Could Not Make Eqx To See The Target

[nordic]

I agree, it does sound obsessive. I wish there was a good summary somewhere of versions, because they are a little different.

The coin that it couldn't pick up on edge on 1.7.5 was bronze one penny 1976.

[nordic]

I'll just leave a note here on the 1.5.0 after visiting two places today including the field earlier in discussion, perhaps some people passing by will find it useful. In terms of separation, the original firmware beats 1.75 and v2 hands down. It felt as if recovery speed has been upped by a point or two. But the depth remained the same, or maybe even a bit better even. It is the only time when I felt GB actually makes some difference to how detector runs. The iron rust was a little sparky, but it was easy to identify by just checking the target from a different angle - in most cases TID would change with negative grunt or completely go negative. I always run iron volume high so I know I'm over an iron target. Other difference I've noticed, newer firmware was always trying to ID targets with rather stable weighted single ID, while on original, TID may change a lot, so a person would need to do the decision if it is good or bad target for them. In few words, original firmware lets you do the work and all decisions, rather than deciding for you. And I really enjoyed this today. But I understand how all this avalanche of feedback may be overwhelming for someone new to the machine or detecting. So as they say, as you get better, you may run lower FE/F2 values, I think it is also fair to say, one can downgrade the firmware to get more information as they advance with the detector.

On the negative side, all TID numbers are different on 1.5, so one would need to relearn what is what once again.

Ah yes, almost forgot. Today Nox was identifying targets, that Deus could not see. My friend could only see them in Deep mode. This has never happened before. He was the first to comment this difference today between us two.

[Chase Goldman]

Really interested in how you are able to make these firmware comparison determinations in the field by running a single firmware version at a time.  Are you switching firmware versions in the field or just going by "memory" or feel from the last time out?  What is the control you are using to make determinations like the recovery speed assertion?  This is a very difficult thing to do when you have two detectors loaded up side by side with different firmwares, so I am impressed with your ability to do that over a period of days.  It is not possible for most but having two detectors out there at a time to do some real firmware side-by-side comparisons in the field would be ideal.  Applaud your determination and detailed feedback, nevertheless.  So do we have a winner on the firmware wars, then (I know that 2.0 seems to be the loser as far as you are concerned based on your reporting so far)?

Oh and it would also be helpful to compare the settings (sensitivity, Deus operating frequency, Equinox mode, recovery speed settings for each detector, etc.) between the Equinox and Deus and also the types of targets (high or low conductors) that were unable to be seen by Deus that were picked up by the Equinox, if possible.  I have both the Equinox and the Deus and am constantly vacillating back and forth between these detectors on what I decide to go with on a given outing - if there is thick iron, the Deus usually wins out (I guess that is telling me there is minimal difference in performance overall). Thanks.

[nordic]

Thanks for the reply. I think it is fair to say that tests are not conclusive by all means, because I only use Park 1/2 and Field 1/2 modes, rarely I touch Beach modes and never Gold ones. I have very limited exposure the firmware 1.5, because I got the Nox with 1.7.5 and then updated to V2. Since updating to V2 I have noticed my finds became mostly coins and larger buttons, and my mind started wondering if I was doing something wrong and this is when I started vigorously researching the topic for the last 2 months, but information on youtube and Internet is very fragmented, rarely someone mentions the firmware they are running when testing things out, so I had to go figure it out somehow (by post or video date, for example). I agree, I do get sometimes obsessed to get to the bottom of things - my bad. I don't think there is another topic anywhere on forums, that attempts to compare all 3 versions of firmware, because, in essence, it is a very laborous task to do. More over, I perfectly see now how each of versions would suit different types of detecting, busy parks, beaches, fields and combine that with people aims, it becomes an infinite combination of preferences. So, of course, we are not talking about ML deliberately detuning the detector, they are merely trying to achieve the impossible - suit everyone (or larger audience). I'm very grateful to their farsightedness to allow to switch the firmware back and forth, thus expanding the flexibility of the firmware choice for different people and their unique aims. They could've made it one way upgradeable and it would be it, but they didn't - there is something here... I think with the original firmware the detector was not easy to learn, because it was giving more information than people wanted, especially those that did not run it in full metal mode were digging tons of iron. But it is also this very same firmware that sparked the interest to this MD and the rest was taken by achieved momentum. I have a feeling, that with further software revisions ML not only tried to fix 1.5 bugs, like VDI or user profile bugs, but also increase number of samples they take when processing signals to give more stable iron and TIDs. And they understand, that increasing sampling rate on relatively low frequency (40KHz) over a very small object (compared to the width of the swing) in real time does not come free (it is a very small "window"), I think they had to carefully adjust things at expense of others - this is my personal view only. In other words, on one hand there is responsiveness (see small items deep) and on other - accuracy (give stable TID).

