Equinox Depth Bug

Trashfinder

Forum Supporter
Joined
Oct 9, 2012
Messages
1,307
Location
Ardmore, OK
Updated my machine to new version and took it out for a hour hunt. One thing i noticed after digging 10 plus targets was the depth indicator showed everything as 3 plus bars. All were modern clad some as shallow as an inch, and nothing deeper than 2.5 inches. I found a few targets where the machine showed max bars and the targets were maybe 4 inches. I was by the end of the hunt able to somewhat tell how deep the targets were based on the strength of the pinpoint sounds.

I hope they get this resolved soon. I was very hesitant to update and now wishing i had not. On version 1.7.5, my machine was very accurate on depth and it was one of my factors on deciding to dig or not as i am really only after the very deep older coins.
 
Updated my machine to new version and took it out for a hour hunt. One thing i noticed after digging 10 plus targets was the depth indicator showed everything as 3 plus bars. All were modern clad some as shallow as an inch, and nothing deeper than 2.5 inches. I found a few targets where the machine showed max bars and the targets were maybe 4 inches. I was by the end of the hunt able to somewhat tell how deep the targets were based on the strength of the pinpoint sounds.

I hope they get this resolved soon. I was very hesitant to update and now wishing i had not. On version 1.7.5, my machine was very accurate on depth and it was one of my factors on deciding to dig or not as i am really only after the very deep older coins.

My 800 has never been very good at judging depth of targets regardless of the software version. I wish it was better after the upgrade. I have gotten better at judging depth by the signal sound volume, but it is different depending on the sensitivity I decide to run.
 
Updated my machine to new version and took it out for a hour hunt. One thing i noticed after digging 10 plus targets was the depth indicator showed everything as 3 plus bars. All were modern clad some as shallow as an inch, and nothing deeper than 2.5 inches. I found a few targets where the machine showed max bars and the targets were maybe 4 inches. I was by the end of the hunt able to somewhat tell how deep the targets were based on the strength of the pinpoint sounds.

I've never found any depth indicator to be particularly accurate on any of my machines, and the Equinox is no exception. That said, I've put about 6 hours on version 3 in field hunts with dozens of targets so far, and I've not noticed a difference in the accuracy (or lack thereof) between version 2 and 3.

...I was very hesitant to update and now wishing i had not....

...If you don't like the update you can easily go back and reload the version you like better at any time...no wishing necessary.

Digger27 is absolutely right - no need to suffer updater's remorse. You can go back to any previous software version on the Equinox using the same installer program you used to upgrade.
 
After i posted i found i can go back, and i will. My version 1.7.5 was very accurate and invaluable for my sites. The old turn of the century town i have been hunting when i got 3 bars you better dig, and it was never off, targets were always 5-7 inches and when i got full depth bars it was always 10 plus inches. The way the machine works now, i would have one hell of a guessing game at the site. Switching back and will give an update as to whether the machine is as accurate as it once was.

I have always seen posts where people complained about the depth indicator so i know a lot of you do have issues with it and i do believe you, but believe me as well when i tell you mine was dead on! Will update soon.
 
After i posted i found i can go back, and i will. My version 1.7.5 was very accurate and invaluable for my sites. The old turn of the century town i have been hunting when i got 3 bars you better dig, and it was never off, targets were always 5-7 inches and when i got full depth bars it was always 10 plus inches. The way the machine works now, i would have one hell of a guessing game at the site. Switching back and will give an update as to whether the machine is as accurate as it once was.

I have always seen posts where people complained about the depth indicator so i know a lot of you do have issues with it and i do believe you, but believe me as well when i tell you mine was dead on! Will update soon.

Sometimes you get a good one.
I always believed not every detector that comes out of any factory is exactly the same in every respect because even though I assume machines have a big part in some calibration processes humans are also involved so mileage can vary.
My F2 hit specific numbers on many targets consistently but others reported slight differences compared to mine including a few I saw being used in person.
Might only be one number off but there was always that slight difference.
On my F70 I was always happy that my depth bars were usually pretty accurate and the the numbers in pinpoint even more so...always.
Many others running the F70/F75 platform reported way different results so I was lucky.

You got used to the way yours worked in version one and had confidence in it so nobody will blame you for returning to it at all.
 
Rolled back and went to test garden, everything is spot on again!!! For example 3.5 inch pull tab showing 2 bars again not 5! Very pleased to have my old NOX back!

Digger i agree, i have owned several different detectors all same make and model and yes some have just performed better. I had an Etrac that i still kick myself for selling, i still have one, but the one in question just for some reason was the best etrac i have ever owned and i have have probably had 6 or more. I am on my 5th or 6th CTX as well. Until a person owns several different machines of the same model, they might not understand what you were saying but i do from experience.

