Is The Manticore Less Sensitive To Small Gold Than The Equinox 900?

[abenson]

The tests I have done on small gold between the Manticore and the Equinox 900 so far have been indoors. It appeared the Manticore was less sensitive to small gold than the Equinox 900. I'm talking .10 grams and .03 grams, maybe even smaller there could be a difference. But from the air tests I did outside today. I'm not so sure that there is that much of a difference. From the in-field tests I did between the 800 and 900, I know they are very close. I no longer have an 800 to test against the Manticore, but I'm fairly certain the results would be the same. You can watch the video and make up your own mind.

 

[Skookum]

I wonder after the Manticore update how this would compare now?  Perhaps it might be something that @phrunt has an opinion on as he was commenting on the update and its effect on small gold. 

[phrunt]

57 minutes ago, Skookum said:

I wonder after the Manticore update how this would compare now?  Perhaps it might be something that @phrunt has an opinion on as he was commenting on the update and its effect on small gold. 

The Manticore has certainly had a good sensitivity increase since the firmware update, the tip and toe of the m8 are now VERY competitive with the 6" Nox coil on the tiniest of gold.  It's at the point now it's very hard to tell the difference.  I'd love a smaller coil for the Manticore than the M8, it would be great, but really, there is so little in it now and the M8 has the advantage of more ground coverage.

I haven't bothered testing anything with the 11" Coils.  So my opinions are based on M8 vs 6".

I can also get my Manticore sensitivity much higher than Abenson can in his video, part of this could be the smaller coils and just we don't have as much EMI around here once away from power lines that's about it really.

[Gold Catcher]

M8 performance is excellent, close to the monster with small coil in ideal conditions. Things change though in hot ground compared to air, sensitivity maxes out at about 20-22 for me before getting too unstable. Also, higher gain will make the target ID performance less accurate. For small gold the depth remains moderate (as expected for VLF), and I would say in trashy ground the target ID is usable down to 1-2 inch depth.

GC

[phrunt]

2 minutes ago, Gold Catcher said:

Also, higher gain will make the target ID performance less accurate. For small gold the depth remains moderate (as expected for VLF), and I would say in trashy ground the target ID is usable down to 1-2 inch depth.

Still, the Target ID is incredibly good compared to the GM probability meter 😛  That thing is next to useless unless a big obvious target.

[Gold Catcher]

2 minutes ago, phrunt said:

Still, the Target ID is incredibly good compared to the GM probability meter 😛  That thing is next to useless unless a big obvious target.

Could not agree more. The monster meter has probably fooled me in 90% of times, and I usually never paid attention.