Myers Depot Metal Detectors

Some musings about HOW GOOD the Equinox might be...

steveg

steveg

Elite Member
Joined
Jul 3, 2011
Messages
1,394
Location
Norman, OK
Here are some thoughts I've been pondering, for what it's worth, regarding the new Minelab Equinox (and have posted on a couple of other forums). This is going to be LONG-WINDED, but please bear with me, as I have been thinking about this a lot. My hope is that it may stimulate discussion, and hopefully help a little, with respect to anyone pondering the possible purchase of an Equinox...

I am NOT saying this is true, but just laying out a possibility...

Consider the machines that have come out in the last decade, from companies like XP, Makro, Nokta, AKA, not to mention even the AT Pro/Gold/Max, Fisher F19/G2+, etc. With all of these machines, today, being available for a fraction of the cost of a CTX -- while at the same time offering VERY respectable performance (in some cases BETTER, in some applications, than the CTX), I think it is at least possible that Minelab found themselves in a "pickle."

To elaborate; Minelab has almost CERTAINLY lost "market share" in the "hobby detector" category. Just the Deus alone is extremely popular, and extremely capable. And I think Minelab has perhaps been forced, by the realities of competition/capitalism, to have to stop and analyze the economic realities of the situation.

So, what do you do, if you are Minelab, and your flagship "hobby" machine, albeit a VERY GOOD one performance-wise, is way heavy, it has had some reliability issues, and -- frankly, it has been challenged in terms of performance by a number of lower-priced competitors who have really gained a foothold in the market since the CTX's release? What do you decide, in a closed-door meeting, if you are Minelab?

If it were me and I am the head of Minelab, here's what I do in response, if I want to re-gain market share, and reputation:

1.! I go ergonomic/lightweight. No brainer. EVERYONE does that better than I do.

2.! I also go waterproof and wireless. Again, no brainer.

3.! I take my world-class team of engineers, look at what we do BEST (produce top-of-the-line performing machines), and I improve upon that, with a machine that out-performs all of my competitors in the hobby market.

4.! I do all of this at a price that is at, or below, the price point where my competitors are currently pricing their units.

If I can do all of these things, I KNOW I have a winner, and will be dropping a literal "atom bomb" into the fray...a game-changer.

NOW, this seems like a great plan in order to make a very strong statement as an, if not THE, industry leader in hobby detectors. But, what problems exist with this plan? Well, in addition to the enormous engineering challenge of actually taking that "next step" in performance that will surpass the competition, AND doing at a price that is better than the competition, a BIG problem is that I am ALSO, in essence, competing with MYSELF. In other words, if I am successful with the above 4-step plan, I have done two things (WHILE surpassing the competition) -- ONE, I have likely surpassed MY OWN FLAGSHIP MACHINE in terms of performance, and TWO, I am pricing this unit FAR BELOW the price of my own flagship. UH, OH...

So, WHY would Minelab do this? Again, it seems to me that they almost HAVE to produce a machine that at LEAST gives the CTX a "run for its money," because so many of the competitors are really pushing the envelope there. For the Equinox NOT to "surpass" the CTX in performance would mean, most likely, ALSO NOT surpassing the competition with enough performance to make people choose Minelab, over the competition. And, then Minelab almost HAS to sell this new machine at a VERY competitive price point -- probably equal to, if not lower than, the competitors, in order to grab back market share "stolen," to some degree, by the competition.

BUT-- that leaves the marketing team in a tough spot. How do we HYPE this machine, and create enough excitement to get people to try the unit, but at the same time not make it BLATANTLY OBVIOUS that this machine may out-perform all of our OWN units? The answer, to me, would be to try and "straddle the fence," so to speak; to market it as "WAY better than the competition, and, also, better than our other machines IN SOME WAYS," but at the same time saying "but our other machines still offer other advantages." They almost HAVE to do that; IF the Multi-IQ technology, in the Equinox package, actually WERE going to be your best performer (and again, I think the competition is almost REQUIRING that it MUST be), you can't simply SAY "this will obsolete our entire line of other machines." Seriously -- what would they do with all the E-Tracs, CTXs, Safaris, etc. that are still out there, already produced and in need of being sold? So, they'd almost HAVE to suggest that this machine falls "below" -- in at least some ways -- their higher-priced units. Again, that tightrope...talk it up SO MUCH, compared to the competition, that you sell a ton of them and steal back market share, but at the same time talk it down JUST ENOUGH that you don't utterly massacre the sales of your higher-priced units you still have to sell...

