Equinox sensitivity, recovery speed and F2 setting relationship question

[Iron Buzz]

as the values are increased (e.g. higher sensitivity or faster recovery speed) the machines is being asked to do more processing.

Reference: The Equinox Series Handbook by Andy Sabisch

Andy Sabisch said this? Hogwash, Andy! Might be true with a few settings, but typically all you're doing is changing a parameter that is passed to a software function. A higher value of that parameter will rarely have an impact on how much processing is done. I was a professional programmer and software developer for over 35 years so I know a thing or two about this.

 

[pulltabfelix]

re: tracking ground balance missing marginal targets from over sampling or swinging over a target multiple times

Took my 800 out in the back yard on some clear ground (no targets or iron) and noise canceled and ground balanced and was in Field1.

turned down the sensitivity to 4 and swung over a zinc penny and pull tab ring only with my six in coil. They were about 10 inches apart.

At about 6-7 inches above the targets they were iffy signals.

turned on tracking ground balance and repeated the same swings at 6-7 inches. Still iffy targets, but did not disappear or get fainter. repeated the swings 10 - 20 times same results.

so I am thinking that tracking ground balance will not ground balance out marginal non-ferrous targets.

 

[vferrari]

re: tracking ground balance missing marginal targets from over sampling or swinging over a target multiple times

Took my 800 out in the back yard on some clear ground (no targets or iron) and noise canceled and ground balanced and was in Field1.

turned down the sensitivity to 4 and swung over a zinc penny and pull tab ring only with my six in coil. They were about 10 inches apart.

At about 6-7 inches above the targets they were iffy signals.

turned on tracking ground balance and repeated the same swings at 6-7 inches. Still iffy targets, but did not disappear or get fainter. repeated the swings 10 - 20 times same results.

so I am thinking that tracking ground balance will not ground balance out marginal non-ferrous targets.

Thanks for running this test, I am so tired of constantly debunking this myth of disappearing targets with tracking GB when it pops up in the context of Equinox. To be fair, I think it is also mentioned in Andy's book as a holdover from previous detector GB tracking implementations that do suffer from this issue, so that is why it is so ingrained in experienced detectorists general perceptions about the feature.

 

[vferrari]

Andy Sabisch said this? Hogwash, Andy! Might be true with a few settings, but typically all you're doing is changing a parameter that is passed to a software function. A higher value of that parameter will rarely have an impact on how much processing is done. I was a professional programmer and software developer for over 35 years so I know a thing or two about this.

Even if it is true, there is so much processing power headroom that it doesn’t really affect real world usage. In other words, it should be invisible to the operator.

 

[Jason in Enid]

.... typically all you're doing is changing a parameter that is passed to a software function. A higher value of that parameter will rarely have an impact on how much processing is done. I was a professional programmer and software developer for over 35 years so I know a thing or two about this.

Yeah this is one of those things that gets passed around year after year, simply because it sounds good. Plenty of other "fake facts" like this. People dont understand how the detectors work, so someone invents an idea that sounds good, and everyone else starts repeating it. Some is purely false, some is simply holdovers from 40 year old technology.

 

[sprailroad]

Post #7. sgoss66 gave a great breakdown in his reply, Thanks Steve, I feel way better about what I've been doing with the EQ. I've read so many things about different settings, that I believed I was just not getting the most out of my detector in any way, but now?, at least for ME, I'm good with it. I have found over time that what has worked best for me is that I hunt say 90% of the time in Field 2, Multi tone, and 0 to 2 in iron bias and I do OK. Am I missing some things?, perhaps, but I've done well. I hunt by sound, learned that with the Safari's multi-tone and liked it. (Drove me crazy at first, then one day, it just "clicked" and never looked back.) VDI?, a reference only, sens. setting on stock coil 20 to 22, (most of the time), and recovery speed, factory. Trashy areas, LOVE that 6" coil. I just keep it simple and enjoy the hunt. Now I DO enjoy what other fella's try with different settings, and I have picked up some good things from them, and will continue to do so I'm sure. Bottom line, I found what works good for me here, with my hunting style, with what I hunt for etc., all is good. Thanks again sgoss66 for your post. It just made it clear and simple for a simple guy like me. AND, I would like to add I held the same misconceptions? about Auto Tracking, about it balancing on a target when going back and forth with the coil. I just did not use it, even though in SOME areas around here it would be the thing to use. With the EQ, and with what "vferrari" put out, yes, I may start using it in some places. (What about in "pinpoint mode" though. Hmmmm) Pretty good thread fella's.

 

[jmaziarz]

Andy Sabisch said this? Hogwash, Andy! Might be true with a few settings, but typically all you're doing is changing a parameter that is passed to a software function. A higher value of that parameter will rarely have an impact on how much processing is done. I was a professional programmer and software developer for over 35 years so I know a thing or two about this.

The quotes are from Andy's book, I said everything else.

Use Iron Bias as an example. On page 39 of Andy's book he says, "At the lowest settings, very little target analysis is performed and as a result, ferrous targets can and in many cases will bleed through sounding like non-ferrous targets. As the Iron Bias setting is increased, additional analysis is performed and in doing so, the Equinox is more likely to see ferrous targets for what they are and allow them to be ignored."

