- Jan 11, 2011
- 1,085
- 1,396
- Detector(s) used
- Minelab Manticore, Minelab Equinox 800, Minelab Equinox 600, Minelab CTX 3030
- Primary Interest:
- Metal Detecting
OK all,
I finally did a bit of testing of the Equinox 800, and the CTX 3030, in my test garden. There is a lot I could say, but I will try to keep this relatively short.
Background --
My test garden was "planted" about 6 years ago. I have pennies, nickels, and both clad and silver dimes and quarters buried, generally at depths from 6" to 12", every two inches. I also have a few "challenged" targets -- a 6" deep penny with nail on top, a 6" deep penny with a nail roughly 3" to the side, and then the same nail configurations with two 6" deep dimes, and then two 8" deep quarters.
The soil in my test garden is rather harsh/mineralized; today, ground balance on the Equinox was ranging from the high 40s to high 50s, depending upon mode. There is also some EMI; I could not run the Equinox any higher than 20 sensitivity, if I wanted to minimize the chatter -- and that includes repeated noise cancels.
I have tested numerous machines in this test garden. Many single-frequency machines will fail to ID coins beyond about 6" deep -- with all IDs trending solidly toward iron after the 6" depth mark. Exceptions to this have been Explorers/E-Tracs, the Fisher Gold Bug Pro, and Fisher F-19. I will also note that Minelab FBS machines get a bit more depth in other locations locally, as compared to what I get in my test garden.
I wanted to accomplish a few things, today, in my limited amount of time.
1. I wanted to get a general sense of how the CTX 3030 was seeing each coin, and then do the same with the Equinox -- just to get a general sense of what the "limits" of each machine were, and which would detect/ID "tough" targets better (both fringe-depth targets, and the "challenged" nail/coin targets)
2. Check several different modes/configurations of the Equinox, to see how changes affect the unit's capabilities.
3. Check the Equinox on a few deep coins, to see whether it could match CTX depth in this dirt, on these coins.
Before I give any analysis/summary, I would point out that back when my primary machines were the Minelab Explorer SE Pro and the Fisher Gold Bug Pro, I ran a lot of "head-to-head" tests between the two. At that time, the Gold Bug Pro would consistently give equal, if not better, reporting on most -- if not all -- coins in my test garden. Particularly on low conductors (nickels), but even on clad and silver coins. HOWEVER, "real world" use proved the Explorer a much better choice for deep-coin hunting, for various reasons -- including better depth at most locations than could be achieved in my test garden, better identification of trash targets (allowing me to move more efficiently through trashy parks and not dig as much junk), etc.
Having said that, I will say that in short, the Equinox performed better overall, on all targets, than the CTX did. VERY similar to how the Gold Bug Pro "bested" the Explorer.
Points:
1. The Equinox gave more consistent "dig" information on the coin/nail combination targets, from a larger range of sectors in 360 rotation around the targets. In other words, smaller sectors of "pure iron" tones and ID were given as compared to the CTX; in other words, the high-tone, higher VDI responses from the Equinox formed a more complete portion of the 360 circle-of-rotation around the targets than the CTX was able to.
My conclusion, the Equinox will be a superior "unmasker." Not surprising.
2. The Equinox could give chirps on deep high-conductive coins that the CTX could not.
My conclusion, the Equinox does not "lack depth."
3. The Equinox could give enough clues to make a "dig" decision on some deep coins that the CTX could only manage inconsistent "chirps" on -- and I attempted to capture an example on video (a 10" deep clad quarter), which I will link later in the post.
My conclusion, interesting, but not totally surprising, given my experience with my test garden, and other units I've run through it.
4. Lowering reactivity/recovery settings does increase depth/give a better signal on deep targets, BUT -- sweep speed must be slowed down substantially for the lowest reactivity settings, and increased substantially for the highest settings, to accommodate the speeds, and achieve maximum results.
5. Park 1 mode was tested the most; different modes (and settings) did afford different advantages on different targets, but I am not prepared to comment more thoroughly yet. I did note that Gold 2 mode is indeed a HOT mode, and could hit targets as well if not better than any other mode.
