Menu
What's new
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.

If any of the testers of the equinox read this forum, why don't you conduct a conclusive test of the machine?

And Carolina is just playing "the devil's advocate " too. :/
 
I couldn't have put it better myself , Carolina. Thank you. As far as depth tests are concerned, the only thing I have to add is this: YouTube contains countless videos of depth testing various detector brands-- the vast majority being straightforward air tests or "target buried" tests. Everyone knows air tests are not necessarily an indication of what the detector is capable of in real life, while a buried target test is somewhat more so. But placing a coin down in the bottom of a freshly dug hole without filling it, well.......... all that tells me is the machine will hit a dollar sized coin 13" on an air test.

So, we wait.
 
Great, now I have to wait for fishers new announcement as well. Waiting on whites new release also. Almost pulled trigger in a MXSport now on holding pattern again
 
I'm light. The reason I'm challenging Greg is because he made a comment about "deception" in another thread, and now he made a post talking about "sleight-of-hand". It's weird to me that someone would come to a forum loaded with all these biases for a brand new machine that we know little about. It's more than just skepticism. Almost as if this person has made a decision to not like the machine and is now actively trying to influence others. He and others like him hide behind the motto "I'm just asking questions", but it's obvious the questions aren't coming from a well-intentioned place. What would be fair and unbiased would be to say:

"I don't think the open hole test is a good measure. I'd like to see a buried target or a known target in a test bed."

Or

"The iron test can be improved upon in a few different ways, for example placing the iron on top of the coins, or using a smaller piece of iron"

Etc etc. instead of these nuanced approaches, however, we have multiple people coming to this forum solely to cast doubt and no suspicion. There's even another guy in another thread suggesting that a video of the Nox being used in the field is not the Nox because it has a different coil (which, even if true, means nothing, because we know the machine will have different coils). And this isn't restricted to just this forum. On Dankowski, Friendly, and other forums there are ill-meaning people that care less about honest discussion and more about disturbing the discussion and slinging accusations. I understand skepticism and concern, but I don't understand people actively coming to these places to make trouble.

I see this type of behavior in the gaming community as well. People see a tease of a product, they immediately react negatively for whatever reason, they demand answers of people and companies, and when the answers don't come immediately, they cry foul and insist that there is an actve effort to lie, cheat, or trick the customers. It's a weird, conspiratorial, reactionary type of behavior that I will just never understand. I mean, this is MINELAB. They make great machines and no one doubts the abilities of products like the CTX and the E-Trac. Making false claims and demands of them isn't going to satisfy you. Just wait, speculate if you like, and see what the results are when they start coming in.

Until that time, can we stop posting comments and threads basically accusing Minelab of trying to rip us off?
 
Well to be honest, the reason I think we see these "doubting thomas's" is because the tests we see are always the same and never really serve to prove anything. This leaves doubt in the minds of would-be buyers like myself. I plan to buy one and am in fact on the waiting pre-order list, I only offer a possible reason behind these "negative" responses other than a conspiracy.

I myself keep asking the manufacturers of new detectors why the same old tired tests. Obviously, the response of the potential buyers, and let's face it it will be the potential buyers asking question, not those who have no plans to buy one, DUH! It's a very simple request and could be performed by current testers and still be effective. Take the damn detector to a well hunted park and show what it can do that the other 20 detectors I've tried couldn't. You either have a winner, which will sell quicker than you can produce them, or a flop which goes to the cheap sale market very quick. Common sense tells me if you really believe you have a winner that will usher in a new era of detecting, then simply prove it. Not by throwing coins in a hole, putting a ruler on a table or, in my opinion, the useless nail board stunt and take that sucker out in the real world and show us what it can do.

So this is why you get so many people sounding cynical. The proof that you have a great detector is so simple to prove, yet we see the same 20 year old tests being done as we're told this is the greatest detector made to date. It seems like such a simple answer to eliminate the doubt in many yet no testers do this simple test that would prove a detector is what I need or not. It's make you wonder like it's being avoided for a reason. Hence the doubt in buyers minds, and also why you see all the "I'm waiting to see how others feel about it". You know what that statement says? Your testers SUK and people don't trust their opinions because they're are avoiding the simple tests that will prove, or disprove, the worth of a new detector.
 
These arguments seem to always breakout when a new detector is announced. I can see both sides but nobody can claim anything until they actually have one in their hands. I've been using Minelabs for years so no axe to grind here but they should have spent less time jumping out of air planes like it was an Elvis concert and more time actually testing the different settings in the test garden that was set up for that purpose. That above ground iron test and open hole depth test that other detectors can also mimic doesn't help the narrative that this new detector will make all other single frequency detectors obsolete.
 
Did Brandon or anyone find any targets with the Equinox during the hunts Saturday and Sunday? I know he did say it was his new go to machine and was forced to swing the CTX Friday. Just wondering if anyone heard?
 
