Equinox 900 vs Legend

[sgoss66]

I've followed Tom for a decade as well and bought a couple of Tom tuned detectors from him.
Never overlook human nature!

sprchng -- fair enough. But I'll just say I'd be extremely shocked to find that he were "lying."

Steve

 

[DigDog]

Yes, he did say this, but I don't think this tells the whole story -- which he explains later on. I'll try to explain what I'm saying, below.

BUT -- before I post this, I want to make it clear that I am NOT making any definitive statement as to what the machine will or will not do, in terms of depth. I have never even touched one so how could I? I have no way of knowing. BUT, with that said, there are a few things that I think must be understood, and after explaining what I mean, I'll speculated just a bit...

First of all, NASA-Tom lives in Florida. In most places he hunts, AND FOR SURE the location that he tests his machines (his test garden), his "dirt" is almost entirely composed of non-mineralized sand. In other words, it is as close to an "air test" as you can get, essentially, for an in-the-ground target. And here is why that's important to keep in mind...he says 14" is his max depth for a dime, on his Equinox. Meanwhile, neither I, nor anyone else that I hunt with, in almost four years of swinging our Equinoxes, have ever dug a single dime with the Equinox deeper than 9". Never. Not once. Further, I have two 10" deep dimes buried in my test garden -- one silver, one clad. I can not get even a peep on either one of them, with my Equinox.

SO -- why is that? Why can NASA-Tom achieve 14.0" on a dime, with his Equinox, when I can achieve 9" max? TWO REASONS (which we all know) -- the amount of mineralization in my dirt, and EMI.

SO, to continue, NASA-Tom says, again, that he can hit that 14.0" dime in his test garden with his EQX, but -- he can achieve this only about 10% of the time. So, WHY ONLY 10% of the time? Because of EMI. There are times EMI renders his 14" dime undetectable. Obviously, the mineralization of the soil in his test garden isn't changing, but his EMI does, and so does ours -- from minute to minute, hour to hour, day to day, and site to site.

SO -- why is all of this important to the point I eventually intend to make? I think it is important to understand that in terms of "raw depth," the VLF-IB platform -- which of course all of our current detectors utilize with the exception of PI machines -- is pretty much "maxed out," in terms of depth capability. There is just not all that much more that can be squeezed out of this particular technology -- and this is a fact that is largely agreed upon by all of the physicists and engineers who build detectors, that I have ever heard talk about the subject. After all, a Fisher F75 -- which is what, 15-year old technology -- can ALSO hit NASA-Tom's 14" test-garden dime (if I am not mistaken). We have been "near" the maximum, in terms of the "raw depth" capability of the VLF-IB platform, for roughly 2 decades.

BUT -- and here's the important part -- there ARE still gains to be made, in terms of REAL-WORLD depth capability. Again, though NOT much gain is left to achieve in terms of "raw, maximum depth," or "air-test depth," so to speak, the gains to potentially be made are in terms of HOW CLOSE a machine can come to achieving that "maximum depth," or "air test depth" for coins IN THE GROUND. Specifically, these "real-world," or "in the dirt" gains can potentially be achieved by...

1. Improving a machine's "bad dirt handling," so as to allow MORE of us, in DIFFERENT areas, who experience different, more mineralized types of dirt (unlike NASA-Tom's "pure" sand) to get closer to reaching that 14" raw depth maximum on a dime.

2. Improving a machine's "EMI handling," so as to allow MORE of us, who deal with various forms of EMI, to get closer to reaching that 14" raw depth maximum on a dime.

3. Improving on a machine's "ID algorithms" (which is related to #1, above) so as to allow MORE of us to get an ACCURATE ID on the deepest targets, INSTEAD of IDing those fringe-depth targets as "iron," so that we might actually be more apt to dig a target that is closer to that 14" maximum.

SO -- in his "perfect" dirt, NASA-Tom has indeed stated that his ability to detect and accurately ID a dime at 14.0" with his Equinox (which he can achieve about 10% of the time), has improved to 14.2" with his Manticore (which he can achieve about 70% of the time), BUT -- and this is what my long-winded post has been leading up to, in terms of my "point" -- I think it is important to say that THE 0.2" INCREASE IN "RAW" DEPTH THAT THE MANTICORE ACHIEVES, DOES NOT MEAN THAT THE REST OF US WILL ONLY SEE 0.2" DEPTH GAIN ON REAL-WORLD TARGETS.