Now, I am not saying this IS the truth, but I am suggesting that it is quite possible, from my view. I don't think the competition -- who is producing in many cases machines that are nearly as good as (and better, in some applications than) the CTX, at a much lower price -- can be ignored, to the extent that Minelab could risk putting out an inferior machine at a higher price. To sell the Equinox and take market share from the competition, I think the Equinox will have to be a superior performer, at a superior price. I think this is a largely true statement, and I'd presume that Minelab KNOWS this.

So, while I do not EXPECT the Equinox to out-perform the CTX or E-Trac, I would not be, after thinking deeply about it, surprised AT ALL at this point if it actually does (even while Minelab almost HAS TO say that it "won't do as well as our flagship.") They have to walk a real tightrope here, in my view. Talk up the Equinox LIKE CRAZY, in terms of its performance, so as to get people buying it instead of a Deus, or Impact, or Racer2, or AT Max, BUT don't talk it up SO much that people stop buying your CTXs and E-Tracs...

Again, don't know if I am correct with all of this, but I am thinking I am not too far off, and the early videos we have seen showing glimpses of the Equinox prototype's performance so far, seem to lend support to this hypothesis...

Steve
 
equinox

Good thoughts--I was thinking like others, why didn't they use the two number system for id purposes on the equinox- and why put the coil cable on the outside-steps backwards ? Or a way to keep a machine like the e-trac a desireable machine and not steal all of it's sales ? Tony AZ
 
Good concepts Steve.

Personally, having been kicking around this old planet for 60+ years, I think what we're seeing is another glimpse of the mid-late 70's in the auto industry. We are leaving the age of sophisticated highly featured detectors and entering the age of simplification and budget minded detectors.

Sad part is this age always goes down in history as a major messed up time. For example, the cars of the mid-late 70's were some of the worst looking and performing to date. Oh they were priced right, but you got what you paid for. And nothing else.

A few things I've noticed that bothers me. One is a huge cut down on the number of target ID segments. So important to accurate target ID'ing is having a high resolution ID segment. As an example, the E-Trac/CTX had 1500. Even the 20 year old Whites DFX had 191. Today manufacturers brag about having 30-50 Target ID Segments. Pitiful. Target ID'ing for some reason has taken a big hit. Are people not interested in accurate target ID? No, I don't think that's it. It like all the 70's car going to 4 cylinders from V8's. All the detector manufacturers are trying to compete by $$$ because that is what the consumer is asking for at this time.

We want high-end performance at a economy rate. We want Cadillac features in a compact lightweight stick. Consumer's wants drive the manufacturer product. Be careful what you ask for. I just don't think detector technology is yet able to put Mustang performance in a Kia.
 
Interesting analogy, Detector, with the '70s and the auto industry. One reason, though, that your analogy may not work there, is in our case, computer equipment/electronics steadily decrease in price -- more performance for less cost. This occurs at an EXTREMELY rapid rate. And since the "raw materials" of a detector are these very electronic components that are diminishing in price over time, while being MUCH better in terms of performance, it would stand to reason that you could build a better/faster/higher-processing detector for much cheaper than you could 10-15 years ago...

But still, some good points. I, too, have issues with the apparent ID system on the Equinox...going from 2D/2 numbers to one number (presumably under 100 segments of resolution) is not, in my opinion, a move in the right direction, but we shall see...
 
For one I think the number of target ID segments is a bit overhyped.
Why?

Take the CTX, who is not going to dig a 12-44 signal, when in airtest this target reads 12-45 ideally.

Actually I can see a too extreme target ID make a detector allow too many good targets to be left in the ground.

How does the Equinox respond on bottle caps??

