So this would be the same as being in long or smooth as on the CTX
NOX - negative reviews, problems and complaints
- Thread starter DaviDs
- Start date
So this would be the same as being in long or smooth as on the CTX
yooper69
Elite Member
Never did i say vdi don't matter but since i already bought a 800&600 and have so much tied up in them i just took the time to learn what they are saying to me instead of whinning about the numbers being so jumpy. They definitely could've fine tuned things better on the equinox but it is what it is . Very capable machine !
longbow62
Forum Supporter
The Equinox has a compressed I.D. range that's a given, but I don't have a problem calling targets in most cases. What I mean by this is telling Wheats from Memorials. Memorials from dimes, dimes from quarters. I also don't get wildly fluctuating numbers until you start getting to the depth where your at the edge of target detection. If a target is not flat and on edge that could mess with the numbers also.
I don't know how much it matters cause I always auto GB, but I would suggest people not running the Nox on zero GB. Do an auto GB coil pump and see if the machine does not I.D. better and with more stable numbers. My soil GB numbers in Park2 range 40's-60's where I hunt. I consider those GB numbers a long way from 0.
I don't know how much it matters cause I always auto GB, but I would suggest people not running the Nox on zero GB. Do an auto GB coil pump and see if the machine does not I.D. better and with more stable numbers. My soil GB numbers in Park2 range 40's-60's where I hunt. I consider those GB numbers a long way from 0.
beachclad
Full Member
At 30 seconds in he's using a Garrett AT Pro on a silver Mercury dime and it's a steady tone ringing in at 88-94 consistently with no deviation.
Then at the 1-minute mark, he uses the Equinox 600 and it's bleeping and blooping all over the place with a target ID that fluctuates wildly between 29 and -5. I wouldn't have even dug that target. That sounded like a rusty bottle cap.
The guy who did the video said that the Equinox had a better tone and that the AT Pro was "way off," yet the target ID never fluctuated past 88-94.
How is the Nox better?!
That is what a 9" deep silver mercury dime, copper penny or clad dime sounds like (slightly varying multiple high tones with a different tone for each numerical ID number) in 50 tones. Like he said, the Equinox was also picking up some iron contamination near that target. If Calabash had been using 5 tones or less on the Equinox it would have been a solid repeating single high tone just like the AT Pro which identified that first target very well in my opinion.
Some people should probably stick to 2 or 5 tones in the beginning since 50 tones, especially in a trash target rich environment may just be too much information to wade through. Since you are used to the Garrett 3 tone audio, 5 tones at the most, might be a good place to start.
Jeff
Some people should probably stick to 2 or 5 tones in the beginning since 50 tones, especially in a trash target rich environment may just be too much information to wade through. Since you are used to the Garrett 3 tone audio, 5 tones at the most, might be a good place to start.
Jeff
Last edited:
ghound
Elite Member
As Jeff says, if it had been running less tones like the Pro it would have been a solid tone.
There's other reasons that would make a user think the Nox is not as good at ID, that could be the coin is at a depth the Pro wouldn't give an actual ID, or a coin masked by iron that the Pro couldn't see. The AT Pro is a safe machine and comfortable with its restricted performance, the Nox is a much more powerful machine with a higher performance and that needs to be taken into account.
So are you saying if 2 or 5 tones had been selected the NOX VDI would have also been more stable? And if iron trash contributed to the jumpy NOX signal why didn't it impact the ATP signal?
It just seems odd to make a video claiming to show the NOX IDs better than the ATP and yet when the NOX didn't ID better it was because it picked up nearby trash that didn't impact the ATP.
coin pirate
Forum Supporter
JimR_TN The audio would have been much more stable in 2 or 5 tones.
I thought it was a toss-up on the first target=9" mercury and the 5" mercury dime. The other targets the Nox obviously had the advantage.
The glare made it hard to see the AT Pro's exact setup for me anyway. The Nox 800 running with multi frequencies was set up in 50 tones and 22 sensitivity with nothing discriminated, so just about wide open with almost full power. Any piece of iron the size of a 1/4" long pencil lead or larger would register with those settings if it was anywhere under the coil down to the level of the target. The AT Pro is not going to respond to tiny deeper iron targets like that.
On deep targets the Nox 800, just like most really deep VLF detectors will have somewhat jumpy numerical target ID. Unlike most it will give a fairly accurate numerical target ID at depth (it will not up average or down average like most detectors just because the target is deep) and will definitely give accurately pitched tones too just like Calabash's video showed.