Why do I say this? I say this BECAUSE, if we assume that the Manticore handles bad dirt better, handles EMI better, and is able to ID targets more accurately, then...that means that ANY OF US, whose dirt type and EMI issues PREVENT us from EVER digging a 14" dime, or even a 10" or 12" dime, may now be able to "come closer" to that 14" raw depth maximum. In my specific case, which -- again -- is a "max depth" of 9" on a dime, I personally may very well, with a Manticore, now be able to detect a dime to 9 1/2", or possibly 10", or maybe even a bit more. In other words, the objective of the Manticore's technology is to try to MITIGATE those reasons why most of us are unable to even come close to a VLF-IB machine's "raw maximum depth."

So, is the Manticore able to mitigate the factors (bad dirt, and EMI) that PREVENT us from detecting a coin anywhere NEAR the maximum capability of the unit? I have no idea, personally, but according to NASA-Tom, the answer is YES. Given that he does not achieve that 14.2" maximum depth in any of the "inland" sites he hunts, he has noted that he IS experiencing much more significant depth gains. In fact, a couple of posts AFTER he noted the 0.2" increase in ABSOLUTE max depth, he also noted that DUE TO BETTER EMI MITIGATION that is built into the Manticore, he is averaging TWO INCHES more depth, with his Manticore, at "inland" sites (i.e. when he is "coin and relic hunting," not "beach jewelry hunting").

Interesting as my soil is the same as his.
So the MC would not be worth the extra money to me for only 1/2 an inch but would probably be to someone with bad ground that would possibly get 1 or 2 more inches. Depends on your soil
But as you said I think for the most part current technology is maxed out

 

[sgoss66]

DigDog -- the only thing I'll say is, one of the MAIN focus points on the Manticore, was to handle EMI better, and EMI can really affect depth. Given NASA-Tom's results, I would expect in your dirt, you'll get alot closer to the 2" depth gains (on average), if you hunt INLAND, than I EVER will in my more highly mineralized red clay. If you hunt beaches, though, your gains would probably be alot less unless you are on an EMI-prone beach...

Steve

 

[DigDog]

DigDog -- the only thing I'll say is, one of the MAIN focus points on the Manticore, was to handle EMI better, and EMI can really affect depth. Given NASA-Tom's results, I would expect in your dirt, you'll get alot closer to the 2" depth gains (on average), if you hunt INLAND, than I EVER will in my more highly mineralized red clay. If you hunt beaches, though, your gains would probably be alot less unless you are on an EMI-prone beach...

Steve

Well thats just it alot of places inland its just as sandy as the beach. You can go to some parks and once you cut through the grass you can use a sandscoop, hand tool like a lesche, heck i have dug out sprinkler heads and lines in my yard with my hands. No shovel required
Virtually no mineralization as well.
So how you explained it it would be similar to an air test.

 

[DigDog]

Had a test garden once buried aome dimes about 6”-12”
Within two years they all disappeared.
Moved around? Sunk? I don’t know but gone in the sand

 

[sprchng]

sprchng -- fair enough. But I'll just say I'd be extremely shocked to find that he were "lying."

Steve

The only one bring up "lying" is you!
Paychecks inspire bias , that's human nature , even Tom would admit that. His input is biased toward his type of detecting and the short comings of existing machines.
The info he has released so far has been very enlightening and moved me away from buying a MC due to the type of detecting he says it is shaded toward.

 

[sgoss66]

sprchng --

The reason I chose to use the word "lying" is because what he reports is SPECIFIC. In other words, when someone says something like, "this machine is the best unit on the market; I find more with this machine than I've found with any other unit," that type of subjective statement can CERTAINLY contain "bias." BUT -- when someone says "I have tested these two machines side-by-side in my test garden, and determined one gets 0.2" more depth, than the other," that's not a "subjective" statement. It requires measurements, and implies careful examination. Is there still some room for "bias," in that type of test? I suppose so...but for the most part, it's either factual or it is not...it's either truth, or it's not.

