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

[phrunt]

Thanks Chase, that was a great post, my lack of understanding of iron is due to my lack of ever really finding iron targets.   Nails are about it, and tiny little shards off digger buckers in gold areas.  The odd old metal matchbox from the miners or broken-down tin can from their foods but really, not a whole lot of iron targets in my life. 

[schoolofhardNox]

7 hours ago, phrunt said:

Thanks Chase, that was a great post, my lack of understanding of iron is due to my lack of ever really finding iron targets.   Nails are about it, and tiny little shards off digger buckers in gold areas.  The odd old metal matchbox from the miners or broken-down tin can from their foods but really, not a whole lot of iron targets in my life. 

"Not a lot of iron targets in my life"? --------- You truly live in paradise! 🙂

[cudamark]

I guess I'm the oddball exception here. I LOVE the 900 over the 800. To me, every feature is an improvement with the 900. I find the expanded (enhanced?) TID scale a benefit in separating known targets. I can tell a nickel over a pull tab much easier in most cases. Sure, just the tail of a pull tab will fool you still, but, that's no different than with the 800. Most of the modern tabs I find these days (not counting completely corroded ones) read in the 30's. Nickels NEVER do. They're usually a solid 27 unless corroded where they read less. As for that comparison chart, I don't agree with it's accuracy. For instance, a 29 (clad U.S. quarter) on an 800 is a 89 on a 900.....but, if it now reads 83 or 93 on a 900, are you going to pass it up just because it's an odd number? Not me! I love the "non-coin" numbers. I've found some of my most interesting relics and jewelry with those.

[Chase Goldman]

3 hours ago, cudamark said:

For instance, a 29 (clad U.S. quarter) on an 800 is a 89 on a 900.....but, if it now reads 83 or 93 on a 900, are you going to pass it up just because it's an odd number? Not me! I love the "non-coin" numbers. I've found some of my most interesting relics and jewelry with those.

I loved all the improvements that ML incorporated into the 900 vs. the 800.  My only knocks on the 900 were the TIDs being a little jumpy (even compared to a Manticore) and I found it a little too EMI sensitive which negated the benefit of the new universal deep pitch audio (a feature I had been wishing for since the first days of getting my hands on a Nox 800 and its gold modes with pitch audio) because it was excessively chirpy.  Both of those 900 issues stood out to me more because before I got my hands on the 900, I had been spoiled with a year of swinging the Deus 2 and its extraordinarily rock solid TIDs even with a "99" scale (though D2 does have some TID scale issues of its own) and superior EMI handling under equivalent field conditions.  Had I simply had the Nox 800 as my reference point, these 900 issues would not be as stark to me.  I was really rooting for the 900 because I wanted it to be the new home for my Coiltek 10x5 coil.  I later decided to go ahead and take a chance on the Manticore and that pretty much sealed the deal for my 900 collecting dust.  But of course, we are talking about a detector that costs hundreds more than the 900.  TBH, while I do consider the Manticore to be the superior detector, I am not sure it is really $650US "better" than the 900 with its two coils in the kit.  So the 900 is definitely the better value.

But getting back on point regarding Target IDs, I am right there with you on high conductor TIDs.  No way am I leaving something ringing up close to 90 high or low in the ground, I don't need to verify its a dime vs. a quarter or even a copper cent.  It's not like I'm going to walk over that signal because its likely a dime vs. quarter.  I'm with ya.

[BigSkyGuy]

I put this together back when I first got the MC, but did not think it would be of interest to anyone but myself. However, since the topic came up I thought I would post it.

[Lynk]

That's a great chart. Thanks for sharing it! The fit of the scatter plot is tighter than I would have guessed. 

 

[GB_Amateur]

14 hours ago, BigSkyGuy said:

I put this together back when I first got the MC, but did not think it would be of interest to anyone but myself.

That's usually a bad assumption.  😏  There's almost always at least one person who will find value in an observation.  And already (as I post) seven have.

You must have a sophisticated piece of software (maybe it's your brain?) to come up with that fit curve.  A small suggestion:  if you could also plot this with the two scales (horizontal and vertical) being the same, i.e. 5 notches on the horizontal scale taking up the same distance as 5 notches on the vertical scale, it might be a bit more revealing (or not...).  Regardless, I think this shows that where the slope is steeper the Manticore (in theory) has better resolution, relative to the Equinox, than where the slope is shallow.  But to be fair (to the Equinox?), that's a relative conclusion.  I think it takes a different study to conclude that an absolute resolution advantage exists.  The ML Marketing 'cartoon' claimed this when it showed two nearby (artificial?) targets being split into two different TID's on the 900 while both showed the same TID on the 800.

BTW, wasn't the Minelab Marketing illustration strictly for the 800 vs 900, with the Manticore unmentioned?  If so maybe it's risky to compare your plot (specifically Equinox 800 vs. Manticore) with the Marketing illustration.  (I say that as much for myself as anyone, since I've kind of mixed up the two, at least in my head).

[phrunt]

2 hours ago, GB_Amateur said:

BTW, wasn't the Minelab Marketing illustration strictly for the 800 vs 900, with the Manticore unmentioned?  If so maybe it's risky to compare your plot (specifically Equinox 800 vs. Manticore) with the Marketing illustration.  (I say that as much for myself as anyone, since I've kind of mixed up the two, at least in my head).

 

[phrunt]

2 hours ago, GB_Amateur said:

BTW, wasn't the Minelab Marketing illustration strictly for the 800 vs 900, with the Manticore unmentioned?  If so maybe it's risky to compare your plot (specifically Equinox 800 vs. Manticore) with the Marketing illustration.  (I say that as much for myself as anyone, since I've kind of mixed up the two, at least in my head).

[GB_Amateur]

3 hours ago, GB_Amateur said:

BTW, wasn't the Minelab Marketing illustration strictly for the 800 vs 900, with the Manticore unmentioned?

@phrunt I stand corrected, it says 'Manticore' right there in the illustration's title.  In that case I'll agree with Cudamark, maybe then some.  30 on the Equinox 600/800 is where the USA 25c ('quarter') hits.  On the Manticore it's more like 87, not 82 as in the cartoon.  82 in fact is where our 10c (dime) comes in on the M-core, at least some of them (maybe only the silver ones with the clad version a couple units lower).  In their defense it's possible on some settings (different search modes and/or different frequencies) or even on particular targets the Eqx 800 TID of 30 does line up with the Manticore 82 TID.  I go by the All Terrain High Conductor scale in multifrequency.

Tough crowd here?  OK, sometimes I resemble that remark.