Some Equinox Test Garden Testing, Including A Head-to-head Video With The CTX 3030...

[steveg]

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).

 

https://youtu.be/JZpCD1NTmE4

 

Steve

[Northeast]

Nice write up - thanks Steve. 

Nice Equinox vid too. 

The ctx in the video. Is that the R2D2 model? . It's a chatty little fella.  

[steveg]

LOL!

The CTX was indeed akin to R2-D2 today!

Reason was, though, that I was maxed out at 30 sensitivity.  I would not have hunted it that hot, in that EMI, but the issue was that in auto +3, it was running at 19, and I felt that 19 was too much of a disadvantage for the CTX as compared to the Equinox running at 20, so as to show fair results.  Had I run the CTX "quieter," by lowering sensitivity or even going auto +3, someone would have undoubtedly said "no wonder the CTX didn't do as well, you ran it at 19, but ran the Equinox much hotter." 

I tried hitting deep coins in auto +3, once I saw how much "noise" I was getting today in the garden, but could not get results near as good as I was getting at 30 manual (not surprising).  So, to not "disadvantage" the CTX, I ran it hot, and thus the "R2-D2/BB-8" behavior!

I will say this, though...I usually run max sensitivity on all my machines, unless conditions force me to lower it.  I had the 'Nox set at max 25 to start with, but the amount of chatter suggested I lower it, and bumping it down gradually, one notch at a time, 20 was the level where the noise essentially disappeared.  Meanwhile, auto +3 on the CTX was choosing 19.  I SHOULD have run the CTX in manual, bumping it down only as far as needed to achieve similar stability as the Equinox...but didn't.  I probably could have gotten away with a number higher than auto +3's choice of 19.  BUT....still, I do find it a bit interesting that the CTX at +3 was still only going as high as 19 out of 30 (63%), while the Equinox was comfortable at 20 out of 25 (80%)...

Steve

[Steve Herschbach]

My cup runneth over - great reporting Steve!

I have been completely caught off guard by the intensity of the debate online about Equinox vs BBS and FBS. The truth is internally it was always about Equinox versus Garrett AT and DEUS. So this all came out of left field.

For me personally Equinox versus BBS/FBS was an easy choice based on gold sensitivity and target separation characteristics. Max depth is certainly an important component also but less so for me personally than the other two factors. There is the weight also. It all boils down to what puts finds in my pocket and max depth - let’s just say I use a PI or GPZ when I want max depth. My main comment is that if the majority of the debate is about this Minelab versus that Minelab then the competition really had better start worrying. That would be the optimal end result for Minelab and the fact the debate has been so focused on that aspect truly is revealing.

Thanks again Steve for taking what I know is a lot of time to produce a report like that. When people see conflicting reports and therefore question results always remember - the ground and target density/type rules all assuming operators of equal skill.

When people post on Equinox versus another brand I will usually move the thread to the Metal Detecting Advice & Comparisons Forum which is designed specifically to contain such content. This bring Minelab vs Minelab it is pretty fuzzy even though this is styled as an Equinox Fan forum. The assumption I would think is that people here have an inherent bias for Equinox. Still, I will let it stay here for now as an experiment. If anyone has advice for me an which venue they think is more appropriate I am all ears. But here or there it is a great report. Thanks again Steve for making the effort and sharing your opinions!

[Steve Herschbach]

On 2/26/2018 at 3:57 AM, steveg said:

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 had to highlight this. The difference is subtle, but that is a very perceptive observation.

[steveg]

Yes, Steve; so many -- including myself -- have been interested in the Multi-IQ vs. FBS debate.  So, I wanted to get some thoughts out there from my perspective, that partially addressed a bit of that question.

My conclusions thus far, from hunts AND test-garden tests, is just what you said (no surprise) -- I can take this machine, to a wide variety of hunt sites for any manner of "targets of interest," and not feel totally "out-gunned" by someone of similar skill running a different unit.  The depth is more than "acceptable," and in fact very "notable," but more importantly, it will do some things that some other units will not do as well (such as FBS) -- i.e. hunting in trash and offering "dig me" information even on tough targets due to close proximity of iron/trash.  

I do understand now what you have been saying about "can take it anywhere and not feel out-gunned."

Steve

[steveg]

On 2/26/2018 at 5:36 AM, Steve Herschbach said:

I had to highlight this. The difference is subtle, but that is a very perceptive observation.

It is "subtle," but it's there.  If I hadn't already had that sense (I did), there was no doubt when switching to gold mode -- that just hammered it home.  It felt like I set down my "coin hunter," and picked up a totally different machine.  The differences are more nuanced, but still there, when switching between other modes, but if you want to see the full spectrum of how "different" the machine is in different modes, just swing it for awhile in Park 1, and then switch to Gold 2.  Wow...

Steve

[Dan(NM)]

 Excellent post Steve and thank you for taking the time to do a test like this. My first 2 hunts convinced me that the Nox will hang with my CTX, in my dirt, for the type of hunting I do. First day out I was able to come across a 9" wheat and the Nox gave a nice high tone, repeatable signal. That  boosted my confidence in the machine  from day one. On my second hunt I hit a 9" rosy, that did the same thing, high tone, repeatable and VDI reading of 23-24   These were in the field, in an unbelievable trashy old high school and only after using it a few hours. I was walking tall after seeing this

[steveg]

Thanks for the kind words, and I hear you, Dan.  I had an 8" wheat of my own, in dense trash, on my first hunt, that gave me the same boost of confidence that you describe.  Seeing the results in my test garden helped to push that confidence even a little further along.  This machine is NO slouch, depth-wise, and looks like it is quickly shaping up to be the best I've used in trashy environments...

Steve