So based on Andy's description, more processing (a.k.a. analysis) is being done for each signal the machine encounters. Isn't that the entire function of the machine, to analyze an electrical signal and interpret it into an integer and audio response based on the users defined combination of settings?

 

[Jason in Enid]

You are assuming that Andy has the ultimate answers. Even though he writes some great books, Andy wasnt part of the development and testing of this detector. He didnt write the book from his own knowledge, he solicited stories, tips and advice from everyone he could in order to write it. So, how much authority does his words carry about the inner workings of the detector?

 

[jmaziarz]

You are assuming that Andy has the ultimate answers. Even though he writes some great books, Andy wasnt part of the development and testing of this detector. He didnt write the book from his own knowledge, he solicited stories, tips and advice from everyone he could in order to write it. So, how much authority does his words carry about the inner workings of the detector?

I try not to assume anyone has the ultimate answers, even the development and testing team. As a software engineer myself, it is very common for software features/functions to be used in ways different from their design, intention and intended purpose.

I'm relatively new to detecting in general and this machine specifically. I have been using the Equinox and discovering a lot for myself but I've also been studying as much as I can from sources that I (and many others) find credible. Many of those people are experienced like most everyone here.

I do assume that Andy is not lying when he says he has over 30 years of experience with Minelab machines. I also assume that Andy has used an Equinox and at least knows as much as most of us.

That said, I do know what happens when one assumes. ; )

 

[Jason in Enid]

I dont think Andy is lying, I just dont trust that he has the truth from the horses mouth so to speak. Andy is very knowledgeable and has been using Minelabs a LONG time. He was even a tester and company reviewer on some previous models, but not on the EQX. I was also around when the EQX dropped and he began canvassing the forums for help in writing his book. Hence why I dont believe he has the ultimate word.

 

[sube]

Even if it is true, there is so much processing power headroom that it doesn’t really affect real world usage. In other words, it should be invisible to the operator.

This is true however there is not enough processing speed to run the bigger coil 12x15 as well as the small coils by what I have been told by people in the know . sube

 

[Jason in Enid]

This is true however there is not enough processing speed to run the bigger coil 12x15 as well as the small coils by what I have been told by people in the know . sube

See, this is more of that rumor-mill being spread around. Putting a larger coil on doesnt change anything with the detector's ability to process data. Coil size does not equal data-points. Yes, it will see more targets at the same time in dense trash locations but thats not processing. You put those same targets under a 6 inch coil in the same orientation and you get the same results.

Larger coils are good because you get more depth on big targets, and a tiny bit more depth on coin size targets. Larger coils are bad in dense trash and really bad mineralization because they simply have more to reject, not because it suddenly cant keep up.

Lastly, DD coils are not even close to concentric coils for these situations. C coils are hot all the way down for the entire area of the coil. DD coils are hot in the center only (if you ignore the extreme shallow depths where the perimeter is hot). the difference in coverage between an 11" coil and a 17" coil is 138% for a concentric, but only 54% for DD. So you have a huge benefit compared to the old tech concentrics.

 

[sube]

Here's a example 6 inch coil 1 1/2 gallons of dirt 11 inch coil 7 1/2 gallons of dirt and 12x15 coil 11 gallons of dirt all that dirt still has to be processed by the machine plus the targets .
Now lets take the 6 inch coil almost all the time I am able to run it at 25 for sensitivity the 11 I can run at 22 don't have a 12x15 but I would gander to say it would run at 19 .
You may say it's emi that the bigger coils are reacting to bigger more emi but lets say you have no emi where this is I don't know emi is everywhere .
Look at it this way there are going to be more rust flakes more mineralization that the bigger coil well take in more noise if the detector was capable in of reducing the noise you would be able to run a higher sensitivity and not have as much chatter .

Prime example of what I am saying CTX has auto sensitivity and manual in auto sensitivity say your running at 23 +3 all of a sudden it drops to 19 + 3 what happened more rust flakes maybe more mineralized ground but the fact is you only moved 10 feet do you think the emi is different in 10 feet I don't think so noise cancel same #s show .
Now take the 6 inch coil same place sensitivity set at 30 move 10 feet same place and it still runs at 30 just as well where you started I say processer speed the reason the 11 inch head dropped to 19 from 23 is the machine cant handled all the signals only by dropping to 19 it is able to handled the noise (because) it has less signals and ground noise to deal with lower sensitivity means less targets and ground noise there by meaning less chatter . sube

 

[Jason in Enid]

None of that has ANYTHING to do with the control processors being overtaxed. Its nothing more than mentioned before. You have more of "anything" under the coil, so there is a corresponding change. Of course the larger coil is seeing more minerals, so you have to make a corresponding change to sensitivity to compensate. that has NOTHING to do with the processors having too much to handle.

 

[sube]

I beg to differ it's no different going to highly mineralized ground that kills a vlf it just can't process all that ground mineralization which ends up as noise and then the only way to run is by lowering sensitivity at reduced depth .You said it your self the coil is seeing more mineralization there by having to deal with more ground noise by running less sensitivity the machine can deal with it seeing less ground noise there by running with less chatter .