THAT is why I used the word "lying;" to claim that his testing results are not what he says they are, would be implying dishonestly, moreso than "bias."

But yes, he is "biased" toward his type of detecting, I agree with that. I just think that's different than doubting the information he gives, in terms of performance.

Just my 2 cents though; ymmv.

Steve

 

[sgoss66]

Had a test garden once buried aome dimes about 6”-12”
Within two years they all disappeared.
Moved around? Sunk? I don’t know but gone in the sand

objects DEFINITELY will sink, when buried in sand...but that's a fascinating anecdote. If it were me, I'd be digging until I found them, to see just how deep they ended up. That's important information to know, as a detectorist...

Steve

 

[DigDog]

objects DEFINITELY will sink, when buried in sand...but that's a fascinating anecdote. If it were me, I'd be digging until I found them, to see just how deep they ended up. That's important information to know, as a detectorist...

Steve

Its been 15 years now lol, been sodded over couple times,
But I’ve actually been thinking about it. Ive had too much going on but want to run the legend over it be really interesting if it can find any of them.
The last detector i tried with was one of my Tesoro’s if I remember correctly.
I just figured they probably just sank down so deep. Have a pretty good idea the area they are in within several feet but the yard has had so much work done.
Haven’t been froggy enough to dig a 8x8x4 hole lol

 

[DigDog]

Im sure legend owners would want to know as well

 

[JimmyCT]

Yes, he did say this, but I don't think this tells the whole story -- which he explains later on. I'll try to explain what I'm saying, below.

BUT -- before I post this, I want to make it clear that I am NOT making any definitive statement as to what the machine will or will not do, in terms of depth. I have never even touched one so how could I? I have no way of knowing. BUT, with that said, there are a few things that I think must be understood, and after explaining what I mean, I'll speculated just a bit...

First of all, NASA-Tom lives in Florida. In most places he hunts, AND FOR SURE the location that he tests his machines (his test garden), his "dirt" is almost entirely composed of non-mineralized sand. In other words, it is as close to an "air test" as you can get, essentially, for an in-the-ground target. And here is why that's important to keep in mind...he says 14" is his max depth for a dime, on his Equinox. Meanwhile, neither I, nor anyone else that I hunt with, in almost four years of swinging our Equinoxes, have ever dug a single dime with the Equinox deeper than 9". Never. Not once. Further, I have two 10" deep dimes buried in my test garden -- one silver, one clad. I can not get even a peep on either one of them, with my Equinox.

SO -- why is that? Why can NASA-Tom achieve 14.0" on a dime, with his Equinox, when I can achieve 9" max? TWO REASONS (which we all know) -- the amount of mineralization in my dirt, and EMI.

SO, to continue, NASA-Tom says, again, that he can hit that 14.0" dime in his test garden with his EQX, but -- he can achieve this only about 10% of the time. So, WHY ONLY 10% of the time? Because of EMI. There are times EMI renders his 14" dime undetectable. Obviously, the mineralization of the soil in his test garden isn't changing, but his EMI does, and so does ours -- from minute to minute, hour to hour, day to day, and site to site.

SO -- why is all of this important to the point I eventually intend to make? I think it is important to understand that in terms of "raw depth," the VLF-IB platform -- which of course all of our current detectors utilize with the exception of PI machines -- is pretty much "maxed out," in terms of depth capability. There is just not all that much more that can be squeezed out of this particular technology -- and this is a fact that is largely agreed upon by all of the physicists and engineers who build detectors, that I have ever heard talk about the subject. After all, a Fisher F75 -- which is what, 15-year old technology -- can ALSO hit NASA-Tom's 14" test-garden dime (if I am not mistaken). We have been "near" the maximum, in terms of the "raw depth" capability of the VLF-IB platform, for roughly 2 decades.

BUT -- and here's the important part -- there ARE still gains to be made, in terms of REAL-WORLD depth capability. Again, though NOT much gain is left to achieve in terms of "raw, maximum depth," or "air-test depth," so to speak, the gains to potentially be made are in terms of HOW CLOSE a machine can come to achieving that "maximum depth," or "air test depth" for coins IN THE GROUND. Specifically, these "real-world," or "in the dirt" gains can potentially be achieved by...