How does the detector respond ID wise to challenged targets ( targets maybe CTX with equivalent coil size can't alert tonally on) for an actual,user to realize a nonferrous target exists.

How many targets (nice ones) have in fact been left in the ground due to operator not seeing the nice ID(correct ID) for worthy dig?

I mean look at Deus.
Seems some have jumped off the fbs wagon and jumped on the Deus wagon.

And they are finding silver, etc.

How many good finds have been left in the ground, just because a fbs user (heavier detector) due to operator getting tired and just couldn't cover the same amount of ground? Not to mention the slower coil sweep required of fbs style units.

I look at this like the following.
Depth IMO has been over exaggerated in a lot of cases for finding coins, etc.

Too many older coins being found at not so deep depths.

And some folks I think see for example where a person lives in quick sand Flaorida,,reads their comments and they think this same info relates to their areas.

A fact here by me.

I used Etrac and CTX with stock coils loads in quite a few sites.
Many sites were a fbs unit was never ever run.

How many approx10" deep coins have I dug with fbs/fbs2 units in these areas?
Four.
2 in yards,,and I think kids may have buried back in time.
2 in a field. This field has been plowed numerous times, but not since 1994.

Now some parts of the country may have deep coins. Greater than 10" deep.
But in my area I don't think many exist.
And a user trying to find such coins in my area,,in the long run will defintiely cost you volume wise in your coin finds.
Been there and done this.

Now I do have some data do share here.
Some folks may find this interesting.

I have this place where zinc washers were put back in 1992/1994 tie frame.

I have checked the average depth of these washers.
The washers in the field seem to be deeper than the washers that were placed in the woods.
Quite a difference actually in depths.

This field is hay field, has had tractors on.
The woods part, no vehicle,traffic at all.

My theory is the nestle of roots in the woods act like film that keeps the washers from sinking.
They could lodged.

Woods hunting can be a pain with obstacles.
But folks might opt to try to hunt.
You may be surprised at just how old a coin might be at such shallow depths.

The Equinox I think will be a good to use.

It probably won't be able to do ALL that some of my other detectors will/can do.
But this won't necessarily make it a dud detector.

I wish I knew more about the ID the detector provides vs changing freqs, and the options maybe given to users.
 
One reason, though, that your analogy may not work there, is in our case, computer equipment/electronics steadily decrease in price -- more performance for less cost.
Click to expand...
Ah, but has it truly?

I've been the Network Administrator for our local hospitals for the last 22 years. Before that, and what got me the job, was that I was the local "computer guy" for the police department, banks and the many businesses that were just starting to experiment with computers in the late 70's-and early 80's. Also a self-taught programmer. I'm not trying to impress anyone with my history but rather point out I have been in computers since IBM went public with the first PC's (Personal Computer).

I have been in charge of purchasing the computers used at the hospital, and others, for many years. Yes technology has improved and more power CAN be put in smaller boxes now, but that isn't always the way it works. For example, just 5 years ago I was buying full sized form factor PC's at almost twice the price I am buying the little 6"x6" HP 7040's. They advertise being really fast and all, but when it comes down to actual performance they lack considerably. You ever notice that processor speed hasn't increased much in the last 10 years? 2.0 MHz or 3.2 MHz is still standard even on the fastest standard PC's. They just throw in fancy names stuff no one truly understands and thinks they are fast because of it. Hyperthreading and such.

This is why you see many old timers talk about how real detector depth technology hasn't changed in over 20 years. They're right. We just have fancy features now. Used in the right conditions and in the right way, these new features can indeed improve performance, but the reality is raw depth ability has not improved in a long time.

For one I think the number of target ID segments is a bit overhyped.
Why?
Click to expand...

Gold my man Gold! You want to increase your odds of finding gold in trashy parks? Get an accurate target ID detector and that means one with a very high resolution or many Target ID Segments.
 
tnsharpshooter said:
For one I think the number of target ID segments is a bit overhyped.
Why?

Take the CTX, who is not going to dig a 12-44 signal, when in airtest this target reads 12-45 ideally.

