Second Run With The Nox In The Iron Patch

[Cal_Cobra]

Interestingly your comment:

On 2/28/2018 at 7:22 PM, Skate said:

- the nox sounds way different in the iron homesteads than in a park. That may sound stupid or "duh" but my Deus sounded the same no matter if i was at the beach, park or the old rancho. To me, the fact that my deus responds the same isn't good. It means it's not AS ADAPTABLE as the Nox. I don't know if this is the reason but one is a single frequency and one is multi-frequency. I'm not trying to knock the deus but it has more limits than the Equinox and I suspect this is going to be the same for most other detectors.

I have found that to be the same experience I've had running the Makro Multi Kruzer.  I'm confident with it detecting relic sites, but when a friend that's an expert on his Explorer2 (been using it since new) and I detected a park together, for me it was an epic failure, but for him an epic success. 

This particular park had a lot of surface clad and junk, and unlike my friend that was using his Exp2, I was struggling to cherry pick deep non-ferrous targets out of the sea of signals, even watching the real-time depth meter (which is fairly accurate) was a bust.  I tried different frequencies, all search modes, and did find a couple of search modes that were better then others, yet it was no walk in the park to hunt. I surmise that if I worked the park over, stripping layer by layer of years of targets down strata by strata, that the Multi Kruzer would easily detect the same deep targets as the Exp2, but the ability to zero in on deep targets within this sea of targets was a struggle. 

I started off detecting parks, but over the past 6 years or so, I rarely hunt parks anymore, as where I live you can work all day to find a single merc (or get skunked), and I'd rather put that same effort into relic hunting for 1800's, or potentially even 1700's coins and relics then mercs.  My exception is if there's a park demo, but that's more of a relic mindset to be successful, you're not really turf detecting anymore in those environs. 

I am curious if the Equinox has the same ability to cherry pick deep conductors amidst a sea of surface targets mixed with layers of targets down to the older coins?  I've seen a few commentaries online (forum posts & vids) that seem to indicate that the Equinox, much like the Kruzer, struggles in these scenarios. 

I've been taking all forum posts and videos with a massive grain of salt, as I seriously doubt anyone was an instant expert on the Explorers when they were first released, and it took lots of time to hone ones skill set to be effective at various aspects of detecting, and the same will likely hold true on the EQ as people try various search modes and settings to unlock the capabilities of the machine...hopefully it does have the capability to cherry pick high conductors amidst a sea of surface targets mixed with layers of targets, but thus far I'm not seeing it.  

 

[Cal_Cobra]

On 3/1/2018 at 6:56 AM, Gerry in Idaho said:

Skate,  Good to hear and see reports from you, as some of us know you are pretty good with other detectors and not Brand Loyal.  It is nice to hear (early reports) the NOX can do things our other machines can't and are finding targets our others miss.  I'm not saying the NOX is the Holy Grail, but it is new technology and those who get on sites sooner with it, learn the tricks...will be rewarded for their efforts.  I never expected a "wow look how deep" detector, but more of a "wow, how did I miss that" and "holy crap that is cool for it to be able to do that".  In the long run I feel the NOX will eventually be used by more hunters than many other machines of all brands.  Not saying the #1, but certainly better than most.  Keep it up my friend.

Gerry not a knock on your comment, nor Skates report (which is the kind of report I'm interested in seeing until I (finally) get my EQ800 some day..... BUT that said,  I'm finding that each different detector I take to places will find stuff others didn't.  It could of course be that I didn't sweep my coil over that exact spot, or I swept my coil from a different angle, or perhaps there was a piece of iron masking the target in the ground that an underground animal moved slightly allowing it to finally be heard as a non-ferrous target. 

BUT I suspect that many times the real reason is because each detector does things differently - regardless of whether their Multi IQ, or Zero IQ...they all have different software, running different analysis algorithms, different search modes, different operator adjustable variables to tweak, with different types of coils, sizes of coils, atmospheric conditions are different by the minute , EMI changes, etc, etc, etc.  If one computed all the different variables, it would likely be an infinite number.   

I'm certainly being a bit of a devils advocate here BUT my main point/concern/interest is this: 

Can the detector repeatedly achieve an increase in non-ferrous keepers (not iron) versus other detectors. 

I found this to be the case when I went from using my F75 LTD (upgraded to LTD2) that I'd put thousands of hours on since 2009 (I seriously wonder what great finds I missed).  In my experience, in my dirt, at the types of sites I hunt I found (immediately) that the Racers smoked my F75 in each and every test when I put them head to head.  My hunt partners immediately noticed, and commented that my non-ferrous finds significantly increased. 

This is the type of result I'm looking for in the EQ800.  I'm not a fanboy of any brand, I simply use what works the best for me, and over the years, I learned the hard way that that what may work great for Nasa Tom in his inert Florida soil, or a multitude of users back east with their red clay soils conditions, or whatever the case may be, fail at my sites.   So the only way to know for sure, is through trial and error, and to look for reports from users that live in the same state or hunt sites around the same areas I do and eventually to test it out myself.  I have high hopes that the EQ800 will unlock some of my challenging sites that handicap single frequency VLF detectors due to severe mineralization, heavy alkali soils, etc.  

 

[Redneck]

Cal, I do not have many hours on my EQ yet, but It does handle my orange clay very well in Multi, and The ID at depth is quite accurate.

The EQ is rather deep , but I need to get more hours on it and get over some deep coins.  I wish I could help you more .

[Steve Herschbach]

It’s a great question Cal and I have said repeatedly the difference is in the difference

People reporting ultimately means nothing as people see what they want to see in reports. Some people are looking for and seeing positive results. Other people are jumping on every perceived negative they can find in reports. Many have taken offense over a marketing statement and are focusing on proving it right or wrong and have little actual interest in achieving practical results with something new.

It is a metal detector with good points and bad. Those willing to leverage “the difference” to their advantage in general will do well. Others won’t like it for various reasons, some as simple as the way it feels on their arm. Equinox is incredibly strong on low conductors, does very well on high conductors, especially in mineralized soil, and its separation characteristics destroy a BBS/FBS detector. It favors people not afraid of digging a little junk in search of non-ferrous. You can take that to the bank. But hey, I am just a fanboy - what do I know? 

The only way this ever ends is to give it a go yourself. Or not as the case may be. I know for a fact any capable detectorist can do well with an Equinox. But does it have that something extra a person is looking for? Nobody can answer that question with certainty but the individual involved.