1. Improving a machine's "bad dirt handling," so as to allow MORE of us, in DIFFERENT areas, who experience different, more mineralized types of dirt (unlike NASA-Tom's "pure" sand) to get closer to reaching that 14" raw depth maximum on a dime.

2. Improving a machine's "EMI handling," so as to allow MORE of us, who deal with various forms of EMI, to get closer to reaching that 14" raw depth maximum on a dime.

3. Improving on a machine's "ID algorithms" (which is related to #1, above) so as to allow MORE of us to get an ACCURATE ID on the deepest targets, INSTEAD of IDing those fringe-depth targets as "iron," so that we might actually be more apt to dig a target that is closer to that 14" maximum.

SO -- in his "perfect" dirt, NASA-Tom has indeed stated that his ability to detect and accurately ID a dime at 14.0" with his Equinox (which he can achieve about 10% of the time), has improved to 14.2" with his Manticore (which he can achieve about 70% of the time), BUT -- and this is what my long-winded post has been leading up to, in terms of my "point" -- I think it is important to say that THE 0.2" INCREASE IN "RAW" DEPTH THAT THE MANTICORE ACHIEVES, DOES NOT MEAN THAT THE REST OF US WILL ONLY SEE 0.2" DEPTH GAIN ON REAL-WORLD TARGETS.

Why do I say this? I say this BECAUSE, if we assume that the Manticore handles bad dirt better, handles EMI better, and is able to ID targets more accurately, then...that means that ANY OF US, whose dirt type and EMI issues PREVENT us from EVER digging a 14" dime, or even a 10" or 12" dime, may now be able to "come closer" to that 14" raw depth maximum. In my specific case, which -- again -- is a "max depth" of 9" on a dime, I personally may very well, with a Manticore, now be able to detect a dime to 9 1/2", or possibly 10", or maybe even a bit more. In other words, the objective of the Manticore's technology is to try to MITIGATE those reasons why most of us are unable to even come close to a VLF-IB machine's "raw maximum depth."

So, is the Manticore able to mitigate the factors (bad dirt, and EMI) that PREVENT us from detecting a coin anywhere NEAR the maximum capability of the unit? I have no idea, personally, but according to NASA-Tom, the answer is YES. Given that he does not achieve that 14.2" maximum depth in any of the "inland" sites he hunts, he has noted that he IS experiencing much more significant depth gains. In fact, a couple of posts AFTER he noted the 0.2" increase in ABSOLUTE max depth, he also noted that DUE TO BETTER EMI MITIGATION that is built into the Manticore, he is averaging TWO INCHES more depth, with his Manticore, at "inland" sites (i.e. when he is "coin and relic hunting," not "beach jewelry hunting"). TWO INCHES? That is awfully impressive...

Now, will the REST of us gain 2" depth? I have no idea, but I suspect not, as most of us deal with far more highly mineralized soil than he does. BUT -- I DO feel pretty confident that we will achieve quite a bit more than 0.2" depth increase, if switching to the Manticore...

Just my two cents..

Steve

Awesome write up Steve! You “hit the coin on its head” with your post.

 

[CoinRobber]

Interesting as my soil is the same as his.
So the MC would not be worth the extra money to me for only 1/2 an inch but would probably be to someone with bad ground that would possibly get 1 or 2 more inches. Depends on your soil
But as you said I think for the most part current technology is maxed out

I agree with you DigDog is it really worth it for one inch more depth , the cost here is £1800 , which today is a lot of money . I think it's not worth all that money for a very small increase
in finds , The 900 looks to better value , but even that is eleven hundred pounds here. I have watched all of the depth tests on the manticore and come to the conclusion that yes the manticore
is a little hotter than the noxes. All my money is going feeding an electric meter at the moment, it's taking £100 a week off me for watching TV and a small oil filled rad are all thats powered on.
I am out seraching for money to buy food it's that bad.

 

[DigDog]

I agree with you DigDog is it really worth it for one inch more depth , the cost here is £1800 , which today is a lot of money . I think it's not worth all that money for a very small increase
in finds , The 900 looks to better value , but even that is eleven hundred pounds here. I have watched all of the depth tests on the manticore and come to the conclusion that yes the manticore
is a little hotter than the noxes. All my money is going feeding an electric meter at the moment, it's taking £100 a week off me for watching TV and a small oil filled rad are all thats powered on.
I am out seraching for money to buy food it's that bad.