I am associated with the electronics field and an engineer explained it to me this way. He said electronic components are considered good if they fall into a certain range, and he showed me how this range can vary. So the combination of electronics in your machine might have better tolerances than whats in another machine, but all of it is still in tolerance and specs. I honestly cannot remember what the tolerances were but if i recall right it can be as much as 10 percent, and still be considered in tolerance.

And we can use the Fisher cz models for example ,, some can hit dimes at 11 or 12 inches and some only 8 or 9.
 
Rolled back and went to test garden, everything is spot on again!!! For example 3.5 inch pull tab showing 2 bars again not 5! Very pleased to have my old NOX back!

Digger i agree, i have owned several different detectors all same make and model and yes some have just performed better. I had an Etrac that i still kick myself for selling, i still have one, but the one in question just for some reason was the best etrac i have ever owned and i have have probably had 6 or more. I am on my 5th or 6th CTX as well. Until a person owns several different machines of the same model, they might not understand what you were saying but i do from experience.

I am associated with the electronics field and an engineer explained it to me this way. He said electronic components are considered good if they fall into a certain range, and he showed me how this range can vary. So the combination of electronics in your machine might have better tolerances than whats in another machine, but all of it is still in tolerance and specs. I honestly cannot remember what the tolerances were but if i recall right it can be as much as 10 percent, and still be considered in tolerance.

And we can use the Fisher cz models for example ,, some can hit dimes at 11 or 12 inches and some only 8 or 9.

I ain't no expert, but the tolerances you speak of in electronic components generally applies to analog not digital. The way your explaining it one computer might be better than the one made a week ago due to the parts used. Or one digital radio might be better than the one made a month ago because the source of parts changed.

I think component tolerance issue mainly goes back to the analog days when you like changed the brand of op amp or switched resistors or capacitors to a type where the tolerances were different. Autophiles are notorious for this type of gear affliction along with vintage electric guitar amp aficionados. This really applies to FX pedals like a vintage Tube Screamer vs. one made last year.

I can fully agree one Tesoro might be better performance wise than the next due to a components change, but I don't buy it with an Etrac or Equinox or any other that operate digitally.
 
I ain't no expert, but the tolerances you speak of in electronic components generally applies to analog not digital. The way your explaining it one computer might be better than the one made a week ago due to the parts used. Or one digital radio might be better than the one made a month ago because the source of parts changed.

I think component tolerance issue mainly goes back to the analog days when you like changed the brand of op amp or switched resistors or capacitors to a type where the tolerances were different. Autophiles are notorious for this type of gear affliction along with vintage electric guitar amp aficionados. This really applies to FX pedals like a vintage Tube Screamer vs. one made last year.

I can fully agree one Tesoro might be better performance wise than the next due to a components change, but I don't buy it with an Etrac or Equinox or any other that operate digitally.

I have owned several of the same models at the same time and for whatever reason they sometimes were not equal in performance in my test garden. I have not owned 2 nox 800's at the same time but when they first came out, i was hunting with a buddy who also had one. Very first ones released, same software version as there was only 1 at that time, i was doing substantially better than him. He asked me to set his up exactly like mine. So i did. We then stayed close together and he wanted to check my targets before i dug them. We both had ground at 0, his machine just was not picking them up as well as mine. We then both noise cancelled at the same spot thinking maybe that was it. I honestly cannot remember if his came up same as mine, but at least it was in the same spot. For whatever reason that day his just did not perform as well as mine. He ended up selling that one, and not much later bought another one. Coils? Other components? No idea, i just know for whatever reason they are not always equal digital or analog.
 
I’ll check mine tomorrow. I haven’t updated yet.
Will check before and after update.
I know the last update before this latest depth meter worked better than what was in detector at initial release.

Thanks for sharing.
 
On a related note, I owned 2 Garrett propointers (the old green ones) bought at about the same time, so that I would have a backup.

One had a range of 1.75 inches on a nickel, and the other one had a range of 1 inch on the same coin. Don't know anything about electronics, but that variance on 2 of the exact same device was as clear as day.
 
I ain't no expert, but the tolerances you speak of in electronic components generally applies to analog not digital. The way your explaining it one computer might be better than the one made a week ago due to the parts used. Or one digital radio might be better than the one made a month ago because the source of parts changed.

I think component tolerance issue mainly goes back to the analog days when you like changed the brand of op amp or switched resistors or capacitors to a type where the tolerances were different. Autophiles are notorious for this type of gear affliction along with vintage electric guitar amp aficionados. This really applies to FX pedals like a vintage Tube Screamer vs. one made last year.