Actually I can see a too extreme target ID make a detector allow too many good targets to be left in the ground.

How does the Equinox respond on bottle caps??

How does the detector respond ID wise to challenged targets ( targets maybe CTX with equivalent coil size can't alert tonally on) for an actual,user to realize a nonferrous target exists.

How many targets (nice ones) have in fact been left in the ground due to operator not seeing the nice ID(correct ID) for worthy dig?

I mean look at Deus.
Seems some have jumped off the fbs wagon and jumped on the Deus wagon.

And they are finding silver, etc.

How many good finds have been left in the ground, just because a fbs user (heavier detector) due to operator getting tired and just couldn't cover the same amount of ground? Not to mention the slower coil sweep required of fbs style units.

I look at this like the following.
Depth IMO has been over exaggerated in a lot of cases for finding coins, etc.

Too many older coins being found at not so deep depths.

And some folks I think see for example where a person lives in quick sand Flaorida,,reads their comments and they think this same info relates to their areas.

A fact here by me.

I used Etrac and CTX with stock coils loads in quite a few sites.
Many sites were a fbs unit was never ever run.

How many approx10" deep coins have I dug with fbs/fbs2 units in these areas?
Four.
2 in yards,,and I think kids may have buried back in time.
2 in a field. This field has been plowed numerous times, but not since 1994.

Now some parts of the country may have deep coins. Greater than 10" deep.
But in my area I don't think many exist.
And a user trying to find such coins in my area,,in the long run will defintiely cost you volume wise in your coin finds.
Been there and done this.

Now I do have some data do share here.
Some folks may find this interesting.

I have this place where zinc washers were put back in 1992/1994 tie frame.

I have checked the average depth of these washers.
The washers in the field seem to be deeper than the washers that were placed in the woods.
Quite a difference actually in depths.

This field is hay field, has had tractors on.
The woods part, no vehicle,traffic at all.

My theory is the nestle of roots in the woods act like film that keeps the washers from sinking.
They could lodged.

Woods hunting can be a pain with obstacles.
But folks might opt to try to hunt.
You may be surprised at just how old a coin might be at such shallow depths.

The Equinox I think will be a good to use.

It probably won't be able to do ALL that some of my other detectors will/can do.
But this won't necessarily make it a dud detector.

I wish I knew more about the ID the detector provides vs changing freqs, and the options maybe given to users.
Click to expand...

Good points, tn...good post.

I believe most targets left, in sites that have been hunted hard, largely fall in one of two categories -- too DEEP to be easily detected, or too hidden by nails or other trash to be easily detected. Right now, FBS/FBS2 are top of the line, for hitting the deep targets with good idea, and the Deus, and several others, are near the top for finding the hidden/masked targets. IF you could have a machine that would combined the best of both, a top-end DEEP hunter, and a top-end UNMASKER, then you have a "game changer." I HOPE this is the Equinox...

Steve
 
Detector said:
Ah, but has it truly?

I've been the Network Administrator for our local hospitals for the last 22 years. Before that, and what got me the job, was that I was the local "computer guy" for the police department, banks and the many businesses that were just starting to experiment with computers in the late 70's-and early 80's. Also a self-taught programmer. I'm not trying to impress anyone with my history but rather point out I have been in computers since IBM went public with the first PC's (Personal Computer).

I have been in charge of purchasing the computers used at the hospital, and others, for many years. Yes technology has improved and more power CAN be put in smaller boxes now, but that isn't always the way it works. For example, just 5 years ago I was buying full sized form factor PC's at almost twice the price I am buying the little 6"x6" HP 7040's. They advertise being really fast and all, but when it comes down to actual performance they lack considerably. You ever notice that processor speed hasn't increased much in the last 10 years? 2.0 MHz or 3.2 MHz is still standard even on the fastest standard PC's. They just throw in fancy names stuff no one truly understands and thinks they are fast because of it. Hyperthreading and such.

This is why you see many old timers talk about how real detector depth technology hasn't changed in over 20 years. They're right. We just have fancy features now. Used in the right conditions and in the right way, these new features can indeed improve performance, but the reality is raw depth ability has not improved in a long time.
Click to expand...