Have to agree with Jason. The tester is there to give feedback to the company, on prototype versions of a unit, so as to give the company "independent" and "in the field" perspectives regarding both good and bad things with respect to the machine. The purpose is so that the company can make hardware and/or software improvements and adjustments to unit. As I understand it, it's often an "iterative" process, where tester gets the machine, tests it, suggests changes, sends it back to the company, the company makes changes and then sends unit back to tester, tester re-tests and then provides more feedback, etc. etc. until the company feels it has worked out all the kinks and has a machine ready to be released. During that time, it would make little sense for a tester to be making "performance" videos targeted at interested customers/detectorists...

Steve
 
Minelab's not trying to trick or deceive people like has been inferred by by people on this forum.. They don't have to prove anything to anyone either..
Minelab is legit and they make some of the best detectors on the planet!
This Equinox will perform and it will perform very well.. No doubt in my mind.
While everyone is sitting home winning about trickery and testers those of us who know and trust Minelab will be out enjoying the new Equinox...

Another thing... I won't be surprised if it does perform as good or even better then the CTX or E-Trac.
Just because it's sold below the price of either doesn't make it less inferior...
Maybe they just want those two models to fade away because of high manufacturing or warranty costs.
FBS might not be the only technology that can ID targets at depth.
Only A few of the many detectors I have ever owned can hit a dime at 10" in my mineralized ground.
The CTX, E-Trac, 705 with 15" 3kHz coil and now to my surprise the Gold Monster that you would think could never do that.
Minelab knows how to punch through bad ground, period..

Worse case scenario the Equinox makes the perfect companion to our FBS detectors for when we find ourselves in a sea of heavy trash or iron...

Bryan
 
One other point I will add -- testers (during prototype stage) are not there FOR US. They are not there to "prove" to "customers" that the machine works. They are there to tell the manufacturer of all the glitches/improvements that might be needed to a prototype machine.

AFTER RELEASE, of the production model of the unit, then DETECTORISTS will buy, and "test," the machines. THESE are the tests most of us are anxious to see. We are all waiting for trusted USERS of the new units to compare the performance of the machine, in hopefully well-constructed test scenarios to other, known machines for comparison purposes. I think what is getting confused here is the difference between a "field-tester" of a prototype machine, who is hired by the manufacturer for the specific purposes of helping to work the kinks/issues out of prototype versions of a unit, and a USER/PURCHASER of a machine, who seeks to test the performance of a new unit and share that information with other detectorists so that they can make informed purchase decisions.

Here's what I think...

I think Minelab has a machine that they are very happy with, and that they believe offers a new breakthrough in technology of some sort, that they really feel that detectorists will find valuable and will help them put more finds in the pouch. AND -- they realize that several new machines are coming to market now, or soon -- and SO, they put on this sort of "over the top" show at Detectival, hoping to achieve exactly what they have in fact achieved -- which is to generate "buzz" and "conversation" and "excitement" amongst detectorists, by informing us that they ALSO have a new machine that is coming, one that we might want to "wait a bit" on, before pulling the trigger on some other unit. And from that perspective, they HAD to let us know a LITTLE BIT about the machine, so that we could see what its potential MIGHT BE, compared to an AT Mas or any other soon-to-be-released machine. BUT, they can't show TOO MUCH, yet, as the machine is NOT in final form. They are counting on their reputation as a company, in the eyes of detectorists, trusting that they have built up enough credibility based on performance of their past detector releases, that we are willing to give them "the benefit of the doubt" for now, and give their new machine a chance once it's released. And from that perspective, it would be COLOSSALY DESTRUCTIVE to their company, and reputation, to do all of this, mention "new technology" that may "obsolete other technology," and yet actually release a piece of junk. I have faith that they won't do THAT. The machine will probably not exceed the performance of the CTX, or E-Trac, or possibly even the Deus, BUT, I trust it will be a very good machine that is very capable. As for the PROOF of that, I think patience is required until the machine is COMPLETED, and we have machines in the hands of trusted DETECTORISTS who will, hopefully, put them through proper "testing."

Steve
 
I disagree. If you put out a video that claims your new detector will make all single frequency detectors obsolete, you owe the buyers something to back up that claim. And I
m not taking getting to wait until it gets in the hnds of buyers before they need to prove the claim.

And Bryan I respectfully also disagree. They do indeed need to prove any claims to us if they plan on selling any. Would you buy a car without proof it even ran? I don't begin to insinuate that Minelab would be trying to deceive us. I just want to see some kind of proof to justify why I should by their detector over the hundreds of others available. I also wonder why none of these manufacturers would ask their testers to take this hot new revolutionary detector out to a dead site and put it to the test. This would be the first thing I would expect but everyone has to wait until these new detectors are bought and in the hands of the user to get this simple test done that would remove most of the doubt from potential buyers. Just that fact none do it make you suspicious of any "revolutionary" claims.

Let me ask you who have some time in swing a detector a simple question. If you were asked to be a testers what would be the first test you would try? Digging a hole and throwing a coin in? Building a nail board? No. You would head out to the nearest site that had produced good finds before and see if it can find what was missed. But that doesn't even seem to be on the to-do list of current testers.
 
Southwind said:
Let me ask you who have some time in swing a detector a simple question. If you were asked to be a testers what would be the first test you would try? Digging a hole and throwing a coin in? Building a nail board? No. You would head out to the nearest site that had produced good finds before and see if it can find what was missed. But that doesn't even seem to be on the to-do list of current testers.
Click to expand...

