EQUINOX Technologies (Part 2)

[sgoss66]

IDXMonster,

No, never owned a CTX. Explorer SE Pros are what I have always swung.

You may be right about the Equinox. It's ID capability -- i.e. it's ability to tell a user "dig me," on deep targets -- may NOT exceed the CTX's ability. I have a feeling we are all going to be surprised -- in a good way, but whatever the case, you are exactly right, we will have an answer after the machines have been in users' hands long enough for us to develop some expertise with the machines. There is going to be a ton of "hype" at first, probably good AND bad. I will largely disregard much of that. But after some time passes, once users begin to learn the machines, and some of the nuances therein, we are going to start hearing some "ground truth" that will give us the answer, one way or another.

Either way, I'm prepared. I am prepared on one hand for the Equinox to be so much better than my SE Pros that they become relegated to "backup status;" on the other hand, I'm prepared for the Equinox to be a good-performing "backup machine" to my SE Pros, to be used when I need a faster unit to hunt in thick trash, or when I need a waterproof unit to hunt in the rain, stuff like that. I am cautiously optimistic, but prepared for either case. The one thing I think we can probably bank on, is, it WON'T be "garbage..."

Steve

 

[Jackpine Savage]

I wonder if a barber dime is a large silver

Ah, there's the rub.
will the 5 kHz single freq out perform the X-T 705 at 3 kHz? An updated modern version of the 5kHz Musketeer Advantage, one of the deepest seeking silver finders ever made and pretty decent in bad soil. Advantage with WOT coil = DEEP big silver.

Dimes the rub.

Tom

 

[Mr. Carolina]

Steve: His question was how well does it run on wet saltwater sand with lots of iron and detectors nearby? Minelabs answer was ALMOST as good as FBS and BBS detectors. Not my answer but theirs. Marketing? I don't think so. I think it means exactly what it says.

 

[Jason in Enid]

Of course,the only way to know what it will really do is for many FBS users to take the Equinox to their sites that are "dead" and see if they wake up again. If they start producing good targets once again and it happens in VOLUME and IMMEDIATELY,then it's clear that the new tech has trumped about everything out there.

I have to disagree a bit here. I am currently re-working an old "dead" site and its producing like crazy! several years ago, and friend an I pounded this site every week for months. We pulled dozens of silver, over 100 wheats and a handful of indian head cents. We worked it over and over until it stopped producing. I went back the next year a few times but it never would produce enough to justify the drive out.

Fast forward a couple years to a couple weeks ago. I hunted it again just because I had to be there for business. 4 silver dimes, 8 wheats, 2 tokens, V and buff nickels and a big gold ring. Last weekend I went back and pulled another 5 dimes, sterling earings, and more wheats.

This is hunting with my CTX, the same CTX I used on it a few years ago. I have no idea why its suddenly producing again but I'm not complaining! LOL . Now, if I had waited until I had the 800 to go re-try that old honey hole, I would have sworn it was just the machine finding everything that the CTX couldnt.

The real test will be to take to an old producing site and hunt it back to back with other detectors while flagging targets before digging. What can one hit that that the other cant? Hunt old deep sites, old fields, trashy parks, put both detector through their paces and compare them, but the only true comparison is real targets still in the dirt

 

[IDXMonster]

Of course,the only way to know what it will really do is for many FBS users to take the Equinox to their sites that are "dead" and see if they wake up again. If they start producing good targets once again and it happens in VOLUME and IMMEDIATELY,then it's clear that the new tech has trumped about everything out there.

I have to disagree a bit here. I am currently re-working an old "dead" site and its producing like crazy! several years ago, and friend an I pounded this site every week for months. We pulled dozens of silver, over 100 wheats and a handful of indian head cents. We worked it over and over until it stopped producing. I went back the next year a few times but it never would produce enough to justify the drive out.

Fast forward a couple years to a couple weeks ago. I hunted it again just because I had to be there for business. 4 silver dimes, 8 wheats, 2 tokens, V and buff nickels and a big gold ring. Last weekend I went back and pulled another 5 dimes, sterling earings, and more wheats.

This is hunting with my CTX, the same CTX I used on it a few years ago. I have no idea why its suddenly producing again but I'm not complaining! LOL . Now, if I had waited until I had the 800 to go re-try that old honey hole, I would have sworn it was just the machine finding everything that the CTX couldnt.

