a catch, depending on what the company is trying to bill their product as. The question is: how much do you have to learn? It's my impression that Multi-IQ reduces the amount of learning required. Or, it produces better results for a given amount of learning. As for asking others what works best or watching videos: are you telling me I'm wrong for doing that? I don't have the financial or time resources to do all the testing myself. I'd love to and I hope I can (say, taking a Garrett AT Pro in one arm and an Equinox in the other and see how they respond to the same target). But until I get more time and more money, I'll have to stick with what I can do through my computer screen and my occasional hunts with my Fisher F2. If I ask too many questions, I'll stop. Or at least ask fewer questions...or go somewhere else to ask them. The question I asked in this post is one that had been on my mind for months and I was waiting for a time to ask. I asked now because I thought I had reached the limits of watching Youtube and lurking message boards. I also thought I had an answer, but wanted to see if it was correct (phrunt was most helpful with that).

Ok, but where's the "catch?" Is it learning all the settings in the Equinox and being able to properly adjust the machine for the conditions you're hunting in and targets you're looking for?

Great point. I am just trying to figure out "why" this is so.

I know. But, I imagine scenarios, such as: "If you could have only one detector..." "If you were willing to dig everything..." "If you could only have two detectors..." The problem is, there are probably an infinite number of scenarios. Then, each of those scenarios will have their own caveats, exceptions and qualifiers. I'm doing my best (and my best, may be awful) to try and get the 30,000 foot view of it all. So many people will ask, "I want to search __________ site, with _________ soil, seeking __________ targets and my budget is ______________, so what machine should I get?" They may get the perfect answer, but they may not understand why. I've seen it before, where someone will ask for a recommendation on a detector, get a good one, but from his follow up questions, you can tell he doesn't understand why he got the recommendation he did. For instance, he's recommended an Equinox, but doesn't understand why that was recommended to him over the Simplex or AT Pro/Max because he mentioned wanting to hunt salt water beaches.

That doesn't have to be for my sake, but I appreciate your input, for sure. Thank you.

Awesome post and explanation, thank you!

It was and it is. So you'd pick the 600. Is your answer objective or subjective? In other words, do you pick the 600 b/c you truly think it's the best for salt water beaches? Or do you love that Equinox so much, even though there might be another choice that's better, you still go for the 600? It's an honest question. All I have for information is marketing fluff from websites and seeing what the "influencers" use on Youtube...either is hardly the most reliable source.

You'd pick the 600 over the CTX 3030, Excalibur II, Garrett Sea Hunter Mark 2, et al.? EDIT: My question assumes money is no object.

The 600 would be your first choice detector for a salt water beach?

If you life depending on searching salt water beaches, would the Equinox 800 still be your detector of choice? If not, what would?

Thanks for confirming that. The more and more I read about Multi-IQ, the more I began to think what you just said. For example, I hate the Equinox's straight shaft and built-in battery. Assuming: 1. I was willing to dig everything, 2. I wasn't going to search salt water beaches, 3. I wasn't going to do any hunting in super hot grounds, 4. I wasn't going to do any gold prospecting, and 5. I was willing to really learn my machine, Would I be as successful with a Garrett AT Pro or Fisher F75+ as with an Equinox 800? It sounds like the answer is, "yes." Yeah, I know those are a lot of assumptions...

That's the whole point when choosing what detector to use. Also, it's nice to understand the why in any choice.

In my quest to determine what makes an expensive detector "better" than a cheaper one, it seems like this is the primary advantage: more efficient digging. In other words, if someone was willing to dig it all, then they could be successful with almost any quality machine. It's only when people start picking and choosing whether to dig a signal or not, that the higher tech begins to shine. I noticed this working in the real world. When you get down to brass tacks, the real difference between a professional and an amateur is efficiency. For example, I can can probably cook a gourmet dish as well as a professional chef. But the professional chef can create 8 dishes in 20 minutes while it takes me 4 hours to make just 1 dish.

See, this is what I was thinking might be the case here. Whether I'm using an Equinox 800 or AT Pro, I'm still gonna get a signal when I hit almost any target. However, the AT Pro is more likely to make it look "iffy" while the Equinox 800 is more likely to make it look "diggable." If that's the case, then in theory, experience and skill with a particular machine can largely make up for the Multi-IQ advantage in certain situations. Take PI machines in black sand or highly mineralized/salty ground and compare them to a single frequency VLF machine. There's no debate which you probably want to use, right? The PI machine will work (for the most part) and the VLF machine will be almost useless...or at least far disadvantaged. But it seems like when comparing the Multi-IQ to a single frequency VLF machine in a mild location, such as a park, the advantage is less obvious or less extreme.