6. Ground balance matters (duh) on this unit, and it should be balanced each time you switch modes, as each mode settles at a different ground balance number depending upon mode (when using the auto-balance process).
7. Noise cancel should ALSO be performed when switching to a different mode, as different channels were selected by the machine as the "quietest" channel, depending upon mode.
8. Higher reactivity settings seemed to experience higher EMI/noise.
9. The Equinox is NOT weak on deep high conductors, compared to FBS.
10. With that said, the Equinox was able to give more stable ID, to deeper depth, on nickels, versus high-conductive coins -- i.e. better ID "lock" on nickels, versus bouncier ID and audio on high conductors (though overall depth of detection -- in terms of a "dig-me" response, was similar between nickels and higher-conductive coins, if allowing for the jumpier VDI numbers on the high conductors).
11. Beach mode -- despite lower frequency weighting -- did not offer improved detection of high conductors, as I thought it might. One reason, I believe, may be that because ground balance is "locked" to zero in beach mode (which I did not know until today), and with my test-garden dirt balancing in the high 40s to high 50s, this was too much of an "offset" from the fixed "0" balance for beach mode to "shine" in this case (my guess).
12. The Equinox should not be thought of as "one detector, with multiple adjustments," but -- in my opinion -- more of a "multiple different detectors in one package," with each mode representing a "different" machine.
I have much more testing to do, but wanted to put my preliminary thoughts out there, for those interested.
Here is a link to the CTX vs. Equinox video, shown over the 10" clad quarter. Forgive the quality -- I've never shot/edited a detecting video before, and only had an iPhone to record with. Still, I think this video illustrates the results I was getting in general, CTX vs. Equinox. I chose this target, as it was "on the fringe" of what was still "diggable" with the Equinox (Park 1, reactivity/recovery 2, iron bias 3, ground balance 48, sensitivity 20, noise cancel channel 1) but "sub-diggable" with the CTX (maxed out manual 30 sensitivity, open screen above the 20 FE line, fast off, deep off, 50-tone conductive, Ferrous-Coin separation).
Steve
I finally did a bit of testing of the Equinox 800, and the CTX 3030, in my test garden. There is a lot I could say, but I will try to keep this relatively short.
Background --
My test garden was "planted" about 6 years ago. I have pennies, nickels, and both clad and silver dimes and quarters buried, generally at depths from 6" to 12", every two inches. I also have a few "challenged" targets -- a 6" deep penny with nail on top, a 6" deep penny with a nail roughly 3" to the side, and then the same nail configurations with two 6" deep dimes, and then two 8" deep quarters.
The soil in my test garden is rather harsh/mineralized; today, ground balance on the Equinox was ranging from the high 40s to high 50s, depending upon mode. There is also some EMI; I could not run the Equinox any higher than 20 sensitivity, if I wanted to minimize the chatter -- and that includes repeated noise cancels.
I have tested numerous machines in this test garden. Many single-frequency machines will fail to ID coins beyond about 6" deep -- with all IDs trending solidly toward iron after the 6" depth mark. Exceptions to this have been Explorers/E-Tracs, the Fisher Gold Bug Pro, and Fisher F-19. I will also note that Minelab FBS machines get a bit more depth in other locations locally, as compared to what I get in my test garden.
I wanted to accomplish a few things, today, in my limited amount of time.
1. I wanted to get a general sense of how the CTX 3030 was seeing each coin, and then do the same with the Equinox -- just to get a general sense of what the "limits" of each machine were, and which would detect/ID "tough" targets better (both fringe-depth targets, and the "challenged" nail/coin targets)
2. Check several different modes/configurations of the Equinox, to see how changes affect the unit's capabilities.
3. Check the Equinox on a few deep coins, to see whether it could match CTX depth in this dirt, on these coins.
Before I give any analysis/summary, I would point out that back when my primary machines were the Minelab Explorer SE Pro and the Fisher Gold Bug Pro, I ran a lot of "head-to-head" tests between the two. At that time, the Gold Bug Pro would consistently give equal, if not better, reporting on most -- if not all -- coins in my test garden. Particularly on low conductors (nickels), but even on clad and silver coins. HOWEVER, "real world" use proved the Explorer a much better choice for deep-coin hunting, for various reasons -- including better depth at most locations than could be achieved in my test garden, better identification of trash targets (allowing me to move more efficiently through trashy parks and not dig as much junk), etc.
