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.

What is your first stop with your brand new Equinox?

1st spot - two adjoining fields heavily used as test areas for E Trac and CTX - some ground minerals - loaded with iron at the foot depth plus - coins found thus far no deeper than 8" - totally defeated Deus.

2nd spot - a very iron/coke contaminated spot around 1.5 acres - site of thousands of tests with dozens of detectors & coils - contains at least '2 gold ring' losses (documented) but never found

3rd spot - a saltwater beach that when conditions are right gives up coins every few feet to the 12" level - site of the very first 'Explorer XS' beach tests (1999 )

If Equinox can 'better' the above in those spots, we'll have a winner?"
 
Des D said:
1st spot - two adjoining fields heavily used as test areas for E Trac and CTX - some ground minerals - loaded with iron at the foot depth plus - coins found thus far no deeper than 8" - totally defeated Deus.

2nd spot - a very iron/coke contaminated spot around 1.5 acres - site of thousands of tests with dozens of detectors & coils - contains at least '2 gold ring' losses (documented) but never found

3rd spot - a saltwater beach that when conditions are right gives up coins every few feet to the 12" level - site of the very first 'Explorer XS' beach tests (1999 )

If Equinox can 'better' the above in those spots, we'll have a winner?"

One thing I have been think about is that we will have to hunt our tough spot multiple times in different settings. The versatility of the EQ means lots of changes to try out. What it finds well with multi, it may find more with low freq and may find more with high freqs. I don't have problems with coke but I have read that HF is supposed to work well seeing around it.
 
Jason in Enid said:
One thing I have been think about is that we will have to hunt our tough spot multiple times in different settings. The versatility of the EQ means lots of changes to try out. What it finds well with multi, it may find more with low freq and may find more with high freqs. I don't have problems with coke but I have read that HF is supposed to work well seeing around it.

Excellent point, Jason...

Steve
 
"IF" and currently that is a fairly large IF. I should get one it will be after you guys have tested them extensively and reported your success and or failures. So far there are only a few things keeping me interested. Light weight. Rapid Recovery and the possibility that it may be good on small gold. Since my Xcal is weak on small gold I do not find gold chains that I know that have to be in the wet salt water sand.
 
I am certain that the Equinox 800 will find coins and other keepers at sites such as those listed here that have been pounded for decades and when the finds get posted here, it will add fuel to the fire and overall interest in the detector.

One thing that I rarely see on the forums for a new detector when finds from worked out sites are posted is any comparison with another detector. Often that is due to a high end detector being sold to pay for another high end detector but in the case of the Equinox 800, many are keeping their existing detectors and adding this one to their arsenal. Whenever I get a new detector - high end or not - I hit sites I know have been hammered and mark a number of targets that I pick up. Then I check the signals with other machines to see if 1) the new detector is actually doing something different that unlocks targets other machines can't see or 2) was the new detector the first one to get a coil across it. If I find several keepers that fall into bucket #1, then there is reason to celebrate. If it is just luck of getting the coil across it - and remember, missing a keeper by an inch in an acre site is as good as missing it by a mile as they say - then that is information if included with the posts would provide some tempering to the excitement that it builds.

Not taking anything away from the Equinox 600 or 800 in terms of what it can or can't do in the field when we take it to sites that have their own set of challenges as knowing Minelab it will perform well but I know I have hit "pounded sites" with mid-range detectors and hit keepers that were not that deep and when checked with other machines made me realize that to clean out even a residential lot is a near impossibility.

If buyers are keeping their current detectors, it would be interesting to see if they could check signals before digging them with it as well as the Equinox to see if both could see it or only the Equinox and include that with their pending find posts. . . that information would tell a lot as to how it handles specific sites and conditions.

Andy Sabisch
 
Andy Sabisch said:
If buyers are keeping their current detectors, it would be interesting to see if they could check signals before digging them with it as well as the Equinox to see if both could see it or only the Equinox and include that with their pending find posts. . . that information would tell a lot as to how it handles specific sites and conditions.