Jeff
medicchief
Forum Supporter
Thanks for asking the questions. I have already complained about other aspects of the Equinox during this topic. Target ID accuracy both numerical and tone is one of the strengths of the Equinox in my bad dirt compared to every other detector I've owned and used so despite the title of this topic I'm happy to say something supportive about the Equinox.
Jeff
Jeff
beachclad
Full Member
There is so much misinformation out there, it's disorienting. It's hard to separate the subjectivity and contradictions from some of the statements I hear and read.
Let's go back to the Calabash video. Link here: https://youtu.be/ejv4uLv1hLs
We've already discussed the first target in that video.
Now let's turn our attention to the last target, starting at the 4:20 mark.
The target is an 1853 $1 gold coin. It's comprised of 90% gold and weighs 1.67 grams. It's buried 8-9" deep.
The AT Pro reads the coin with a high tone in the high 80's and 90's, suggesting it's silver. To me, that's impressive at that depth. It means that the AT Pro had a good read on it as a conductive metal, and everyone would have dug that.
The Equinox on the other hand, read it with a low VDI that fluctuated between 8-13. That to me is a weak tone with a lot of variance. In a trashy area, nearly everyone except the most hardcore "dig everything" guys would have passed on it. That reading was iffy, like a pulltab, or small piece of aluminum.
Here's where the subjectivity comes in. Calabash thinks that the high tone is bad because he believes that the Garrett will "up average" pull tabs into the 90's as well, based on this one isolated experiment, without giving any evidence to support that claim. I wasn't able to follow that logic.
Calabash then says that the gold coin is a "low-to-mid" conductor, and thus the Equinox was more accurate in its assessment. I disagree. A gold coin like that is more of a "mid-to-high" conductor due to its purity, the equivalent of between 22K and 24K. Not the typical "low-to-mid" 14K ring of less than 60% purity. Remember that the Equinox ID'd it into the single digits.
To add more confusion to this discussion, forum member Numil recently dug a very pure 22K 7 gram ring with his Equinox that sounded off in the high tones, into the 30's. Like silver. Link: https://metaldetectingforum.com/showthread.php?t=280445
So who are we to believe here on which machine was better at ID'ing coins?
Let's go back to the Calabash video. Link here: https://youtu.be/ejv4uLv1hLs
We've already discussed the first target in that video.
Now let's turn our attention to the last target, starting at the 4:20 mark.
The target is an 1853 $1 gold coin. It's comprised of 90% gold and weighs 1.67 grams. It's buried 8-9" deep.
The AT Pro reads the coin with a high tone in the high 80's and 90's, suggesting it's silver. To me, that's impressive at that depth. It means that the AT Pro had a good read on it as a conductive metal, and everyone would have dug that.
The Equinox on the other hand, read it with a low VDI that fluctuated between 8-13. That to me is a weak tone with a lot of variance. In a trashy area, nearly everyone except the most hardcore "dig everything" guys would have passed on it. That reading was iffy, like a pulltab, or small piece of aluminum.
Here's where the subjectivity comes in. Calabash thinks that the high tone is bad because he believes that the Garrett will "up average" pull tabs into the 90's as well, based on this one isolated experiment, without giving any evidence to support that claim. I wasn't able to follow that logic.
Calabash then says that the gold coin is a "low-to-mid" conductor, and thus the Equinox was more accurate in its assessment. I disagree. A gold coin like that is more of a "mid-to-high" conductor due to its purity, the equivalent of between 22K and 24K. Not the typical "low-to-mid" 14K ring of less than 60% purity. Remember that the Equinox ID'd it into the single digits.
To add more confusion to this discussion, forum member Numil recently dug a very pure 22K 7 gram ring with his Equinox that sounded off in the high tones, into the 30's. Like silver. Link: https://metaldetectingforum.com/showthread.php?t=280445
So who are we to believe here on which machine was better at ID'ing coins?
Hi beachclad,
I have the Equinox 600 and 800. I also have an 1852 US $1.00 gold coin (just about the same as the 1853 btw). I just tested it in both default Park and Field modes except for lowering the sensitivity due to indoor EMI. The Noxes read this coin between 8 and 14 at 8" air test. This is a really small gold coin so purity is not as important as size. I'm a prospector so those numbers look right to me.
Jeff
I have the Equinox 600 and 800. I also have an 1852 US $1.00 gold coin (just about the same as the 1853 btw). I just tested it in both default Park and Field modes except for lowering the sensitivity due to indoor EMI. The Noxes read this coin between 8 and 14 at 8" air test. This is a really small gold coin so purity is not as important as size. I'm a prospector so those numbers look right to me.
