New Update Has Arrived

[mn90403]

8 hours ago, cjc said:

The sense I get with this upgrade is that you could draw two "bias curves".  The F--is lower and flatter--not quite beginning to break up the range of caps--but there are fewer consequences.  It also attempts to bring them into the center of the ID scale for a more defined ID.  F2  is a steeper curve that does get the entire range of caps but carries with it your typical high bias tradeoff--sluggishness around iron and alloys as all this filtering takes place in software.  At the higher levels Recovery Speed does not seem to do nearly as much.  While its pretty good at higher levels on "clean" metals such as high kt gold, just as with any "power curve" there is still a loss of overall effectiveness at the higher ranges--where the audio becomes a bit corrupted--the bias takes up a lot of the machine's "work" capacity.  Where you are trying to tame diverse fq's to begin with--adding the muting of a scattered type of target (caps) has got to involve "dialing back" the machine's ability to detect all targets.   I think the way to get the most from this upgrade is  to run a low setting but then--practice speeding up the sweep to knock out a higher range of caps and iron.  It's great to have this additional tool to run extreme high bias but there are for sure some tradeoffs to be managed. 

cjc

My ears have learned a lot since my first usage of the 800.  I can still remembered how I didn't understand it so much I thought I was going to hate it.

I mostly All Metal my beaches around 23 on sensitivity.  Then I make sure it is balanced, the targets are loud and then I'll adjust recovery speed as necessary.  The bias has not been much of a concern as I tend to dig it all and lately the negative iffys can be a good 'odd' target or deep one.  If I don't here it then I can't decided to dig or not to dig in combination with the screen info.

Yesterday I had a long beach session and tried the FE and FE2 at 4.  I don't know what I didn't hear but I dug 100 targets (4 junk rings including a stainless steel that had surface numbers of 1, 12, 14, 20 and 2 of them were negative before I dug them) and learned a bit of the new sound.  More will be revealed.

[GB_Amateur]

I know people would rather hear/read answers but I don't have any of the latter, yet.  However, I do have a question/concern.

Many, including I, have noticed that quite often hot rocks will hit in the nickel zone (TID's around 12).  That's in Gold mode, at least.  I'm wondering if this new Fe2 filter might help with that, either directly in the Gold modes, or indirectly in other modes such as Field 2.

 

[mn90403]

Simon,

Get out to the goldfields with this new update and find a nugget!

Mitchel

[2Valen]

I have to learn what I have now before I start updating. I am still learning the 800 and want to know it before I mess it up with a update.

[dr_maddog]

On 9/28/2019 at 1:44 AM, Chase Goldman said:

Actually, the 600 vs. 800 iron bias correspondence table in the updated manual does not differentiate between FE and F2 iron bias settings for the 600 and has definitely changed from the previous "non-F2" version that was 1/2, 2/4, 3/6 to now 1/3, 2/6, 3/9 for BOTH FE and F2.  Yet that is inconsistent with the line in the manual that comes right before the table that states, "EQUINOX 600/800 Iron Bias Setting Equivalents
The following shows the equivalent Iron Bias settings between the 
two models. EQUINOX 600 offers fewer adjustment increments and 
a lower maximum Iron Bias than the 800 model.EQUINOX 600/800 Iron Bias Setting Equivalents"

So either ML's updated "Equivalents" section is in error or ML actually changed the 600 firmware so the maximum 600 setting of 3 now corresponds to 9 vice 6 on the 800.  My money is on a typo in the new table, but as a minimum the wording is inconsustent with the table in the updated manual, so something needs to be fixed to remove the ambiguity for 600 users.  Hmmm.

Screen shots from each version of the manual are inserted below:

Old Manual Upper/Updated Manual lower:

 

Thanks for the detailed info on the Equinox 600.  As a 600 user I would like clarification on this as well.

If you happen to hear back please share.

I think Minelab should have made the settings using the same numbers across both models.  Sure the 800 will have more granularity but then the 600 user can easily compare settings without having to do the mental conversations. Example 0,3,6,9 versus 0,1,2,3

[mn90403]

8 hours ago, 2Valen said:

I have to learn what I have now before I start updating. I am still learning the 800 and want to know it before I mess it up with a update.

I disagree.  Don't learn what you don't need to know.  Go with the update and learn that.  If they would have issued the Equinox with these updates then they would have field tested and lab tested away its problems. 

We had lots of complaints about the old versions ... that is why it got changed.  Now it is the best Nox it can be until the next update.

This is much preferable than someone telling you the Vanquish is a gotta have detector.  It is better than the Equinox.  That is what they said when the Equinox came out for it to replace the 3030 for many of us.  I think they should issue a software update for the 3030.  It has a computer connection.

[Tmox]

19 hours ago, mn90403 said:

My ears have learned a lot since my first usage of the 800.  I can still remembered how I didn't understand it so much I thought I was going to hate it.

I mostly All Metal my beaches around 23 on sensitivity.  Then I make sure it is balanced, the targets are loud and then I'll adjust recovery speed as necessary.  The bias has not been much of a concern as I tend to dig it all and lately the negative iffys can be a good 'odd' target or deep one.  If I don't here it then I can't decided to dig or not to dig in combination with the screen info.

Yesterday I had a long beach session and tried the FE and FE2 at 4.  I don't know what I didn't hear but I dug 100 targets (4 junk rings including a stainless steel that had surface numbers of 1, 12, 14, 20 and 2 of them were negative before I dug them) and learned a bit of the new sound.  More will be revealed.

HI Mitchel,

Which coil are you using on the beach now?  I'm up in in Humboldt and have been using the 15" this summer. I also try to run at 23 sensitivity and move the recovery speed around as needed. I used the 15" with the new software and will switch to the 11" coil. IN general the 15" is fatiguing due to sensory overload. We do have lots of black sand but not so many targets.

 

Cheers,

Tim

[mn90403]

Tim,

I have the same feeling about the 15" coil on my Southern California beaches.  I don't want to miss the odd sound or subtle sounds and the 15 has 'too much information' for some of my beaches.  I get plenty of depth with my 11.  It is my preferred coil but there are times for the 15.

I've not used the 15 with the new update.  I'll try it in the next couple of days because the waves have been small and the targets are far between also.

Mitchel

[Chase Goldman]

Good video though incomplete.  I'll explain below.

The update may actually matter to you, Simon, in regards to nugget hunting.  Specifically, the question remains whether FE = 0 (ostensibly iron bias "off") is the same as F2 = 0.  Per some of the other Dankowski forum discussions and Clive Clynick, the bias curves may intersect "0" at different points.  Or put another way, some are saying that F2 = 0 is "less" than FE=0 making it more "all metal", so to speak.  The above video seems to debunk that as FE seems to give similar performance to F2 on iron at 0, but the key is whether F2 at 0 unmasks nearby non-ferrous better than FE at 0 (i.e., any level of iron bias can negate the positive separation effects of higher recovery speeds, so if FE =0 can still be subject to masking and F2 = 0 is less susceptible, you might want to go with F2 = 0 vice FE=0 when nugget hunting).  She does not really test the effect of FE vs. F2 bias effects on nearby targets, plus the fact that she is basically doing an "in-plane" air test.  So the jury may still be out.  Food for thought, though, even for those of us who primarily like to run with FE = 0.