The real test will be to take to an old producing site and hunt it back to back with other detectors while flagging targets before digging. What can one hit that that the other cant? Hunt old deep sites, old fields, trashy parks, put both detector through their paces and compare them, but the only true comparison is real targets still in the dirt

I just read that about where you and I think it was Evan? had done that and the place was like new...yes,that might be a red herring and is an unusual situation. But if that happened with the Equinox at ALL your sites,then there's something to take note of! I'm wary of the "target flagging" thing because unless they are flagged in a way that the second machine doesn't know exactly where the target is,I.e with the Findpoints feature which no other machine has...then the second machine has a clear advantage of knowing where to look in the first place. Getting the initial hit is where it all starts...so the comparisons would have to be more carefully set up in that regard.
OK where is this damn Equinox so we can start playing with it??

 

[Charles (Upstate NY)]

Of course,the only way to know what it will really do is for many FBS users to take the Equinox to their sites that are "dead" and see if they wake up again. If they start producing good targets once again and it happens in VOLUME and IMMEDIATELY,then it's clear that the new tech has trumped about everything out there.

I have to disagree a bit here. I am currently re-working an old "dead" site and its producing like crazy! several years ago, and friend an I pounded this site every week for months. We pulled dozens of silver, over 100 wheats and a handful of indian head cents. We worked it over and over until it stopped producing. I went back the next year a few times but it never would produce enough to justify the drive out.

Fast forward a couple years to a couple weeks ago. I hunted it again just because I had to be there for business. 4 silver dimes, 8 wheats, 2 tokens, V and buff nickels and a big gold ring. Last weekend I went back and pulled another 5 dimes, sterling earings, and more wheats.

This is hunting with my CTX, the same CTX I used on it a few years ago. I have no idea why its suddenly producing again but I'm not complaining! LOL . Now, if I had waited until I had the 800 to go re-try that old honey hole, I would have sworn it was just the machine finding everything that the CTX couldnt.

The real test will be to take to an old producing site and hunt it back to back with other detectors while flagging targets before digging. What can one hit that that the other cant? Hunt old deep sites, old fields, trashy parks, put both detector through their paces and compare them, but the only true comparison is real targets still in the dirt

Does your soil freeze in the winter? If so the soil heaves, expands, this slowly flips coins end over end and move stuff around. Its not unusual to come back to a hunted out site and find lots more coins after those that were on edge flip over flat and are detectable. After a few seasons of this they do eventually play out.

 

[TomNH]

The real test will be to take to an old producing site and hunt it back to back with other detectors while flagging targets before digging. What can one hit that that the other cant? Hunt old deep sites, old fields, trashy parks, put both detector through their paces and compare them, but the only true comparison is real targets still in the dirt

Exactly........
This is not done enuf in the typical UTube testing. And dig everything, one ways, jumpers, no VIDs etc.
Especially pulling good stuff from iron infested cellar holes & ball parks. That is my Safaris weakness I need to overcome.

c u later
Tom
LFOD !

 

[Jason in Enid]

I just read that about where you and I think it was Evan? had done that and the place was like new...yes,that might be a red herring and is an unusual situation. But if that happened with the Equinox at ALL your sites,then there's something to take note of! I'm wary of the "target flagging" thing because unless they are flagged in a way that the second machine doesn't know exactly where the target is,I.e with the Findpoints feature which no other machine has...then the second machine has a clear advantage of knowing where to look in the first place. Getting the initial hit is where it all starts...so the comparisons would have to be more carefully set up in that regard.
OK where is this damn Equinox so we can start playing with it??

Yeah, I was hunting with Evan there in the past. I can see your point about flagging "known" objects, but not 100% agree. Most targets aren't full, round, clear signals. Often they are just squeaks that you need to stop and investigate. You don't have to be directly centered over it to get that first peep. When hunting with friends using different detectors, we often like to compare targets before digging. Some times, even knowing exactly where a target is can't make the other detector see it.

Hopefully the EQ does come out in early December while the ground is still thawed. A mid winter release will be showing a lot of air tests and beaches LOL

 

[sgoss66]

Carolina --

Good point, in that stephenscool WAS specifically asking about how the Equinox will work on wet salt sand. I didn't go back and read his post, only saw yours where you responded.

