The lack of Beach videos apparently none leaves me to wonder idf the Equinox is going to perform as crappy a most other VLF machines on the beach! Ive put my order on hold until sprin on the 800 I have a CTX and until the Equinox is tested by real world everyday detectorist ill wait!
Find's Treasure Forums
Welcome to Find's Treasure Forums, Guests!
You are viewing this forums as a guest which limits you to read only status.
Only registered members may post stories, questions, classifieds, reply to other posts, contact other members using built in messaging and use many other features found on these forums.
Why not register and join us today? It's free! (We don't share your email addresses with anyone.) We keep email addresses of our users to protect them and others from bad people posting things they shouldn't.
Click here to register!
Need Support Help?
Cannot log in?, click here to have new password emailed to you
Changed email? Forgot to update your account with new email address? Need assistance with something else?, click here to go to Find's Support Form and fill out the form.
No beach videos on Equinox has me scared ill wait!!!!
- Thread starter 6000proxl
- Start date
dewcon4414
Well-known member
I assume you are talking about multi freq having issues with very tiny gold? That issue isnt going away IN the salt water...... still requires a salt setting and multi freq to operate. So if you want to buy the EQ for smaller gold its only going to help in the dry sand. Im holding off because the CTX was tested and initially didnht work in salt water..... and leaked. No water testing videos and most of the testing has been in EU in the dirt...... tells me ML doesnt see the potential for this machine being a beach machine...... especially with the release date coming soon. Sadly....... ill have to hold off too.
Dew
Dew
Jason in Enid
Active member
were there pre-release beach videos of the CTX?
Here’s what I think I know about the beach.....
The only current detectors which get decent depth in salt water are either multifrequency Induction Balance machines (like the FBS/BBS machines or the Fisher CZ21) or pulse induction machines from various makers.
Some single frequency machines can ground balance all the way to where the salt signal i balanced out, but they typically lose considerable depth when set up that way.
However, no current beach detector is sensitive to small gold in salt water. Thin chains, charms, small, thin rings, especially 10k stuff are all pretty much undetectable in salt.
The ground balance for needed by any IB detector (including Multifreq. ones) loses small gold along with the salt signal.
For existing Pulse Induction detectors, the minimum pulse delay needed to detect small gold would be so short that the salt is detected as noise.
New technology is needed and none has reached the market.
The EQ should do more or less as well as the current FBS/BBS machines in salt.
The only current detectors which get decent depth in salt water are either multifrequency Induction Balance machines (like the FBS/BBS machines or the Fisher CZ21) or pulse induction machines from various makers.
Some single frequency machines can ground balance all the way to where the salt signal i balanced out, but they typically lose considerable depth when set up that way.
However, no current beach detector is sensitive to small gold in salt water. Thin chains, charms, small, thin rings, especially 10k stuff are all pretty much undetectable in salt.
The ground balance for needed by any IB detector (including Multifreq. ones) loses small gold along with the salt signal.
For existing Pulse Induction detectors, the minimum pulse delay needed to detect small gold would be so short that the salt is detected as noise.
New technology is needed and none has reached the market.
The EQ should do more or less as well as the current FBS/BBS machines in salt.
pulse is always going to be better at fine gold in salt water against the multi's to date..
trade offs in all detecting, no perfect metal detector including IQ based detectors so if in search of nirvana best to look on youtube and type in "smells like teen spirit" or similar
one day there will be perfection but until then we just have to do the best with what we have
AJ
trade offs in all detecting, no perfect metal detector including IQ based detectors so if in search of nirvana best to look on youtube and type in "smells like teen spirit" or similar
one day there will be perfection but until then we just have to do the best with what we have
AJ
Dew,
The only videos I've seen on the EQX were from "Dr.Tones", aka Brandon and he tested in the USA
Other Russian testers also put up videos. Neither the USA or Russia are in the EU
What are you referring to? Is it what was seen from 'Detectival?' The UK is currently in the process of leaving the EU and I didn't see any input at all from a UK tester of the EQX
Des D
The only videos I've seen on the EQX were from "Dr.Tones", aka Brandon and he tested in the USA
Other Russian testers also put up videos. Neither the USA or Russia are in the EU
What are you referring to? Is it what was seen from 'Detectival?' The UK is currently in the process of leaving the EU and I didn't see any input at all from a UK tester of the EQX
Des D
Greg (E.Tn)
Well-known member
Amazing what hype can do, isn't it? 
For the beach - no reason why it shouldn’t.
My problem is that no current detector can solve the small gold in salt water problem. Small gold is lost at a MUCH higher rate than rings And Rolexes - and in salt sand, virtuallly NONE of it has ever been found. When a detector comes along which can find small gold in wet salt sand as well as a nugget detector like the Gold Bug 2 can find it in dry sand, the earliest users of that detector will pay for them many times over. Light foil will be shallow or gone in the wet zone and deep sweet targets will pay the bills.
