Target ID Chart Differences Between Equinox 600/800 And Equinox 700/900/manticore

[phrunt]

I'd rather they put the 800 into the 900 body and keep it alive.

[flakmagnet]

Kinda li

6 hours ago, phrunt said:

I'd rather they put the 800 into the 900 body and keep it alive.

Kinda like Frankenstein?

[phrunt]

6 hours ago, flakmagnet said:

Kinda like Frankenstein?

If it ain't broke don't fix it, they fixed the 800's issues with the 900 no doubt, it's now properly waterproof, has a better shaft and overall design, yet they decided they would mess with the inner workings, and to me that's blasphemy, when has a new Minelab fallen so flat on it's face? .  Adding extra Target ID's while benefiting a small few has proven to be a mistake, I don't see a lot of satisfied customers by this "improvement", I think they got it right the first time, sure they could have rearranged things a bit, but the extra range was a step backwards, detectors a decade or more old had 99 ID's, they moved off that for a reason.   Sure, some advanced users may think or even benefit from a larger range at the cost of stability, yet a bulk of their customers won't.  The lesser ID's is more of a dig it all approach which the end result is more successful detecting.

I appreciate the extra sensitivity settings as my 800 sat on 24 or even 25 and ran well, if it's running well at maximum that's not ideal, so increasing sensitivity was a positive, I shouldn't be roaming around with my GPZ maxed out, yet I can and do., something detectors like the Axiom, Manticore and Algoforce have taken into account by adding sensitivity levels often unachievable yet sometimes they are.

With more than two decades of continuous success in detecting incarnations from Minelab, the detectors have been improved and refined to the point that the biggest challenge seems to be finding new ways to distinguish their updated models. Place the 900 alongside its predecessor the 800 and the differences are so minimal to be of little real importance, other than fixing known issues mostly with design rather than performance, they're really clutching at straws.

So, I say give me an 800 in a 900's body, and might be high time to stop preventing aftermarket coils, as others are reaping the rewards.

[phrunt]

Some may find this interesting.

 

[Lynk]

Where did you find that, Simon? If it's a newer release I am almost more interested in the intent (ie, why now). 

[phrunt]

3 minutes ago, Lynk said:

Where did you find that, Simon? If it's a newer release I am almost more interested in the intent (ie, why now). 

Stumbled across it on Facebook.

[Lynk]

Ah. Thank you. Seems like a good chart to release when the detectors were released in order to help guide to a framework on how to think about the expanded TIDs. Maybe it was around, but the company didn't widely publish it. 

Again, thanks.

[Steve Herschbach]

The notes that were cut off:

[RickUK]

Here in the UK as our silver hammered coinage can vary by a massive margin ie silver content,quality of silver and various sizes of the coins and also i guess the same could go for artefacts as well,TID is in my mind a waste of time and audio is far more reliable especially when hammered coinage is concerned,of course if the coinage is a consistent milled coinage then one can rely on the TID and what the screen is telling you.

For me Audio is and always will be king,its far more reliable at depth over a screen and also that very last indicator which is often overlooked is the audio threshold.....on my machines that have screens on i just dont look at them as i use my ears instead of my eyes to make that 'dig/no dig decision' if you rely on just using a screen to make the decision then you could/would leave some desirable targets in the ground.

[Lynk]

Definitely makes sense and I wish my hearing was more tone/pitch sensitive to entirely hunt like that.

The Minelab charts are mostly interesting to me as a conveyance of intent, either marketing or design, and I like to see them for that information.