And it wasn't particularly "aimed" at you, either. Even though I responded to "you," there have been lots of posts on lots of forums (some of my own, included), trying to figure out where the Equinox might "fall" in terms of performance -- compared both to OTHER brand units, and to Minelab's own machines themselves. Obviously, it's speculation at this point, but my post was more general, just a "brain dump" of my most recent, general thoughts (for what it's worth), regarding how well the Equinox is going to perform overall.

When I said "just marketing," I was more talking about Minelab's implication that the Equinox "won't be as sensitive to deep silver" as FBS. That's what I think may be more "marketing" than what the truth might prove to be. Again, just speculating...

Steve

 

[sgoss66]

I just read that about where you and I think it was Evan? had done that and the place was like new...yes,that might be a red herring and is an unusual situation. But if that happened with the Equinox at ALL your sites,then there's something to take note of! I'm wary of the "target flagging" thing because unless they are flagged in a way that the second machine doesn't know exactly where the target is,I.e with the Findpoints feature which no other machine has...then the second machine has a clear advantage of knowing where to look in the first place. Getting the initial hit is where it all starts...so the comparisons would have to be more carefully set up in that regard.
OK where is this damn Equinox so we can start playing with it??

Yeah, I was hunting with Evan there in the past. I can see your point about flagging "known" objects, but not 100% agree. Most targets aren't full, round, clear signals. Often they are just squeaks that you need to stop and investigate. You don't have to be directly centered over it to get that first peep. When hunting with friends using different detectors, we often like to compare targets before digging. Some times, even knowing exactly where a target is can't make the other detector see it.

Hopefully the EQ does come out in early December while the ground is still thawed. A mid winter release will be showing a lot of air tests and beaches LOL

I agree with you both -- IDX and Jason. IDX -- YES, when you "flag" a target, and then call over your buddy to listen to it, just because your buddy's machine can "see" the target doesn't necessarily mean it would have been as adept as yours at finding the target in the first place, before either of you knew it was there. I had this issue before I hunted FBS. My buddy with an E-Trac would find a suspected good target, and then call me over to listen with my machine. Though I could always "see" the same targets, HE was always the one finding them initially. I was not. ID at depth was a big part of the reason for that, I finally came to understand...but point being, I understand what you are saying in that it is much easier to "work" a machine over the top of a known target and get a signal, than it is to "find" in the first place.

But Jason talking about "comparing signals" on targets is -- I agree with him -- a very good way of comparing detectors/coils. Fast forward seven years from what I just talked about above -- my buddy hunting with an E-Trac and me with a non-FBS machine...I hunted with that same buddy last week -- he with his E-Trac and 11" Pro coil, me with an E-Trac and 13" Ultimate coil. We "compared targets," as usual, and there were definite differences noted between the two machines, running the same settings. His, with 11" Pro coil, hit harder on a deep rifle bullet, mine gave more of a "dig me" signal on a deep Merc that I dug. Meanwhile, they were fairly similar on several other targets.

There is definitely a lot to be learned from comparing two machines (or coils) over the top of an in-ground, undug target. Likewise, there is something to be learned regarding how well a machine initially locates targets from within areas that have been heavily hunted before.

Good points, gents.

Steve

 

[Ksdirt]

Of course,the only way to know what it will really do is for many FBS users to take the Equinox to their sites that are "dead" and see if they wake up again. If they start producing good targets once again and it happens in VOLUME and IMMEDIATELY,then it's clear that the new tech has trumped about everything out there.

I have to disagree a bit here. I am currently re-working an old "dead" site and its producing like crazy! several years ago, and friend an I pounded this site every week for months. We pulled dozens of silver, over 100 wheats and a handful of indian head cents. We worked it over and over until it stopped producing. I went back the next year a few times but it never would produce enough to justify the drive out.

Fast forward a couple years to a couple weeks ago. I hunted it again just because I had to be there for business. 4 silver dimes, 8 wheats, 2 tokens, V and buff nickels and a big gold ring. Last weekend I went back and pulled another 5 dimes, sterling earings, and more wheats.

This is hunting with my CTX, the same CTX I used on it a few years ago. I have no idea why its suddenly producing again but I'm not complaining! LOL . Now, if I had waited until I had the 800 to go re-try that old honey hole, I would have sworn it was just the machine finding everything that the CTX couldnt.