Detector,

I agree that "raw depth" hasn't improved. But that's a slightly different argument.

Computer components, memory, processors etc. are faster/higher memory and CHEAPER than 10 years ago. Do we at least agree there?

So, I think you can build a machine JUST AS GOOD, but faster, and with more processing power, for less cost than you could 10 years ago, due to cost of components/electronics going down. Agreed?

Now, the DEPTH issue is different. I DO believe we are near the limits of what is possible for VLF (frequency-domain) machines (especially single frequency units, but I'll get to that later on in the post). Anyway, back to depth limits...trying to detect metal objects, using electromagnetic transmit/receive signals, on an electromagnetic, iron-core earth, containing iron-filled electromagnetic soil...there is simply a limit there, for current technology. There are competing factors there -- mineralized soil, EMI, and so on, which place some theoretical limit on how well/how deep we can see metal, using electromagnetic transmit/receive technology. So, in that way, we HAVEN'T seen huge gains in the last 20 years, I agree.

BUT, I do think maybe some gains can be made through MULTI-FREQUENCY technology -- comparing multiple different frequency transmit/receive signals and crunching the numbers to more accurately/more deeply identify targets than is possible with single frequency approaches. The problem though (at least one of the problems, not to mention the engineering challenges) is processing power/speed that is needed, and the SIZE of the components therefore required, in order to compute all the information that is needed to compute when running multiple frequencies. So, technological advance -- EVEN THOUGH we are near the limits of depth capability -- can allow faster, smaller, cheaper units, with more processing power, and that extra processing power can be leveraged to permit better use of multi-frequency technology (which I am sure is MUCH more processor-intensive). That's part of why I think something like the Equinox is now possible -- if indeed it is both more affordable AND a higher performer...

Steve
 
Computer components, memory, processors etc. are faster/higher memory and CHEAPER than 10 years ago. Do we at least agree there?
Click to expand...

Well to some degree. I'll go with the cheaper, but more memory and faster falls into the same category I was referring to. Yes they are using a faster processor and more memory, but, they are performing far more calculation/processing than 20 years ago. Like the PC. 10 years ago a processor at 2.0 MHz with 2MB of memory running Windows 98 would probably run faster than a PC today with a 3.2 MHz processor and 4MB of memory running Windows 10. They are running faster but having to use that added speed to do more signal processing. More features same speed.

But hey, I'm a features guy. In most cases the more features the less guessing I have to do on my part. LOL
 
I don't think I have ever seen so much wishful thinking as I have since the EQ was announced. Reminds me of when I was a kid a week before Christmas. But it has brought out an interesting paradox.......a lot of latent dis-satisfaction with Minelab products in terms of weight, price, certain components and service and yet, at the same time, a lot of fan-boy faith in Minelab's ability to bring out a miracle product.

Throw in a dose of consternation over the rise in popularity of competitive products and you have the current torrent of anxious, premature comments on most forums right now.

I hope it all comes out well, I hope it will be a miracle product, we'll all benefit from that.

But as has been said hundreds of times on all forums......we'll just have to wait and see.
 
Good post Steve. I think there's probably a lot of truth to that. It looks like the Equinox will offer a LOT of performance & features at a very reasonable price, but I also think Minelab has purposely left themselves some room for improvements (better ID, better numeric depth meter, trigger style pinpoint, color screen, more adjustable settings/options, etc) so that they can offer a new lightweight flagship detector at a higher price point in the not so distant future. Just speculation on my part but thats what I would do if I were them.
 
I agree, rattlehead. I think they could put out a "flagship" with a few more bells and whistles, built off Multi-IQ, in a Equinox-type package, and sell for, say, $1499. But I think the days of $2500 for a hobby detector are, for now, a thing of the past. TOO MUCH COMPETITION...quality competition.

