Equinox Ground Balance Settings

[scoopjohnb]

Just try this.

Turn on your detector.

Turn sensitivity all the way down.

Go to the GB mode, switch on tracking.

Listen to the minerals and how they are reporting. This is the background noise your detector is listening to.

Anything substantial above that triggers the disc channel and provides an ID.

Turn the sens up to what you are use to hunting and listen to the GB channel again.

Only computer brains devoted to 1 single task can make sense of it 🙂

[CPT_GhostLight]

I did a little experimenting today at an older park that use to be a farm and had modern park turf, sand volleyball court, and modern shredded tire ground cover for the playground, as well as intermingled parcels of old farm land. I hunted in Park 2 with 50 Tones, FE2=2, and RS=6.

I started out on park grass, doing an auto ground balance that set at 32 and switched on Tracking Ground Balance. When I got to the shredded tire playground, I went to do another ground balance like I usually do, and noticed it was at 12. I did the ground balance anyway and it stayed at 12. I left Tracking GB on and when I got to the volleyball sand, I went to ground balance again and saw it was at 1. I rebalanced and it stayed at 1. Leaving tracking on, I made my way to some of the old farm land and again went to do another ground grab. This time the GB showed 26. I rebalanced and it stayed at 26.

Targets, good and bad, sounded like they usually do with Tracking GB off and the backround noise was much quieter than it is with tracking off.  I always start a hunt by auto ground balancing and rebalance when I feel the need or notice increased ground noise. So after today's experiment, assuming I am ground balancing properly, I can only conclude that the Tracking GB works properly in parks.

[midalake]

12 hours ago, CPT_GhostLight said:

Targets, good and bad, sounded like they usually do with Tracking GB off and the backround noise was much quieter than it is with tracking off.  I always start a hunt by auto ground balancing and rebalance when I feel the need or notice increased ground noise. So after today's experiment, assuming I am ground balancing properly, I can only conclude that the Tracking GB works properly in parks.

It is one thing beach hunters notice that the Equinox runs quieter in the tracking mode. I am not surprised. Were you able to up your sensitivity at all in any of your different spots? 

[CPT_GhostLight]

3 hours ago, midalake said:

It is one thing beach hunters notice that the Equinox runs quieter in the tracking mode. I am not surprised. Were you able to up your sensitivity at all in any of your different spots? 

I can usually run 18-20 sensitivity in my parks without tracking, but with tracking in a couple of spots I got up to 22 without chatter.

[midalake]

22 minutes ago, CPT_GhostLight said:

I can usually run 18-20 sensitivity in my parks without tracking, but with tracking in a couple of spots I got up to 22 without chatter.

In your case, that extra sensitivity is going to find you more!  No doubt about it! 

[longbow62]

I always do an auto GB first thing. I have forgotten to do it before and noticed the detector seemed off somehow. Did an auto GB and like magic my Equinox starts acting the way it should. I'm a firm believer in proper GB on the Equinox to get the most out of it. By that I mean best I.D. and best depth. I've hunted some ground that the GB in Park1 was high single digits. When the mineralization is that low you can probably just get away with running 0. When you GB and are getting in the 50's I think running 0 would be a serious disadvantage.

I do not like the ground tracking feature and never use it. I have been detecting and noticed ground track is on by mistake before and been like I just wasted ever how long I have been detecting. I GB multiple times a hunt. 

[Chase Goldman]

9 hours ago, longbow62 said:

I do not like the ground tracking feature and never use it.

Nothing wrong with frequently ground balancing vs. letting the machine run in tracking.  However you choose to do it, I agree it's good to keep the ground signal cancelled.  But can you elaborate on why you don't like tracking?

I've not really encountered any downside in tests or actual usage of tracking. I've heard unfounded fears and complaints such as zeroing out targets and the like but in actual testing these claims are never borne out.  Might be a legitimate concern for micro targets and prospecting.  Worst thing I can say about it is that it might track too slowly which manifests as obvious ground noise just as if you were going without tracking or it is simply unnecessary because there is little ground phase variation.  But if you don't realize you were in tracking, that doesn't mean you left targets in the ground, that just means it was probably working as designed.  So I am really interested at specifically what don't you like about tracking.  Thanks.