The processer in the machine is processing the dirt also if it can't process the dirt there will be chatter . sube

 

[Jason in Enid]

its not processing speed, its physics.

 

[vferrari]

I beg to differ it's no different going to highly mineralized ground that kills a vlf it just can't process all that ground mineralization which ends up as noise and then the only way to run is by lowering sensitivity at reduced depth .You said it your self the coil is seeing more mineralization there by having to deal with more ground noise by running less sensitivity the machine can deal with it seeing less ground noise there by running with less chatter .

The processer in the machine is processing the dirt also if it can't process the dirt there will be chatter . sube

The detector processor does not "process the dirt". It doesn't work harder just because there is more dirt under a coil or because the dirt is mineralized. It is simply the physics of induction balance. All the mineralization does is weaken and distort the magnetic field induced in the target from the transmit coil and detected by the receive coil. It is not necessary for you to understand the physics or technology to be able to effectively use a detector to detect but if you are going to post about how it works with authority, it would be helpful if you went about it demonstating you have an understanding of the basic technical principles regarding how a vlf induction balance detector works.

Regarding, lowering sensitivity, that can help with stability, but lowering transmit power is more effective (the beach modes on the Equinox uses lower trabsmit power to achieve stability in black sand, with the obvious tradeoff being depth). Either way you are lowering depth further from the already limited ability for the transmitted magnetic field to penetrate the mineralized dirt. But this is all related to raw power output and detector gain and really has nothing to do with processor load.

 

[sube]

Thanks for the reply vferrari I appreciate the time you take to answer ?s . I understand what you are saying thank you .
Now a few more ?s when tracking is turned on how is the machine compensating for the changing ground conditions what is going on .
Can I assume that when more targets that are under the coil would use more processing than a signal target .
Then there's the big coil 12x15 why is it that people that use it keep recovery at 4 to 5 and not use 7 and 8 .

I have done testing on recovery speed small and stock coil I noticed that when you have just a coin I can hear a audio report from 1 to 8 . Now when I interduce a nail with the coin only 1 and 2 for recovery will give audio at 3 to 8 no audio .Coin laying directly under nail .

Again I thank you for your reply. sube

 

[vferrari]

Thanks for the reply vferrari I appreciate the time you take to answer ?s . I understand what you are saying thank you .
Now a few more ?s when tracking is turned on how is the machine compensating for the changing ground conditions what is going on .
Can I assume that when more targets that are under the coil would use more processing than a signal target .
Then there's the big coil 12x15 why is it that people that use it keep recovery at 4 to 5 and not use 7 and 8 .

I have done testing on recovery speed small and stock coil I noticed that when you have just a coin I can hear a audio report from 1 to 8 . Now when I interduce a nail with the coin only 1 and 2 for recovery will give audio at 3 to 8 no audio .Coin laying directly under nail .

Again I thank you for your reply. sube

I don't have all the definitive answers for these questions, but I'll give it a shot:

Regarding GB tracking on Equinix - Equinox senses changes in mineralization and rebalances upon detection of a significant change in ground mineralization. Ground mineralization is not the only thing that can change a ground balance reading, but it is the most common. It likely uses the same algorithm to detect mineralization changes for ground tracking as is used by the beach modes to detect coil overload due to black sand.

More targets under the active region of the coil tends to overload the analog input that is converted to a digital signal and fed into the signal processor, but it doesn't really overload the processor. Recovery speed just detdrmines when the signal processor is reset to process the next signal while you are in the act of sweeping the coil. The processing speed of the digital signal processor detrmines the minimum recovery speed achievable. It is important to understand that on a DD coil the active region is simply the narrow vertical strip that runs down the center of the coil where the transmit and receive coils overlap. So when I talk about overload, I am talking about multiple targets lined up vertcally down that strip that are simultaneously detected. Not multiple targets simply lying in the round or elliptal footprint plane of the coil. Targets outside the active region but still "covered" by the coil are immaterial, until the active region crosses over them.

The issue with "big" coils is also simply physics. There is a time constant or inertia associated with any changes in the current signal and larger coils have a greater delay associated with them and less concentrated fields are generated. This makes them better at detecting deeper targets but they also tend to be less sensitive to smaller targets irrespective of depth. Loweing the recovery speed simply compensates for the slightly slower responsiveness of the bigger coils and provides a cleaner target signal. It's more complicated than that, but that is the gist of it.

I can't comment on your nail test because I don't know where the nail with respect to the coin (makes a diifence which side and whether they are in the same plane), your sweep angle and what audio you are hearing, other settings such as the iron bias setting, ferrous breakpoint, disc or no disc and the modes used. If you can give more details I might be able to explain what you are seeing. Also, type of coin would be helpful.

 

[sube]

My settings in this video are park 1 iron bias fe2 0 recovery speed 1 to 4 go to 11:36 in the video.20190414 092422
Tom from another forum told me at 1 that it would clearly give audio but would be elongated and hard on the ears in a real world situation like a carpet of nails .He also said that the detector is seeing this in all the other recovery speeds but not giving enough audio for us to hear .That is a dime under the nail .sube