Equinox 600 Vs 700 Comparison

[Zaj56]

34 minutes ago, bigtim1973 said:

I don't know about that. However maybe your particular unit will be able to. 

I agree with bigtim on this one! My 900 has a lot more chatter than my 600! If a software update doesn't improve that ...my 900 is history!

[adamBomb]

31 minutes ago, Zaj56 said:

I agree with bigtim on this one! My 900 has a lot more chatter than my 600! If a software update doesn't improve that ...my 900 is history!

Oh man you all are scaring me. I will test out over the next week and see how it responds on my beaches.

[bigtim1973]

1 hour ago, adamBomb said:

Oh man you all are scaring me. I will test out over the next week and see how it responds on my beaches.

I can't see much problem with emi on the beach or farm fields and woodlands. But you will definitely notice it out in some city limit neighborhoods for sure.

[D&P-OR]

8 minutes ago, bigtim1973 said:

I can't see much problem with emi on the beach or farm fields and woodlands. But you will definitely notice it out in some city limit neighborhoods for sure.

That doesn't sound so good.

[jim tn]

I hunt city parks, old school yards, curb strips and city owned vacant housing lots, to name a few places, and I very seldom have emi issues with the Nox 900. Hence not everybody has emi issues in the city. HH jim tn

[adamBomb]

First long hunt with the 700 on the beach and its definitely behaving differently than the 600...

On the wetsand, I need to be in Beach 2 to get sens of 20. Beach 1 falses a lot.

On the drysand, I can hunt Beach 1 or crank up the sens on Beach 2.

I did not notice a difference in falsing on 5 tone vs dP. I did not find any targets that Beach 1 picked up and Beach 2 would not and vice versa. Same with 5 tone vs dP. Though I do feel that I only found some targets on the edge because of dP.

Still lots to figure out between the settings but on the 600, it was basically beach 1 all of the time. This is not the case so far with the 700...Its almost like the 700 is behaving the way the 600 was intended (beach 1 on the dry and 2 on the wet/water)

[bigtim1973]

2 hours ago, jim tn said:

I hunt city parks, old school yards, curb strips and city owned vacant housing lots, to name a few places, and I very seldom have emi issues with the Nox 900. Hence not everybody has emi issues in the city. HH jim tn

Well maybe that rapid fire machine gun sound of "dat dat dat dat dat dat" along with the nulling out in pinpoint mode and not responding to targets under the coil isn't an emi problem but something else internally......either way I am finished with it.

[adamBomb]

Something interesting I read is that iron bias setting was changed. So the new '0' might actually be like -1 (or something) and a 1 or 2 might be more similar to the old '0'. If that were the case, increasing the iron bias could potentially lessen falsing...it will also lower depth. I will play around...

[Chase Goldman]

3 hours ago, adamBomb said:

Something interesting I read is that iron bias setting was changed. So the new '0' might actually be like -1 (or something) and a 1 or 2 might be more similar to the old '0'. If that were the case, increasing the iron bias could potentially lessen falsing...it will also lower depth. I will play around...

Be careful what you read.  Unless Minelab says it explicitly (i.e., it’s explicit in the manual or in update release notes), then it’s all just speculation, even from respected experts who help ML test such as NASA Tom (BTW Note to ML: we shouldn’t have to get information passed down from the mount via Tom or others acting as messengers - just write it down for all of us ML, so we avoid telephone game misinterpretations).  ML, as is their custom, has not been very precise explaining how iron bias is implemented and how to properly use it beyond the high level treatment in the manual (vague on the trade offs, such as whether it will cause false iron positives on mixed non-ferrous alloys or targets of small mass, whether 0 is off, depth impact if any, etc.) leaving us to experiment with it.  I doubt there is an actual depth impact, more like lessened ability to unmask non-ferrous in the presence of ferrous targets, mitigating recovery speed advantages.  From what I can tell, all they did on the 900 was eliminate the old original Fe Iron Bias filter and just went with the F2 IB filter they introduced in the Nox 600/800 3.0 update - but who knows, they’re silent about whether the IB implementation is different between the Nox generations. However, on the 700, now, there is one notable difference than on the 600.  Setting IB to 3 on the 600 equates to IB 9 on the 800.  With the 700, IB 3 only equates to IB 6.  Also, the 700/900 IB defaults are different across modes whereas on the 600/800, F2 was fixed at 2 (600)/ 6 (800) for all modes.  Interesting.

From the 600/800 Manual:

From the 700/900 Manual:

See also this discussion:  

[Valens Legacy]

I want to thank everyone who replied on this thread as I have been thinking about getting a new detector so I could retire grandfathers 800.

It sounds as if there is very little difference in depth and performance of the 2 detectors, and they also have the same issues with EMI.

My area has a lot of EMI even out in the country as the power company uses a lot of WI-FI to the home electric meters.

I guess I will hold on to the 800, learn it more, and try to make grandfather proud that he left it to me.