I can fully agree one Tesoro might be better performance wise than the next due to a components change, but I don't buy it with an Etrac or Equinox or any other that operate digitally.

The NOX still has a good bit of Analog circuits.
For one there is a complex Pre-amp build into the Coil. Then there are the TX Current Sensing and RX amps in the main board.
Look through this for more of those internal details:
https://md-hunter.com/opening-the-minelab-equinox-800-whats-inside-the-machine/#more-11657
https://md-hunter.com/minelab-equinox-coil-x-ray-is-it-really-the-half-of-machine/

Schematic of coil circuit:
 

Attachments

  • Eqx_coil02.jpg
    Eqx_coil02.jpg
    44.3 KB · Views: 1,082
The NOX still has a good bit of Analog circuits.
For one there is a complex Pre-amp build into the Coil. Then there are the TX Current Sensing and RX amps in the main board.
Look through this for more of those internal details:
https://md-hunter.com/opening-the-minelab-equinox-800-whats-inside-the-machine/#more-11657
https://md-hunter.com/minelab-equinox-coil-x-ray-is-it-really-the-half-of-machine/

Schematic of coil circuit:

"Then there are the TX Current Sensing and RX amps in the main board."

Coming from a 25yr career in electronics before retiring, those two features are very impacting to tolerance limits. Everything integrates.
 
Updated my machine to new version and took it out for a hour hunt. One thing i noticed after digging 10 plus targets was the depth indicator showed everything as 3 plus bars. All were modern clad some as shallow as an inch, and nothing deeper than 2.5 inches. I found a few targets where the machine showed max bars and the targets were maybe 4 inches. I was by the end of the hunt able to somewhat tell how deep the targets were based on the strength of the pinpoint sounds.

I hope they get this resolved soon. I was very hesitant to update and now wishing i had not. On version 1.7.5, my machine was very accurate on depth and it was one of my factors on deciding to dig or not as i am really only after the very deep older coins.

I have noticed this also. But I can't remember now if 1.75 was good at depth indication. I know 2.0 was not and 3.0 looks worse. On my 3.0 test hunt I was getting max bars on some that were no where near that depth. My ATPRO works more reliably as far as depth indication. I might try the rollback to 1.75.
 
,............ applies to analog not digital. .........
I think component tolerance issue mainly goes back to the analog days.......

I can fully agree one Tesoro might be better performance wise than the next due to a components change, but I don't buy it with an Etrac or Equinox or any other that operate digitally.

I asked Rusty at Tesoro about the this a few years ago. He said it was more of an issue in the past as compared with now.
I've owned 5 or 6 all digital X-terras and testing them they always had identical performance. I'm not saying other people are wrong or their detectors weren't different.
 
My comment was a general statement about the differences in vintage analog builds and digital builds of today. I have never worked in the electronics field. I was just comparing say vintage analog devices where there were bins of parts that might be sourced from different companies year to year based on availability and price.

The difference between a worker at a their station soldering parts to a pre-printed circuit board versus a machine soldered part then tested and inspected under a microscope by quality control techs . Also it's my understanding that digital circuits have a working range that is more narrow tolerance wise than analog circuits. I have always assumed the historical progression from tubes to transistors to integrated circuits was also a progression in reliability and lesser performance variation device to device of the same model.

Again I just logically thought that these days it was a given performance differences detector to detector of the same model was not an issue outside of a obviously defective unit.
 
longbow62,
Yes, all of what you just stated is true and variance should be much less. But, if there is enough sensitive analog circuits, high gains etc, then there can be a good bit of variance among units. I work designing Instruments for electro-chemistry and am always surprised when production starts having problems testing units to specs. Many times it is due to a new batch of analog parts that are not working the same as an earlier batch or there is a change in the PCB assembly process.

Another variable is the coil.

I wonder what the result would have been if Trashfinder and his buddy swapped coils between their Nox's.
 
All the analog/digital stuff aside, the new 3.0 version of the Nox is way off on depth. I am getting Max bars on coin targets that may be 5 inches deep. I also did a test silver dime at 8 inches and it did not read it with any Freq or Multi Freq. Stock settings bumped up to 25 power. Park 1 and 2. Not even a whisper. Kind of ticking me off.:mad:
 
I would not go back.
IMO It’s not an all the time frequency.
I run my detector in multi and when I get a high signal I switch to 4khz if I get a VDI I dig.
4 khz is a stand alone frequency.
It is not in multi or in gold mode.
The Equinox is more sensitive than other detectors and that is why it is finding more stuff.
Size and angle and minerals have an effect on depth and the processor is doing its best.
We just have to live with that.
Doug
 
Back
Top Bottom