Anyway, I had an opportunity to hit same field 4 times, spending in each software about 6-7 hours there. A week between each test may sound long, but somehow I could tell these differences. But I totally accept that it is far from A/B switching, of course. I have to say that I was flicking the firmware before, but I never tried same locations, so I had my own doubts and findings were inconclusive. Only now, taking this extra effort visiting same field (thanks to it having so much relic stuff enough for each visit), I feel certain that revision 1.5 is the sharpest firmware, it seems to see small things at depth, but it is not very stable with TID - one can almost tell the object under the coil is not flat, etc. You may observe it by trying the PP, the footprint of which under coil is a lot narrower. Other way to express this - is if the coil shrunk from 11" to, say, 9". 1.7.5 is a fix to 1.5 bugs with more accurate TID (I think it is just averaging more samples to achieve this), pin point surface is larger. I don't know what to think of v2, it feels overburdened with calculations that even switching between modes feels somewhat sluggish. I think it is so busy that it either does not see small items or drops them to iron side if not too sure.

As for Deus (Deus Lite is what my friend has), I have no experience with it, I never asked about settings, XP seem to have their own nomenclature. He doesn't run it in Deep mode for some reason, perhaps because of slow recovery. Perhaps on our next outing, we'll check each other targets more and also settings we use.

I have a feeling of accomplishment determining it is the original firmware is what I want to use, for now anyway. I can forgive these bugs with user profile and VDI if it does everything else well... It would be nice if people could share their experience too. It takes only 2 minutes to switch the firmware.

Sorry for the long response, again ?

[Chase Goldman]

Thanks for the detailed reply, it gives a better perspective on how you have been approaching your testing.

[nordic]

Chase, my buddy seems to favor and always hunts on Hot 9 program, all standard settings as he doesn't have the control box on his Deus Lite. This is in relation to Deus not picking up the Nox target. I think it was a small peace of lead, about 8" deep. The grass was easily another 3-4" tall.

I was in Park 2, Recovery 4, sensitivity 23, all metal.

Hope this is useful. 

[pikens]

My soil is 50 to 65. I did a test in garden,coins 8 inches down 6 inch apart. 11 inch coil. Set sensitivity to 15 to just get a signal that targets were there. One nickel and one quarter. 0 on g.b. no signal. After g.b., was getting both signals,not great , but a signal i would have not walk by. I always G.B. Every time.

[nordic]

Thanks for that.
Just have to add to this, read somewhere on ML papers, they do seem to have an automatic sensitivity adjustment outside user control, at firmware level, which, kinda, makes depth tests or any tests inconsistent. Hard to tell what else they do in the background.

[EL NINO77]

In my test field I can get a signal for a small 13.5mm - 0.5gram hammer silver coin at 23cm depth already at sensitivity 13-14 ... in Discrimination -a good signal -without ID ... Signal with ID get for sensitivity to sensitivity 17 and more ..- tested in Park2..recovery speed 3.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Setting the right Threshold is essential .. increases detection depth, setting to 3 to 7 is considered optimal ...

_________________________________________________________

Equinox.......

For very deep weak signals ... Relying on the right ID on Allmetal is not right ..- because Allmetal is a little deeper .. but weakly filters the signal for the right ID ..- you can often get the signal from -9ID, - 8ID ....

To verify such a signal, use Discrimination set to 0 or better to +1, .. and you will be surprised ..