Steve
 
steveg said:
The problem though (at least one of the problems, not to mention the engineering challenges) is processing power/speed that is needed, and the SIZE of the components therefore required, in order to compute all the information that is needed to compute when running multiple frequencies. So, technological advance -- EVEN THOUGH we are near the limits of depth capability -- can allow faster, smaller, cheaper units, with more processing power, and that extra processing power can be leveraged to permit better use of multi-frequency technology (which I am sure is MUCH more processor-intensive).
Click to expand...

Size is not so much of problem anymore since motherboards, processors and memory have all become somewhat smaller over the years, but I believe the motherboard is still the largest component. Processors have gone from 1 to 8 cores within the same chip size in pc's. We've gone from flopppy 5.25, to CD to 3.5 SSD by USB and now to M.2 which is actually housed on the motherboard.

I built my son a gaming pc last October, for his birthday. It boots from power to google search within 7 seconds. It can read (theoretically) 32GB per second. But that M.2 memory is not at all cheap, but neither were SSD's when they first came out. So it has much more, much faster memory and processing power but the power needed has not come down nor has heat. I think this is a big problem...

As to your original thoughts...I think what we are seeing with the Equinox, is a detector that has all the features that have been available in VLF detectors for sometime, incorporated into a multifrequency machine (waterproof, lightweight). I don't believe the Multi IQ will prove to be "better" than FBS, therefore still securing the flagship CTX and Etrac.

To me, this looks like an economical way to get more Minelabs in the hands of detectorists, in preparation, IMHO...for a faster upcoming lightweight FBS CTX. The technology is here, it can be lighter and faster already but when will they do it? I say they hook the masses with the Equinox, and then Minelab reels em' in with an upcoming CTX 2.

Rattlehead said:
Good post Steve. I think there's probably a lot of truth to that. It looks like the Equinox will offer a LOT of performance & features at a very reasonable price, but I also think Minelab has purposely left themselves some room for improvements (better ID, better numeric depth meter, trigger style pinpoint, color screen, more adjustable settings/options, etc) so that they can offer a new lightweight flagship detector at a higher price point in the not so distant future. Just speculation on my part but thats what I would do if I were them.
Click to expand...

Exactly!
 
Mr. Novice, interesting, about the tech part of having built that gaming PC.

As for the Equinox/Multi-IQ not being "better" than FBS, you may indeed be right, and that was certainly my initial impression. I'm still not convinced that you are not exactly correct -- I really can see the logic in the idea of NO WAY could this be "better;" it's just to compete with the Deus and others, and is being offered at an attractive price, period. Meanwhile, the CTX is, and will remain, the flagship.

BUT -- I have begun to wonder. I mean, I really think if this machine is not GOOD ENOUGH to CLEARLY be better than the competition, i.e. let's say it's only "kind of" as good as a Deus, or Impact...then I think Minelab runs at least SOME risk that the machine does not sell as many units as they want it to, once people start using them and word gets out on what the true performance is. SURE, some would sell, and SURE, the Minelab faithful who haven't yet bought a Deus or whatever would be intrigued and probably buy. But, I think they just may have realized they needed to go further. They needed to do something SO GOOD that they (in their words) intend to "obsolete" some machines. And if they REALLY DID go that far -- with Multi-IQ not being some kind of marketing gimmick but instead a true multi-frequency breakthrough that will "obsolete" some machines, then I think that WOULD put the CTX in trouble of being out-performed...

But, I still doubted that would actually be the case...that "obsoleting" some other machines is just pure marketing BS...

...until I started seeing some of the videos, and hearing rumblings from some testers. From everything I have seen, and heard (and I'm trying to sort "hype" from "truth" there), this machine REALLY MIGHT BE a "game changer."

Of course, the proof is in the pudding; we are all going to find out soon enough. But, I will say that I've bought into my own reasoning here enough to have convinced myself that I am going to be an "early adopter" of this one -- something I never do -- and try it out for myself...

Steve
 
The claim Minelab made was chosen very carefully and specifically aimed at "obsoleting all VLF detectors". Just by being multifrequency in addition to combining all other aspects of many VLF detectors into a single multifrequency detector (waterproof, lightweight, wireless and within a specific mid price range) within market share, they could accomplish this. Rollout, availability and real world testing will decide as well as advertising.