My personal current hope is that the Manta - recently announced to have been aquired and under dative development by Fisher - will be this machine. I have posted video clips of the Manta prototype in action elsewhere and won’t do so on an EQ forum.
I would be very surprised if the EQ does not prove to be useful and successful.
My problem is that no current detector can solve the small gold in salt water problem. Small gold is lost at a MUCH higher rate than rings And Rolexes - and in salt sand, virtuallly NONE of it has ever been found. When a detector comes along which can find small gold in wet salt sand as well as a nugget detector like the Gold Bug 2 can find it in dry sand, the earliest users of that detector will pay for them many times over. Light foil will be shallow or gone in the wet zone and deep sweet targets will pay the bills.
My personal current hope is that the Manta - recently announced to have been aquired and under dative development by Fisher - will be this machine. I have posted video clips of the Manta prototype in action elsewhere and won’t do so on an EQ forum.
I would be very surprised if the EQ does not prove to be useful and successful.
Jason in Enid
Active member
Nuke em said:
"testing" has been over with for a long time. They are in full production right now. Hell, theyre probably loading shipping containers of them at sea ports right now so they can be in the countries, and in the hands of distributors so they can be shipped by the release goal date they have.
dewcon4414
Well-known member
Ive not noticed 10K being as difficult as WHITE gold..... it depends a lot on, size, depth, and whats mixed with the gold. The Xcal will hit a piece .3 of a gram out there in the water.
Sorry Des..... my bad, i thought Brandon did the testing in the UK and yes i was referring to detectival.
I was told there were only 5 people who got them to play with here in the states. Neil...... IMO its like listening to real good speaker or BOSE....... we may not notice a difference in the salt water. Like the BBS and FBS machines........ there are goods and bads, but at the end of the day i honestly cant see one out performing the other. So to me i believe the advantage may come in the dry sand with those single freq and not having to accept the Multi freq performance or bring a second machine.
Sorry Des..... my bad, i thought Brandon did the testing in the UK and yes i was referring to detectival.
I was told there were only 5 people who got them to play with here in the states. Neil...... IMO its like listening to real good speaker or BOSE....... we may not notice a difference in the salt water. Like the BBS and FBS machines........ there are goods and bads, but at the end of the day i honestly cant see one out performing the other. So to me i believe the advantage may come in the dry sand with those single freq and not having to accept the Multi freq performance or bring a second machine.
Minelab's own two recent statements describing 'Multi IQ', state:
"Multi IQ copes with saltwater and beach conditions almost as well as BBS/FBS"
"Multi IQ... blah blah blah, creating a very sensitive and stable detector"
These two descriptions of MIQ are good, informative but at the same time throws up a lot of questions.
Such as: 'almost as well as BBS/FBS': is that based on what 'a tester' or 'more than two tester's' said or is it a statement from Philip Wahrlich?
And what are 'they' or 'he' basing that opinion on? Did Philip go to the beach out at Glenelg and go in the water? Is Philip a detectorist or a 'white coat' observer?
BBS is 'Sovereign/Excalibur' technology and FBS is 'Explorer/E Trac' and both are very good in seawater.
So, the most important Q. is: "Why doesn't 'Multi IQ' cope with saltwater and beach conditions as well as 'BBS/FBS?'
In another extract from press releases it deals with 'ground noises' especially from saltwater use being a troublesome factor for most detectors but intimates that 'Multi IQ' is good at 'noise reduction!'
So is it stability in saltwater, depth on the beach or sensitivity to particular metals at the beach is the issue?
Having said all the above, I'm going to stick my neck out and say, " I think the 'Equinox', will be very good at the beach"
Why am I saying that? I prototyped every Minelab detector since 1999 to 2013 on the beach up to four times per week and sometimes more including, 'Explorer', 'Quattro', other 'Explorer' models, 'X-Terra', 'Safari', 'E Trac', 'GP', 'GPX', 'CTX' ( I also tested inland too - mornings and beach afternoons. I was criticised once for testing on 'so many different beaches!' Why do you do that? I drove extensively to different areas to sample the saline content, seaweed amount, temperatures, you name it I looked at it)
They all worked well and they all had their 'quirks', I had to find.
'Equinox', will be the same. It'll work well and we'll have to find its quirks, if it has any and it must have one or two?
I'm guessing it's 'operational nature over wet sand' will be 'X-Terra' like, that is a bit wild if not GB'd properly and over-driving Gain.
It'll 'sound off' if you hit the coil off the sand and it'll be very stable with the coil submerged?
It just might not have the super depth of the FBS system and that begs another Q. we've seen videos showing great depths on test - so does that amazing 'depth' suffer at the beach?