Andy Sabisch

I plan on doing comparison hunts with my CTX and EQ. I also plan on comparing the range of single and multi freqs on targets. I also plan on doing this in some of my old hunting sites because I'm not concerned how they compare on 3" targets. I want to find some deep or on-edge targets that may be harder for one or the other to detect. Thats the hope at least.
 
That is the type of information that users should be looking for . . . . . if you go through the various forums here on specific detectors, there are many posts of finds made with a new detector without that back story. If I see a Seated quarter that a new detector found, it gets me interested in getting one for myself . . . but if you read that it was 2 inches deep or when checked with Detector X it also picked it up, would that change things for you?

When people post that they hit a worked-out 20 acre park with a new detector and found 5 old coins, was it because of the detector or being lucky with coil placement? 20 acres is virtually impossible to hunt out especially when you factor in moisture of the ground, trash in the area, brush in the way, etc.

This is not focused on the Equinox but rather any new detector . . . . . if you post finds and can compare signals with a different detector BEFORE digging the target, it would add a piece of information that is often omitted from posts when a new detector is taken on its maiden voyage.
 
Andy is right on the money there!

It's not uncommon [ as a tester ] to be stood on the same spot for hours (test area) with 8 detectors at a time!
That could be made up by: 3 prototype models with different software: a prototype with a different coil: a 'known' established model from a current line up e.g. a CTX or an E Trac: and a few similarly priced and similarity positioned from the competition e.g. Garrett AT Pro, White's MXT etc etc.
And then, do it all again the next day as the software has been upgraded overnite (for better or worse) and that is the job of the tester/s.
And that can go on for months... not easy!

I have often 'hiked' into test areas carrying multiple detectors, cameras, diggers, even computers to hook up to prototype detectors and did the tests and hiked back out again...and I did this a few times a week! Other times I've been able to drive into test areas (preferable) which makes it easier to carry more gear and stay longer.

That is one of the reasons why you don't see 'many/any' test videos because some of the testing can be so mundane it's not worth watching!
(However, in my case I filmed mostly everything - just left the camera on a tripod and capturing everything)
It's also quite difficult to do: concentrate on the tests and filming at the same time. Something has to suffer. So spare a thought for the tester's.

Des D
 
I get where you are coming from Andy but with that side by side comparison in mind the detector that grabs the target the first time is the real winner here. There are so many variable factors involved in the field - sweep speed, direction of approach to the target, slight difference in coil height, machine settings, etc. which is a big part of why a site is never hunted out. The important factor you are eliminating is the capability of individual detectorist and their ability to understand a particular machine by doing the comparison yourself.
I like to do side by side comparisons with other detectorist and other machines of my own, it takes a lot of time to do it properly and in an unbiased manner. We look forward to your comprehensive reports in the near future!
At the end of the day the detector/detectorist with the "goods" in their pouch is the real winner. From the looks of the early reports coming in the Equinox is excelling in the grabbing targets department.
HH Jeff
P.S. from the looks of the weather we will have to be traveling to do any detecting lol
 
Jeff

I understand but if people post coins that were only found because the coil went over it first does that really tell you how the machine works? If the target was 3 inches deep with nothing around it does that tell you how it will perform in a site littered with trash? I am just saying that if you look at forums such as the Nokta Impact, Makro Racer, Makro Racer 2, Garrett AT Max . . . go back as far as you want . . . . the initial posts make it look like the machine is magical in what it can find . . . . My yard has been hit 100+ different times and yet we just got a $450 detector to test and my wife pulled an Indian Head from the area . . . should I scrap my high-end detector based on her find . . . no, but if I posted the find and said it was the first target in a pounded area, it would make people get their credit cards ready.

Not suggesting people need to do formal testing but if you do find a target and it is shallow or clearly something another machine should have / would have detected, that might be worth noting

Andy
 
OH I have a place for the mighty Equinox alright to try.