If it proves to do as it should, not "claims", but operate as designed...at $650 for the Equinox 600 model, then wow... the VLF market will be scrambling!

The confusing part is Minelab patented the Multi-IQ in early 2016. This would lead me to believe that it is better newer technology than FBS2, but that might not actually be the case. R&D stumbles along many different branches on the way to better faster technology. This may just be a different branch they found awhile back while researching on the way to FBS, as it is a whole new different technology and not FBS3...
 
I'll be a "wait and see er".... Its my nature, Always has been.....I'll be following along diligently as the first adopters take this rig to field...What may kick me into an OX purchase will be Indisputable in field performance in multiple hands and genres....Something that can make me more productive easier over my existing gear (if that is possible)...ROI analysis...

I do appreciate the basic format and concept of the OX, I was a late adopter when the AtPro came out, but eventually a guy cant argue with a broad spectrum of infield results...'Time and Gold waits for Nobody'....Superb Marketing so far from Minelab..I really like the freaking speed of the OX!..

From what the vids portray, a guy could be nothing but a Cladslammer Inland Jewelry boy and pay for this rig..Still, I got that gear already understood and paid for, and no matter the rig, I dont know how much faster I can get on target retrieval?....When it comes to any outdoor pursuit Oriented activities, it aint so much about the Bow as it is about the Indian....
 
Mud-puppy said:
I'll be a "wait and see er" Its my nature, Always has been.....What may kick me into an OX purchase will be Indisputable in field performance in multiple hands and genres....Something that can make me more productive easier over my existing gear (if that is possible)...ROI analysis...

I do appreciate the basic format and concept of the OX, I was a late adopter when the AtPro came out, but eventually a guy cant argue with a broad spectrum of infield results...'Time and Gold waits for Nobody'...
Click to expand...

I totally get it, Mud-puppy. I am NEVER an "early adopter." I wait for feedback from trusted sources, and determine the cost-to-benefit for me and my limited budget, as well.

However, in this case, with my Explorers growing "longer in the tooth" each year, and with a couple of "updates" from Minelab since then (E-Trac and CTX), it's hard for me to pass on this one, PARTICULARLY given the price tag (the real kicker for me). I have an empty spot in my lineup now that I sold the F19, that requires a fast, good-in-iron unmasker. I am confident that the Equinox will fill that niche for me, respectably well. If it turns out that it can do the unexpected, and actually IMPROVE ON the performance of my Explorer as a deep coin hunter, when in Multi-IQ mode, that's just "icing on the cake!"

Steve
 
Well I can put your mind at ease Steve real simply from the videos of the equinox that I've seen there is no threat of this thing replacing the CTX 3030, or even the Deus.
 
I think the Equinox will be a great unmasker like the deus,perfect for me. Most coins aren't that deep around here anyhow. I think it will be deep though. The lightweight is needed for me.
 
Well thats the pisser aint it Steveg! How much TIME do we have to walk this Planet and sling the gear we already have? Who knows? Granted, its pretty damn good to be upright and walking at our age...Especially when we see folks half our age having trouble just getting down to the mailbox and back without towing a C-Pap machine and GPS...!

This is why we say, "No place is ever hunted out"...physical limitations on what a guy can pull on a certain day no matter what rig they run....Even IF the OX has the ability to find only gold or old silver coins above and beyond all other machines..It may be true, but..."In Whos hands?" Is the question...I do like that OX speed though..just not sure if I can physically keep up with it to make any noticeable appreciation in the actual pay...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

S
Minelab Sale
Replies
3
Views
59
AirmetTango
AirmetTango
J
Xcal coil question
Replies
0
Views
63
jimsvillage
J
Digging Prayers
Legend 1.14 Beast Mode Downgrad Problem.
Replies
4
Views
228
Digging Prayers
Digging Prayers
S
Excalibur II question - False signals in salt water waves
Replies
5
Views
113
jimsvillage
J
J
Does anyone know the frequencies used in the Nokta Score/Double Score?
Replies
2
Views
141
tnsharpshooter
T
Back
Top Bottom