Can you elaborate?

So you think Multi-IQ's biggest advantage is better beach detecting?

I keep hearing that a major advantage of the Equinox (and Vanquish) is that it allows users to make finds in locations that have already been pounded by earlier hunts. I believe this, but I want to know "how" this is happening. Let's use a hypothetical to illustrate my question. Let's say you have a park and most detectorists are using the Compadre, Ace, F2, F75+, AT series...or some other single frequency VLF machine. But you've got the Vanquish or Equinox and you're able to make "great finds" that the other people are missing. How does this happen? Is your Multi-IQ machine able to see something that the machines can't? Or is it able to see it with a "better" signal (i.e. higher tone, louder tone, higher VDI number, etc.)? In other words, is the non-Multi-IQ machine completely missing a target while the Equinox or Vanquish see it? Or do most machine see the target, but only the Multi-IQ machine sees it as a "diggable" target? Alternatively, do all machine have roughly the same ability to see targets A, B, and C. But only the Multi-IQ machines can see targets D and E? I'm just trying to conceptualize the term "better."

That's one of the draws the AT Pro/Max have for me: the ability to use various types of AA batteries: Nickel-based, alkaline and special packs, like you described. I'd just use Eneloops or other LSD AA cells, though. No need to spend that money on the special lithium pack when I can use the AA cells in other applications if I so choose. I can see the special lithium pack (RNB) being beneficial if I were water detecting like 8+ hours a day for several days and wanted to avoid having to open the battery compartment in the middle of a hunt (I normally hunt only a few hours at a time, so recharging cells every night would not be an issue for me). But then again, I'd probably use primary lithium AA cells for a water hunt like that (assuming the AT series of detectors can take the extra voltage of about 0.1 to 0.2 volts per cell).

I would assume they have. I'll be impressed if it's easily user replaceable, like the battery on the Equinox. And yes, batteries are kind of my thing. Sometimes I almost wonder if metal detectors are just an excuse to play with batteries.

I hear ya. My opposition to built-in batteries is in the extreme minority. And in many cases, isn't a big deal for reasons you mentioned. And to be honest, I doubt Minelab and XP are actually trying to "pull a John Deere." However, the more people that engage in a behavior, regardless of motivation, the easier it is to normalize and accept. This makes it easier to do later on and by others. This applies to other things in life, from sexual abuse to political power moves to contract terms for consumer products.

The use of built-in batteries has its advantages. For a given volume, it will produce more capacity/power than a machine using an easier to replace AAA, 9V or AA cells. It also help improve water/weather-proofness as there is one less frequently used opening to protect against dust or water intrusion. However, a built-in battery almost always requires the use of a non-conventional battery, such as a custom Li-Po cell or if we're lucky, a commonly used lithium cell, like the 18650. I think devices shifting over to less common or proprietary batteries are part of the trend that makes DIY/self-help/self-repair all the more difficult. The harder manufacturers make it for the end-user to replace batteries themselves, the greater control they're trying to take over the consumer. Of course, when it comes to built-in batteries, there's a continuum of "control" over the consumer. For one, the battery used could be easy to access and replace, although harder than a machine that uses AA cells, like the Ace series, for instance. Second, the battery itself could proprietary or hard to find. It's one thing if a device uses an 18650 cell versus some exotic lithium chemistry in a shape that the world has never seen before. In other words, companies using built-in batteries, in my view, are an attempt to be like John Deere ("you don't own the product. You're just buying the right to use it, and any repairs, modifications, etc. are ILLEGAL without our permission." And yes, John Deere actually made this argument, but lost, luckily...) And not all built-in battery products are equal. Compare the Equinox to the MI-4 and MI-6 XP pinpointers. My understanding of both is that the Equinox battery can be swapped by the end-user with reasonable or minimal effort (dunno if this voids the warranty, though), but the MI-4 and MI-6 require sending them in to the manufacturer. I don't know if this is true, but it's my understanding. Assuming my understanding is correct, the XP pinpointers are just an example of manufactures trying to limit the end-users ability to use the pinpointer how they choose. TL;DR - built-in batteries make it easier to implement forced obsolescence practices by companies.

Here's a teaser video: Not impressed with fact that it probably has a built-in battery, though.

I was referring to you as an influencer, not a male version of a "booth babe."