It shouldn't! Sometimes better depths are seen on the beach than seen inland?
So, the plot thickens!"
"Multi IQ copes with saltwater and beach conditions almost as well as BBS/FBS"
"Multi IQ... blah blah blah, creating a very sensitive and stable detector"
These two descriptions of MIQ are good, informative but at the same time throws up a lot of questions.
Such as: 'almost as well as BBS/FBS': is that based on what 'a tester' or 'more than two tester's' said or is it a statement from Philip Wahrlich?
And what are 'they' or 'he' basing that opinion on? Did Philip go to the beach out at Glenelg and go in the water? Is Philip a detectorist or a 'white coat' observer?
BBS is 'Sovereign/Excalibur' technology and FBS is 'Explorer/E Trac' and both are very good in seawater.
So, the most important Q. is: "Why doesn't 'Multi IQ' cope with saltwater and beach conditions as well as 'BBS/FBS?'
In another extract from press releases it deals with 'ground noises' especially from saltwater use being a troublesome factor for most detectors but intimates that 'Multi IQ' is good at 'noise reduction!'
So is it stability in saltwater, depth on the beach or sensitivity to particular metals at the beach is the issue?
Having said all the above, I'm going to stick my neck out and say, " I think the 'Equinox', will be very good at the beach"
Why am I saying that? I prototyped every Minelab detector since 1999 to 2013 on the beach up to four times per week and sometimes more including, 'Explorer', 'Quattro', other 'Explorer' models, 'X-Terra', 'Safari', 'E Trac', 'GP', 'GPX', 'CTX' ( I also tested inland too - mornings and beach afternoons. I was criticised once for testing on 'so many different beaches!' Why do you do that? I drove extensively to different areas to sample the saline content, seaweed amount, temperatures, you name it I looked at it)
They all worked well and they all had their 'quirks', I had to find.
'Equinox', will be the same. It'll work well and we'll have to find its quirks, if it has any and it must have one or two?
I'm guessing it's 'operational nature over wet sand' will be 'X-Terra' like, that is a bit wild if not GB'd properly and over-driving Gain.
It'll 'sound off' if you hit the coil off the sand and it'll be very stable with the coil submerged?
It just might not have the super depth of the FBS system and that begs another Q. we've seen videos showing great depths on test - so does that amazing 'depth' suffer at the beach?
It shouldn't! Sometimes better depths are seen on the beach than seen inland?
So, the plot thickens!"
Des D said:
I think Des it will be as good at least as the Terra 705 on the dry , but i am not so certain on the wet ?
Being it will have a slightly bigger coil and better electronics and speed than the Terra it should work brilliantly .
Anyway i will be on the beach the same day as i get it . I must make sure its what i want or i wont buy the second one.
Anyway 5 freqs working together might be enough for good stability in the wet and i bet the speed will be slower in the preset beach program , 1 or 2 probably .
Like your vid's on YT i have seen on the AT max and so on . Pity they are erratic a bit on the wet .
dewcon4414
Well-known member
Des...... id say because we are working with limited multi choices. The FBS has never really said what freqs they use. I realize the various channels are just a slight shift in freqs. ML has always made us think there are multi freqs being used..... not this time. So depth and sensitivity has to work in the freqs mentioned.... and maybe they have improved the processor. If they go with 5 and 15, thats pretty close to the 3 and 15khz the DFX uses. Pretty stable at the beach...... but at least 3 " less depth in the dry sand. 3khz did have a little issue with EMI on some beaches too. If the other is 5 and 10khz..... then you would think it will be stable...... but at what cost to sensitivity and depth? Getting close to the average 5-7khz for a detector to have very little issues to run stable.
Des.....i get salt water noise, but to be honest i deal with that and can pick out targets pretty well. The noise that creates the most difficulty for me is black sand concentration. You can tell on a sanded in beach if you are working in fluffy loose sand....... its much quieter than hard pan sand. So i hunt for those spots. I know im working in some older targets there. Any time you get a really smooth running detector it seems to many deep targets are being filtered out..... is this the case? It would be like running in auto..... which always seemed to have a FIXED depth..... it just wouldnt recognize a target at a cut off..... where as manual knew there was something there, but couldnt quite tell you what it was at a varied depth.
Des.....i get salt water noise, but to be honest i deal with that and can pick out targets pretty well. The noise that creates the most difficulty for me is black sand concentration. You can tell on a sanded in beach if you are working in fluffy loose sand....... its much quieter than hard pan sand. So i hunt for those spots. I know im working in some older targets there. Any time you get a really smooth running detector it seems to many deep targets are being filtered out..... is this the case? It would be like running in auto..... which always seemed to have a FIXED depth..... it just wouldnt recognize a target at a cut off..... where as manual knew there was something there, but couldnt quite tell you what it was at a varied depth.