The real test will be to take to an old producing site and hunt it back to back with other detectors while flagging targets before digging. What can one hit that that the other cant? Hunt old deep sites, old fields, trashy parks, put both detector through their paces and compare them, but the only true comparison is real targets still in the dirt

Does your soil freeze in the winter? If so the soil heaves, expands, this slowly flips coins end over end and move stuff around. Its not unusual to come back to a hunted out site and find lots more coins after those that were on edge flip over flat and are detectable. After a few seasons of this they do eventually play out.

I might be lucky in having several spots to test out the EQ if it's for real..because myself and a buddy of mine are both NUTS because for the last 5 plus years we keep pounding the same old parks and old schools etc..where we have found several silver , wheats, etc with our etracs and now hardly ever get anything.. But we still keep goin there...almost weekly ....we still find the new clad that was dropped but rarely anything good ...but you never no....just can't seem to stop...So can't wait to get my EQ...

 

[sgoss66]

Carolina,

Just to expound a bit more on my "largely marketing" comment.

I have talked about this here before, regarding Minelab's implication that the Equinox "won't be as sensitive to deep silver" as FBS. I have said that I think those statements may be more "marketing" than what the truth might prove to be. And then, as you and stephenscool were discussing, we also have Minelab's implications that the Equinox will be only "almost as good as FBS and BBS" on wet sand thing. Just like with the "a little less sensitive to silver" caveats Minelab has mentioned, I am simply having a hard time seeing how it's not at least "possible," if not LIKELY, that this, too, is nothing but "marketing"...

The way I see it is, something just doesn't add up here. EITHER you have created a "breakthrough" in the technology that allows you to better deal with ground minerals -- and thus greatly improve target ID, or you haven't. If you HAVEN'T, but are claiming you have, then users are going to find out real quick that you are selling snake oil. (And I don't think this will be the case, with the Equinox). On the OTHER hand, if you really HAVE created this breakthrough technology -- I have to believe that while your engineers were so busy creating this breakthrough so as to "one-up" your competition, it's highly likely that the engineers also, somewhat inadvertently, "one-upped" your OWN product offerings, as well.

Do you REALLY believe that the Equinox is going to be SO GOOD that Minelab draws away customers from XP and Nokta and Garrett and all the others, and yet AT THE SAME TIME, the Equinox's performance will fall short of 15- to 20-year old technology (BBS/FBS)? How can you take multi-frequency technology, IMPROVE upon it (which is what Multi-IQ claims to do), and then end up with WORSE performance than your prior generation of multi-frequency technology? I really think Multi-IQ will either prove to be an IMPROVEMENT, or it will prove NOT to be. But if it IS, then it just doesn't make sense to say it's only an improvement over NON-Minelab machines, but NOT an improvement over Minelab machines. Isn't that essentially what the marketing department is telling us here? They are walking a tightrope, in my opinion, and they know it. They on one hand need to talk about how much of a breakthrough in performance it will be, outperforming all THE OTHER manufacturer's machines, but they also need to find "caveats" so that they don't make it "obvious" to their customer base that it just may outperform THEIR OWN machines...

I think what will most likely be the case, when the dust settles, is one of two things -- EITHER the Equinox is THAT GOOD (in which case FBS and BBS will likely be out-performed as well), or NOT that good. I just don't see a middle ground in there where the Equinox will be a "better performer" than the others, but yet NOT a better performer than FBS/BBS.

Steve

 

[sgoss66]

I might be lucky in having several spots to test out the EQ if it's for real..because myself and a buddy of mine are both NUTS because for the last 5 plus years we keep pounding the same old parks and old schools etc..where we have found several silver , wheats, etc with our etracs and now hardly ever get anything.. But we still keep goin there...almost weekly ....we still find the new clad that was dropped but rarely anything good ...but you never no....just can't seem to stop...So can't wait to get my EQ...

Ha ha! I have one of those spots, too! I think many of us do. The nearby, public, easy-to-hunt-when-you-don't-have-a-lot-of-time type of spot. While nearly dead, due to how hard we, and others, have hammered it, we continue to do so due to familiarity and proximity, and a success in this spot -- at this point -- has now been reduced to pulling a wheat cent every once in awhile!