BTW as has been mentioned elsewhere, on Equinox there is no real, consistent correlation between the GB generated number on the screen and the degree of soil mineralization.  I've seen low and high numbers generated in known, measured (using a magnetite meter) hot dirt sites and have seen wide variations between modes on the auto generated GB number on the same patch of ground.

[Valens Legacy]

I my area where mineralization is so different from one end of a field to the other end, I simply GB 3 or 4 times before getting to the end.

I noticed that when I do that I find more things to dig than when not doing it.

I can run the sense higher, with less noise, and better targets are found.

Good luck.

[longbow62]

Chase I always get consistent GB numbers in the areas I hunt. If I go to a certain park and GB in PARK1 the GB number is always really close every time I hunt. Same with Park2. If I go to the mildest ground I hunt which is almost pure sand and GB in Park1 and Park2 the numbers are always lower in the sand than in red clay that's in the Park. I think there is a correlation between low numbers being low mineralized ground and higher numbers being higher mineralized. How else could you explain getting greater depth in the sand vs. red clay?

If ground tracking is on and you are swinging over a iron rich area I have seen the GB number go up way higher than what I initially GB'ed to. Maybe that's a good thing? Not sure, but if I re-GB right there where I noticed it drops back down close to where it was initially.  I saw on a video early on after the Nox introduction with a guy in the UK doing a Nox school.  He was telling the students to leave tracking off, and not to use it.  I have noticed also if you swing over a target numerous times it changes the GB and it's not super fast at dropping back down although it eventually will.  I thought ground tracking was only really recommended for prospecting. I do not trust ground tracking when I can just do a auto GB when I think I need to.

[Chase Goldman]

19 minutes ago, longbow62 said:

Chase I always get consistent GB numbers in the areas I hunt. If I go to a certain park and GB in PARK1 the GB number is always really close every time I hunt. Same with Park2. If I go to the mildest ground I hunt which is almost pure sand and GB in Park1 and Park2 the numbers are always lower in the sand than in red clay that's in the Park. I think there is a correlation between low numbers being low mineralized ground and higher numbers being higher mineralized. How else could you explain getting greater depth in the sand vs. red clay?

If ground tracking is on and you are swinging over a iron rich area I have seen the GB number go up way higher than what I initially GB'ed to. Maybe that's a good thing? Not sure, but if I re-GB right there where I noticed it drops back down close to where it was initially.  I saw on a video early on after the Nox introduction with a guy in the UK doing a Nox school.  He was telling the students to leave tracking off, and not to use it.  I have noticed also if you swing over a target numerous times it changes the GB and it's not super fast at dropping back down although it eventually will.  I thought ground tracking was only really recommended for prospecting. I do not trust ground tracking when I can just do a auto GB when I think I need to.

That’s good info.  No right or wrong answers here.  It is a personal choice and people should use what they trust.  Ironically, prospectors distrust tracking as potentially desensitizing the detector on micro bits that straddle the ferrous/non-ferrous breakpoint.  Just asking to get a sense of peoples experiences with the various ground balance options.  Thanks for taking the time to articulate it.  And to clarify, regarding GB number correlation to degree of mineralization, I agree in a general relative sense the higher numbers may correlate to higher mineralization but I have seen a lot of exceptions to that correlation as well.  The only way to know for sure the degree of mineralization is to use a mineralization meter (found on some FT, Nokta, and XP detectors) or Steve H.’s quick and literally dirty method of dragging a permanent magnet through the soil of the site you are detecting and looking for particulate iron/iron oxide clinging to the magnet.  

Anyway, it is a best practice to keep the detector balanced however you choose to do so.  I can think of no compelling reason to steer you away from frequent auto balancing to tracking GB.

Thanks again for taking the time to respond.