Jeff
woodbutcher
Forum Supporter
I wouldn’t put any stock In calabash videos.I watched one where the deus up averaged Deep nickels and he said he’d sooner have a machine upaverage than to down average and call it iron..I agree with that,but then he turns around and says the opposite when if it discredits the at pro...He’s a joke in my opinion.
diggin4clad
Elite Member
I totally agree with you regarding Cala"bash" who's been bashing Garrett at every turn. I can't take him seriously for even a second.
I just don't get it. It would be much more interesting to show positive things about the detector he does like than trying to prove his detector is better than some other detector. I hope no one gets the idea he is providing unbiased metal detector comparisons.
medicchief
Forum Supporter
+1
If you're going to compare detectors, I want to see the settings as well, not just him saying they're set the same.....what is the same between 2 different detectors anyway?
He may show some, I don't know. I could only just tolerate one of his videos.....
ToySoldier
Forum Supporter
That's simply not true. He passes the coil over the target nearly 15 times with the AT Pro before it hits high tone audio twice in a row. The pattern is a high tone going right and usually a mid tone going left. After it finally repeats high a couple of times, the audio bounces a bit more until he teases out a high repeat 5 or 6 times in a row. At that point he's scanned the target around 25 times.
In fact, he worked the AT Pro for 20 seconds and it didn't start repeating the high tone until about 11 or 12 seconds into it. He worked the Nox for 11 seconds total.
Now for the VDI. Below are screenshots showing the AT Pro reading in the 20s, 30s, and 70s on the first target. All numbers below the "88-94 consistently with no deviation" you said you saw. I've adjusted the images to make the screen easier to see, and included the time stamp to show when they occurred.
Let's look closely at the first 10 passes of each detector.
He passes the AT Pro coil over the target at least 3 times--possibly 4--before there is any VDI at all. One can hear tones with no ID. Then, the numbers jump, including sub-dime numbers shown in the screenshots. It finally settles into the low 90s/high 80s, but at various points later the VDI blanks out, doesn't update, or doesn't match the tone heard.
The best I can tell, here are the first 10 or so passes with the ATPro:
x no vdi
x no vdi
x no vdi
81
high 20s or low 30s (see screenshot with arrow)
72 (see screenshot)
27 or 29 (screenshot with circle)
33 (see screenshot)
33
93
90
90
etc...
The Nox hits the first target with both tone and VDI in the dime/silver range immediately. Here are the first 10 passes from the Nox.
23
25
14
29
16
30
-1,22
25
17,27
23
etc...
(The passes with two numbers are where the VDI updated prior to the coil hitting the target again in the other direction.)
Both detectors favored the high tone passing to the right and were usually catching a mid tone to the left. One of the impressive things about the Nox is how fast the VDI reported the changes and how well synced it was to the audio.
I challenge anyone to look at the first few passes of each detector and still argue the ATPro had the better VDI.
While the AT Pro seems to "lock on" to the high conductor numbers after awhile (even when the audio doesn't always match), I promise that's not desirable when you're trying to discriminate by VDI because there's only two non-adjustable non-ferrous tones. What good is 60 non-ferrous segments if the VDI can't keep up? That's precisely why I added the Nox. I still regularly use my AT Pro, but the Nox is a more powerful and versatile detector..
In conclusion, here are the two most important points Calabash didn't make:
1. Which one is more likely to stop you in the field? Is the plan to scan every square inch of a permission at least 10 times hoping deep high tones would pull together? Before I had the Nox, that's exactly what I did in areas where I had dug other very deep coins, and sometimes it worked.
2. If you do find that same signal with either detector, including that same depth and size of target, which one is more likely to be a coin time after time? I have a lot of time on both detectors, and I can say for certain that the Nox will not give that signal on trash as often as the AT Pro will give the signal it gave on trash.
Attachments
Last edited:
halfstep
Elite Member
The nox is a high gain detector and very sensitive, but accurate. If you take wide swings over the target, you will get several different VDI numbers due to the nox reading the ground around it. This makes it appear to be bouncy, unstable and inaccurate. But the reason you get all those VDI numbers is because it is accurately but sensitive and picking up everything else in the ground. If you narrow up the swing over the target, the VDI stabilizes since it isn't reading as much ground around the target. Just locate the target and do really short tight swings or wiggles over the target and the VDI will be very stable.