You can bet I will be visiting that spot many times, with the Equinox. It will be a really good "proving ground," in that regard...

Steve

 

[IDXMonster]

It'll be an eye opener Steve if it's SO good it outperforms EVERYTHING,but like you said...where exactly DOES it fit in if that's not the case?? After so long of running the SE you also have a HUGE leg up on a newbie to the Equinox,so that's a little lopsided to begin with!
I can't wait to see what it will do.

 

[sgoss66]

I can't wait either, IDX. I am really hoping that those of us familiar with FBS machines will have a "shorter learning curve" with respect to the Equinox. Hopefully there are some "similarities" there, in terms of feel, that it's a somewhat "intuitive" move, from FBS to Equinox. I have run (and am currently) a friend's borrowed E-Trac a number of times over the years, and I find the move from the SE Pro to the E-Trac pretty seamless. If you can hunt one, you can hunt the other. Sure, there are nuances there, slight differences, the numbers are different, etc. But if you know what is a "diggable target" on an SE Pro, I can hand you an E-Trac and you will know what a "diggable target" is on it. I don't expect the Equinox to be THAT "intuitive" to an FBS/FBS2 user, but hopefully there is SOME experience that can be translated over...

In any case, yes...all of this speculation is fun and all, but where exactly the Equinox will "fit in" is entirely unclear, at this point. I'm looking forward to it, though!

Steve

 

[newguy]

Carolina,

Just to expound a bit more on my "largely marketing" comment.

I have talked about this here before, regarding Minelab's implication that the Equinox "won't be as sensitive to deep silver" as FBS. I have said that I think those statements may be more "marketing" than what the truth might prove to be. And then, as you and stephenscool were discussing, we also have Minelab's implications that the Equinox will be only "almost as good as FBS and BBS" on wet sand thing. Just like with the "a little less sensitive to silver" caveats Minelab has mentioned, I am simply having a hard time seeing how it's not at least "possible," if not LIKELY, that this, too, is nothing but "marketing"...

The way I see it is, something just doesn't add up here. EITHER you have created a "breakthrough" in the technology that allows you to better deal with ground minerals -- and thus greatly improve target ID, or you haven't. If you HAVEN'T, but are claiming you have, then users are going to find out real quick that you are selling snake oil. (And I don't think this will be the case, with the Equinox). On the OTHER hand, if you really HAVE created this breakthrough technology -- I have to believe that while your engineers were so busy creating this breakthrough so as to "one-up" your competition, it's highly likely that the engineers also, somewhat inadvertently, "one-upped" your OWN product offerings, as well.

Do you REALLY believe that the Equinox is going to be SO GOOD that Minelab draws away customers from XP and Nokta and Garrett and all the others, and yet AT THE SAME TIME, the Equinox's performance will fall short of 15- to 20-year old technology (BBS/FBS)? How can you take multi-frequency technology, IMPROVE upon it (which is what Multi-IQ claims to do), and then end up with WORSE performance than your prior generation of multi-frequency technology? I really think Multi-IQ will either prove to be an IMPROVEMENT, or it will prove NOT to be. But if it IS, then it just doesn't make sense to say it's only an improvement over NON-Minelab machines, but NOT an improvement over Minelab machines. Isn't that essentially what the marketing department is telling us here? They are walking a tightrope, in my opinion, and they know it. They on one hand need to talk about how much of a breakthrough in performance it will be, outperforming all THE OTHER manufacturer's machines, but they also need to find "caveats" so that they don't make it "obvious" to their customer base that it just may outperform THEIR OWN machines...

I think what will most likely be the case, when the dust settles, is one of two things -- EITHER the Equinox is THAT GOOD (in which case FBS and BBS will likely be out-performed as well), or NOT that good. I just don't see a middle ground in there where the Equinox will be a "better performer" than the others, but yet NOT a better performer than FBS/BBS.

Steve

Steve, I don't know anything about metal detector electronics but when I was a mainframe computer programmer 40 years ago, I could easily write a program that could test the output of some event and then decide what to do next. As a hypothetical example you could: do something like this:
- If output of event(s) indicated silver was detected, then write a message to user that a "penny" was found or that a "pull tab" was found or "its time to go fishing" or anything you can imagine. I'm not suggested that they are manipulating data to "dummy down" the capability, but its technically very easy to do. It could be that the equinox has all the "guts" to be their next flagship and its just SMOP (simple mater of programming) to enable it..