Sorry to hear, most of us are in the same situation with the exception of a few retired with little time to go and plenty of money to spend. The market for expensive detectors is shrinking, again for those who have alot of extra money retired or working, which is also shrinking. Everything is relative.
Those that do good for them but many of them don’t understand or care to. Unfortunately a growing trend of people being selfish and just don’t care.
Greed and selfishness is an easy thing to fall into which leads to divisiveness and hatred.
I believe what goes around comes around

 

[sgoss66]

Awesome write up Steve! You “hit the coin on its head” with your post.

Why thanks, Jimmy! Glad you found it to be of some value.

Steve

 

[sgoss66]

I agree with you DigDog is it really worth it for one inch more depth , the cost here is £1800 , which today is a lot of money . I think it's not worth all that money for a very small increase
in finds , The 900 looks to better value , but even that is eleven hundred pounds here. I have watched all of the depth tests on the manticore and come to the conclusion that yes the manticore
is a little hotter than the noxes. All my money is going feeding an electric meter at the moment, it's taking £100 a week off me for watching TV and a small oil filled rad are all thats powered on.
I am out seraching for money to buy food it's that bad.

Sorry to hear, CoinRobber. Times are definitely getting tough, with prices the way they are. I'm sorry to hear of your struggles, and will pray for your situation.

Steve

 

[sgoss66]

Sorry to hear, most of us are in the same situation with the exception of a few retired with little time to go and plenty of money to spend. The market for expensive detectors is shrinking, again for those who have alot of extra money retired or working, which is also shrinking. Everything is relative.
Those that do good for them but many of them don’t understand or care to. Unfortunately a growing trend of people being selfish and just don’t care.
Greed and selfishness is an easy thing to fall into which leads to divisiveness and hatred.
I believe what goes around comes around

Unfortunately, greed/selfishness is one of the flaws within the human heart, and it's easy to fall into...to the detriment of yourself and others...

Steve

 

[DigDog]

Unfortunately, greed/selfishness is one of the flaws within the human heart, and it's easy to fall into...to the detriment of yourself and others...

Steve

A flaw that was started with the beginning of man. The very first sin

 

[DigDog]

Unfortunately, greed/selfishness is one of the flaws within the human heart, and it's easy to fall into...to the detriment of yourself and others...

Steve

Steve I don’t know if it will ever get any better either.
Really sad though respect has been substituted by hatred. Kindness has been substituted by selfishness.
I still live by the belief what goes around comes around

 

[jas415]

To me, just MHO, the additional ability to discern what is there might be worth it! The CTX, again, to me, had the absolute best target id of any machine ever! Lots of information to make a dig decision.
Right at the moment as I hold the 900, one thing really disappoints me - it does not have a wireless module so I can use earbuds. Now there may be a workaround and I will seek it. I REALLY do not like headphones after military and Air traffic control for 39 years! Possibly the 900 will pair with the 800 wireless module, we will see.
On a positive note, the 900 has a slightly better shaft system, three parts, lower to coil, middle and upper, But the 900 has a different lower 'shaft to coil' diameter than the coil shafts on the 800. I might possibly be able to use the extra shafts of the 800 on the middle section of the 900 shaft assembly, I will check.
Great advantage is it comes with two coils! the 6" and the middle size (9 0r 11"???), I dont know!
The VDI/TDI are from -19 to 100 and it appears it will be a bit simpler to separate out a silver dime from a clad and clad from a lot of pennies. Likewise with quarters and halves. I dont know about nickels and war nickels but I would bet we will have the same issue separating those out as the war comes in all over the scale sometimes..
Handle is a bit thicker and easier to grip, with a lightly better forward angle.
Cuff works easier and seems to be slightly less brittle.
Coil ears are less likely to fail as they seem to have additional thickness and bases.

Bottom line to me is if a person was going to get a new 800, they would be slightly better off getting the 900 with the two coils for a couple of hundred bucks more.

 

[sprchng]

jas415 , I'm sure that was Minelab's intent , getting rid of the 600 and 800 detectors as quickly as they can , their Edsel if you will.​