Again, you are COMPLETELY missing the point. It doesnt matter what the tester do or dont do. THEY DONT REPORT TO US. Can that be made any clearer? They are volunteers who have signed non-disclosure agreements in exchange they get to play with the new toys and they tell the manufacturer what is good and bad about it. If they violate that ND paperwork, its going to be a very big lawsuit against them, so they arent going to say anything without clearance from the company. The inference from that, is that anyone who is a "tester" you see making statements, is actually being a company spokesman and shouldn't be considered an impartial user.
 
Interesting discussion. Seems to me Minelab is taking a major gamble announcing the Equinox while it's still a prototype. Looks like their sales could take a significant hit. After all, who's going to buy an Etrac or CTX 3030 now? I think most people will hold on to their money until the production version of the Equinox goes on sale and starts getting real life testing by real life users. On the other hand Minelab did us all a big favor. If Minelab had kept the Equinox a secret would you want to buy a 3030 and then have the Equinox come out a couple of weeks/months later?
 
Southwind, I think Minelab knows that their statement is more hype than anything.

if you go to the link, you get the hype but if you scroll further down they throw in there little "escape" clause so to speak.

if ya don't wanna go to the link, this is what they say:

EQUINOX, with Multi-IQ, has the potential to obsolete all the traditional VLF detectors that enthusiasts have been using for decades.” –Minelab Electronics Pty Ltd.

http://www.minelab.com/usa/customer-care/product-notices?article=319462

I think it's just another detector offering nice features. I would like to see its unmasking abilities in dense iron.....but I doubt it will do as good as a Nokta/Makro machine in that regard. It does offer a wide range of features giving you the ability to hunt quite a few different detecting environments and will probably do a good job. But will it do as good as job as a machine that is specific to a certain detecting task? I don't know.....however, time will tell fairly soon.
 
Again, you are COMPLETELY missing the point. It doesnt matter what the tester do or dont do. THEY DONT REPORT TO US. Can that be made any clearer?
Click to expand...

No, you're missing the point. Let me try and make this as clear as I can for you.

I don't care that you think the testers job is to report to the manufacturer not the end user. Goody for you, we got that clear now? I'm talking about what I THINK they should do. Obviously we know what they do. Or we wouldn't be having this discussion. Is that clear enough?

THE POINT: I, and I'm sure there are others, would LIKE TO SEE testers that took a new detector out to that hard hit, cleaned out, dead site and put it to the test. Be those testers the alpha or omegas doesn't matter. Obviously the first testers are going to be testing to make sure the detector even turns on. I really don't think those would be you causal user but more people who reported directly to the manufacturer. Personally I would even call them testers although I guess technically they would be. I'm obviously talking about the *cough* "testers" who are sent out detectors for testing reviews. I would have thought this quite obvious, but I guess not. I am referring to the ones who come on here with videos and reviews that have been the same for the last 20 years With the same throw a coin in a hole, air test with a ruler, put some nails around a coin blah blah blah.

And I'm not talking about "final testers" who had to buy it to see what's in it.


None of the BS means squat to most other than being what the manufacturer must want. If I'm going to give up one of my detectors I am already familiar with and have a lot of money warped up in for some new earth shattering detector I want to see some real proof. Is that too much to ask? Show me the money and I'll buy it. Take it to the wild and pull the goods from a hard hit site and I guarantee you that detector will sell like hotcakes. If not, doesn't waste my time and money on another same as the last 50 detectors machine. In the wild will bring the cream to the top. It always has.

Oh, and your idea of a "final tester" is the buyer there is a big problem with the testing tree.
 
What I figured would/should happen is Minelab would get the Equinox in the hands of some of their UK/ European dealers to test, and this probably happened to a certain extent at Detectival. Hopefully, a few would trickle over to the states and end up in the hands of dealers here, who would give them a run.

Also, that the "testers" will be veteran Minelab users, well versed in the Minelab world, who run them through a variety of depth, mineralization, frequency, multi-frequency, salt, and micro-gold testing, etc.

Time will tell. :|
 
Testers.

Engineering/prototype testers. These guys “work for” (maybe without pay) the manufacturer. They test prototypes and report no results to anyone else. They don’t talk about the process much, even after product release. They are bound by written nin-disclosure agreements which are enforcable in court.

Marketing Testers. These guys work for themselves. They are expected to use final or near final machines. They are free to publish theor results. Obviously if they jat the machine, their report might be recieved badly by the manufacturer, but it is out there. Suspicion always lingers that they sugar-coat their results to keep the “work” coming.

Nokta recently mixed the biz up a bit by “seeding” an unusual number of detectors to other than either of these two categories. It remains to be seen whether this will establish a pattern.

Minelab is famously “tight” about testing and has a “bright line” between development and marketing testing - as do the other established makers.

Who do you trust? I know some folks I do, perhaps you do as well. The others.... well, distrust of “expert” opinion has become a disease in our country, so finding someone who is “universally” trusted is tough. I could nominate one or two, but why start a food fight!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top