But here lies a problem.

Just how will challenged targets behave sound on Equinox.
A person will have to learn this.

So I will indeed maybe work backwards.

Meaning take my Deus HF coils and find a find in this site (hard hunted by Vlf detectors) and locate and then see what Equinox tells me tonally while monkeying around with settings.

So I will infact cheat somewhat.

At least establish some type of baseline to see how the Equinox behaves.
This baseline obviously may only be so good.
But it is a start.
Further use of detector in this site should with time expose what I need to know as far as operation, behavior, weaknesses, stenghts.
 
A voice of reasoning in the wilderness !
 
I appreciate those that will be running tests both of the scientific variety and the looser recreational 'hunt and report' type. Information from both can be helpful to me. Trophy photos are fun and can be inspirational to take time to get out and hunt. Those that take the time to include the hunt details are most helpful to me progressing as a detectorists.

For decades, I did my head to head testing with my hunting partner in the yard of old homes. We had different detector preferences. Whoever gained permission for the yard chose where they wanted to hunt. Partner B would take the rest. When we were both done, we'd swap sides and see if we could come up with something the other missed. It was often during these times you'd seen the strengths and weaknesses of detectors come to light. As we'd hunt, we'd often call each other over if we had a particularly interesting or maybe questionable signal and see what the other thought about it. Settings could be tweaked, sweep rates adjusted, guesses made and then a target retrieved. I told you so's and raised eyebrows were par for the course and much was learned along the way about our detectors and our own skills.

Being that my detecting partner retired from the sport, I don't have that opportunity much anymore. My 'testing' of new detectors has devolved to re-hunting areas that I have covered before with many different detectors, While it isn't scientific by any means, it is telling of a detectors capabilities to walk onto these hard hit sites and walk off with some keepers. If a new detector can do it repeatedly, I consider it a keeper.

Looking at my calendar, it is pushing into January 5th. It will be the end of January before we know it and I can start bench testing and looking for areas of mid-winter thaw to swing a new detector.


Rich (Utah)
 
Andy --

l want to disagree just a tad, with part of what you are saying. Please understand that I mean no disrespect; I read your book on the Explorer/E-Trac, and am currently reading your CTX book. As such, you have taught me much over the years -- and, you have many multiples more years of experience than I do. I respect your knowledge, insight, and experience greatly.

With that said...

I have to disagree a bit with one of your points.

I agree with you that there is valuable information to be gained through side-by-side comparisons on undug targets, with different machines. No doubt, if "new machine A" locates a target, you mark it, and then grab "old machine B" to give a listen, and it either cannot detect it (or can barely detect it), then that certainly tells you something important about "new machine A." And I also agree that many times, with "new machine A," you are likely to come across targets that it finds, that were simply missed before, and which ANY machine would have found, had the coil passed over the target. Similarly, when using a new machine and really trying to learn the numbers, tones, etc., you often will dig targets that you would have PASSED on, with a more familiar machine, but are "curious" about with the new machine, and thus you dig "just to see" -- and the target turns out to be a "keeper." Almost every time I am learning a new machine, or new coil, I will make several of these, what I call "unusual" finds -- keepers, but ones that I likely would not have dug, had I heard them on the "old" machine/old coil. SO -- your points are well-taken. Before we can decide that a new machine "is finding targets the old one didn't," some direct comparison with the old machine -- on undug targets -- can provide some "validation" of your impressions of the new machine.

BUT -- where I disagree with you a bit is that I DO NOT think that there are not conclusions which can be drawn WITHOUT direct comparison to your "old machine." I DO think there is potential value in just "seeing what the new machine will find," and if it is "finding" a good many keepers in a site you are familiar with, that you know has been heavily worked...and if you have a solid feel for what it "normally" produces on a given hunt, there is some subjective, qualitative, but still potentially valuable info there, to be gleaned, regarding the new machine.