 

[Jason in Enid]

Steve, I was just thinking about the learning curve too. When I switched from a White's 6000 proXL to the E-Trac, it was a horrible experience. I wanted to wrap it around a tree the first few times. I felt completely lost. Switching from the E-Trac to the CTX only required that I stop trying to be strict with my silver coin numbers, otherwise it was mostly seamless.

I feel that wont be the case with the EQ. The Multi mode may be similar but the response and display are likely to be very different. Learning how to make all the adjustments on the fly is going to take a while. Flipping back and forth from single to multi, changing freqs, changing reactivity, and other things along with how every change alters target responses. I feel its going to be a lot to take in at first. Hopefully it will be easier than I'm imagining.

 

[Mr. Carolina]

Steve: Thank you for your response. My take on this is, Minelab said the new detector would OBSOLETE ALL SINGLE FREQUENCY DETECTORS. That is what the Equinox does. You have a option to run multi frequencies ( different frequencies depending on the mode ) or single frequency 20kHz or 40kHz. For me, that is the break through technology.

Carolina

 

[sgoss66]

Steve, I don't know anything about metal detector electronics but when I was a mainframe computer programmer 40 years ago, I could easily write a program that could test the output of some event and then decide what to do next. As a hypothetical example you could: do something like this:
- If output of event(s) indicated silver was detected, then write a message to user that a "penny" was found or that a "pull tab" was found or "its time to go fishing" or anything you can imagine. I'm not suggested that they are manipulating data to "dummy down" the capability, but its technically very easy to do. It could be that the equinox has all the "guts" to be their next flagship and its just SMOP (simple mater of programming) to enable it..

newguy -- I totally get what you are saying, and yes, you are right...Minelab COULD "dumb down" the performance of the Equinox in the software, with the intent to release a new Multi-IQ-based flagship in the future with full performance "turned on." Here's the problem I see with that, though, as I've thought it through over the past month or so.

There have been a LOT of very, very good machines -- some from established companies, and some from new companies -- come onto the market in the past 5 years or so. Fors units, Nokta units, AKA units, Rutus units, Garrett units, and of course XP units...among many others. And many of these, while not quite a "CTX" in terms of ID accuracy on deep coins, etc., are nonetheless are VERY respectable performers -- and some even exceed the CTX's abilities in some areas (unmasking, etc.) Let's just look at the Deus, as one example. Minelab has lost a lot of market share to XP; especially in Europe, as I have heard it said, most guys hunting plowed fields are swinging a Deus, not a Minelab. Minelab wants that market share back, right? I think we can see that they are aiming directly at XP/the Deus, (among others), with the Equinox.

SO, if you agree with all of this, then I think what follows, is this:

I don't think Minelab can be playing around trying to "dumb down" their new, cutting-edge technology IF THEY REALLY WANT TO GRAB BACK MARKET SHARE. And the reason being, I think the "space" there, the little "gap" in performance, between the Deus' performance (or other top units) and that of the CTX is pretty razor-thin. I do not think there is much ROOM there for Minelab to "shoot the gap," so to speak; in other words, for them to make a machine good ENOUGH to out-perform everyone else, and grab back market share, and yet still slide in JUST BELOW their own units. That's a risky move, at best, and likely a near impossible feat, at worst. The gap there is just not big enough to "shoot," in my opinion.

For those reasons, I can't possibly imagine Minelab inventing this great new technology, and then "handicapping it" on purpose, just so they can sell a more expensive unit, later. They are trying to grab market share NOW, and can't RISK, in my opinion, putting out something that is not CLEARLY as good as or better than the competition. And since the other manufacturers have narrowed the gap so effectively, anything Minelab produces that will challenge/rival their competition, will almost by definition HAVE to, as a "side effect," rival their OWN machines, as well.

I simply do not believe there is enough performance room between say a Deus, and a CTX, that Minelab can be playing games like "purposely hamstringing" their technology trying to "shoot that gap"...

Just my thoughts.

Steve

 

[Wayfarer]

Carolina,

Just to expound a bit more on my "largely marketing" comment.