Having said that, I will say that in short, the Equinox performed better overall, on all targets, than the CTX did. VERY similar to how the Gold Bug Pro "bested" the Explorer.
Points:
1. The Equinox gave more consistent "dig" information on the coin/nail combination targets, from a larger range of sectors in 360 rotation around the targets. In other words, smaller sectors of "pure iron" tones and ID were given as compared to the CTX; in other words, the high-tone, higher VDI responses from the Equinox formed a more complete portion of the 360 circle-of-rotation around the targets than the CTX was able to.
My conclusion, the Equinox will be a superior "unmasker." Not surprising.
2. The Equinox could give chirps on deep high-conductive coins that the CTX could not.
My conclusion, the Equinox does not "lack depth."
3. The Equinox could give enough clues to make a "dig" decision on some deep coins that the CTX could only manage inconsistent "chirps" on -- and I attempted to capture an example on video (a 10" deep clad quarter), which I will link later in the post.
My conclusion, interesting, but not totally surprising, given my experience with my test garden, and other units I've run through it.
4. Lowering reactivity/recovery settings does increase depth/give a better signal on deep targets, BUT -- sweep speed must be slowed down substantially for the lowest reactivity settings, and increased substantially for the highest settings, to accommodate the speeds, and achieve maximum results.
5. Park 1 mode was tested the most; different modes (and settings) did afford different advantages on different targets, but I am not prepared to comment more thoroughly yet. I did note that Gold 2 mode is indeed a HOT mode, and could hit targets as well if not better than any other mode.
6. Ground balance matters (duh) on this unit, and it should be balanced each time you switch modes, as each mode settles at a different ground balance number depending upon mode (when using the auto-balance process).
7. Noise cancel should ALSO be performed when switching to a different mode, as different channels were selected by the machine as the "quietest" channel, depending upon mode.
8. Higher reactivity settings seemed to experience higher EMI/noise.
9. The Equinox is NOT weak on deep high conductors, compared to FBS.
10. With that said, the Equinox was able to give more stable ID, to deeper depth, on nickels, versus high-conductive coins -- i.e. better ID "lock" on nickels, versus bouncier ID and audio on high conductors (though overall depth of detection -- in terms of a "dig-me" response, was similar between nickels and higher-conductive coins, if allowing for the jumpier VDI numbers on the high conductors).
11. Beach mode -- despite lower frequency weighting -- did not offer improved detection of high conductors, as I thought it might. One reason, I believe, may be that because ground balance is "locked" to zero in beach mode (which I did not know until today), and with my test-garden dirt balancing in the high 40s to high 50s, this was too much of an "offset" from the fixed "0" balance for beach mode to "shine" in this case (my guess).
12. The Equinox should not be thought of as "one detector, with multiple adjustments," but -- in my opinion -- more of a "multiple different detectors in one package," with each mode representing a "different" machine.
I have much more testing to do, but wanted to put my preliminary thoughts out there, for those interested.
Here is a link to the CTX vs. Equinox video, shown over the 10" clad quarter. Forgive the quality -- I've never shot/edited a detecting video before, and only had an iPhone to record with. Still, I think this video illustrates the results I was getting in general, CTX vs. Equinox. I chose this target, as it was "on the fringe" of what was still "diggable" with the Equinox (Park 1, reactivity/recovery 2, iron bias 3, ground balance 48, sensitivity 20, noise cancel channel 1) but "sub-diggable" with the CTX (maxed out manual 30 sensitivity, open screen above the 20 FE line, fast off, deep off, 50-tone conductive, Ferrous-Coin separation).
Steve
Last edited:
to