To elaborate...there is a park in particular here locally that I have hunted for years. I know this park like the back of my hand, and know what it will produce on a given hunt -- as I have a HUGE sample size of hunts from the past, such that I've gained a feel for this park's "potential," on average. There are, virtually, NO easy targets left (sure, there are a few, but it would be an extreme rarity). Virtually all targets left here are either DEEP, or MASKED -- to the point of being barely, if at all, detectable for me, and my Explorers.

Now, IF I take the Equinox to this park, and were to begin to dig 4-5 keepers, per hunt, over several hunts, then that right there is unusual...and it SAYS something. Because one, MAYBE two keepers should be all I'd expect in a given hunt, AT BEST, and ESPECIALLY averaged over several hunts. But, anyway, back to the point...if I were to then mark these suspected "keepers" found with the Equinox on one of these hunts, and then bring the Explorer out, and check the targets before digging, even if the Explorer "sees" all the targets, that does not, of course, mean that it would necessarily have found them "in real time." I think you'd agree there is a difference between LOCATING a target, during a hunt, that stops you and causes you to investigate, versus KNOWING there is a target there, and working the machine until it "sees" it.

I'd like to share a story, that will illustrate this. Back when I was less experienced, I was swinging one particular machine, while all my hunting partners were swinging E-Tracs. We'd go out detecting, and they would CONSISTENTLY dig a couple of silver coins and several wheats each, with VERY little trash in the pouch, while I would end the day with plenty of trash, and either no keepers, or perhaps a wheat or two at best. This happened for WEEKS. After awhile, I realized that my problem was NOT depth, but ID...my machine simply was not providing me information that MY brain could interpret as a "dig me" signal. My machine was plenty deep, but it was poorly IDing deep targets -- both audio and VDI -- making it hard for me to sort the trash from the treasure, in "real-time." So, I'd spend way too much time bogged down interrogating, and digging, deep trash, while my partners were cruising along, largely digging only "good" targets. During this time, we were all in the habit of "checking each others' targets," pre-dig. And when we'd do so, and my partner would say "here, listen to this one, I'm pretty sure this is a 7-8" silver dime," there was NEVER a time when my machine could not "see" the target, and indicate its presence. And most times, if I worked the target enough, I'd get some high tones, and a few decent ID numbers at times, such that I could eventually "coax" a "silver dime" reading from it. BUT -- "coaxing" that silver signal from an already known target, is NOT THE SAME as working your way through a trashy park, and accurately locating the GOOD targets, while ignoring the bad.

The "rest" of that story is, I eventually switched to an Explorer SE Pro, and after a few hunts of learning the machine's tones and ID numbers, I began digging keepers consistenly. The first "good" hunt with it, two weeks after I bought the machine, I dug two silver half dollars, a ring, and a few wheat cents, and from then on, I was able to much more closely match the success of my E-Trac-swinging partners. The final 7 months of that year, produced 54 silver coins for me...and I say that to illustrate that while I know my "prior" machine would have "seen" every one of those targets, it was the SE Pro that was able to much more accurately alert me to their presence during the course of normal hunting...

So -- while I largely agree with you, I do not necessarily think "seeing a known/previously located target" with a second machine means that the first machine didn't do something "special" or "unique" or "new." If I take an Equinox to the park I speak of, and can consistently locate, and dig, three or four keepers somewhat routinely, I GUARANTEE that would mean that the unit would be doing something -- at least for me -- that my Explorer was NOT. It would be giving me some additional clue, be it audio, or ID, or something, that was more consistently catching my attention and causing me to stop and investigate than my Explorer did. And that tells me something. AND -- I would expect that on MANY of those targets, I COULD get the Explorer to "see" it...but again, SEEING a known target, and alerting me to the presence of an unknown target while in the course of a hunt, are two different things...

Steve

EDITED TO ADD -- while I was typing this long-winded post, Rich(Utah) posted something much shorter and more succinct, that says largely the same thing as I did. Nice job, Rich -- I agree with you! :)
 
Top