I have talked about this here before, regarding Minelab's implication that the Equinox "won't be as sensitive to deep silver" as FBS. I have said that I think those statements may be more "marketing" than what the truth might prove to be. And then, as you and stephenscool were discussing, we also have Minelab's implications that the Equinox will be only "almost as good as FBS and BBS" on wet sand thing. Just like with the "a little less sensitive to silver" caveats Minelab has mentioned, I am simply having a hard time seeing how it's not at least "possible," if not LIKELY, that this, too, is nothing but "marketing"...

The way I see it is, something just doesn't add up here. EITHER you have created a "breakthrough" in the technology that allows you to better deal with ground minerals -- and thus greatly improve target ID, or you haven't. If you HAVEN'T, but are claiming you have, then users are going to find out real quick that you are selling snake oil. (And I don't think this will be the case, with the Equinox). On the OTHER hand, if you really HAVE created this breakthrough technology -- I have to believe that while your engineers were so busy creating this breakthrough so as to "one-up" your competition, it's highly likely that the engineers also, somewhat inadvertently, "one-upped" your OWN product offerings, as well.

Do you REALLY believe that the Equinox is going to be SO GOOD that Minelab draws away customers from XP and Nokta and Garrett and all the others, and yet AT THE SAME TIME, the Equinox's performance will fall short of 15- to 20-year old technology (BBS/FBS)? How can you take multi-frequency technology, IMPROVE upon it (which is what Multi-IQ claims to do), and then end up with WORSE performance than your prior generation of multi-frequency technology? I really think Multi-IQ will either prove to be an IMPROVEMENT, or it will prove NOT to be. But if it IS, then it just doesn't make sense to say it's only an improvement over NON-Minelab machines, but NOT an improvement over Minelab machines. Isn't that essentially what the marketing department is telling us here? They are walking a tightrope, in my opinion, and they know it. They on one hand need to talk about how much of a breakthrough in performance it will be, outperforming all THE OTHER manufacturer's machines, but they also need to find "caveats" so that they don't make it "obvious" to their customer base that it just may outperform THEIR OWN machines...

I think what will most likely be the case, when the dust settles, is one of two things -- EITHER the Equinox is THAT GOOD (in which case FBS and BBS will likely be out-performed as well), or NOT that good. I just don't see a middle ground in there where the Equinox will be a "better performer" than the others, but yet NOT a better performer than FBS/BBS.

Steve

Steve, I get what you are saying, and I think you pretty well summed it up with your "walking a tightrope" analogy. Let me add just a couple thoughts. For one, I don't think Minelab would purposely "dumb down" the Equinox to ensure that it performs worse than the CTX. If they truly have a breakthough technology here with the Equinox, then they would be best served by letting it loose on the market in its full glory, and capture about 75% of the entire detector market in a matter of months, which is what it would do if its better than the CTX at a third of the price. Why protect the sale of maybe 200 CTX at the expense of 50,000 Equinox sales. Produce the best product they can and let the chips fall as they may. Besides, if this technology is breakthrough, then I predict Minelab will soon come out with a machine based on Multi-IQ, or maybe a Multi-IQ/FBS technology, that has *all* the bells and whistles, like a color screen, target trace, all sorts of advanced adjustments, PC-programmable, and so forth. Then they will almost totally capture the high end market as well.

An analogy I can draw, is the White's MXT. When it came out, it was a mid range detector but it actually outperformed their high-end machine at the time, the XLT. Some would say it actually outperformed the subsequent White's high-end machine, the DFX. The MXT was just *that* good. I know, because I owned all those machines at the time. White's touted the adjustability and features of the XLT/DFX, but those of us who actually used them all, knew that the MXT outperformed them in actual field use (most of the time....saltwater beach was one area the DFX did better however). The MXT was so good, that it sold like hotcakes, and in fact is still selling 17 years after its release because it was *that* good. White's must have made a huge bundle off the MXT. I see the Equinox in a similar light. It is a new mid range machine that could very well have better performance than their top end machines, and if so , so be it, Minelab will make a mint selling Equinoxes and far more than make up for any loss in CTX sales.

So that's my two cents. Maybe I'm just trying to convince myself that the Equinox will turn out to be all that we hope it will be and be an awesome breakthrough machine. The possibility is certainly there. We'll find out here soon enough. Fingers crossed...