ID range differences between new and older Equinox and Manticore detectors

The improved target ID system on the Equinox 700 and 900 metal detectors has mostly expanded the area of medium conductive targets (30-82) where the vast majority of targets found fall. Compared to the EQ 800/600 where the same area was based on IDs 14-30 (16 values), the new EQ 900/700 series has the same area based on IDs 30-82 (52 values) making them some of the more desirable and unwanted targets that fell under the same ID on the older EQ series are now easier to distinguish due to the wider range of IDs.

Recently Minelab released a nice official ID scale comparison chart between the older Multi IQ system (Vanquish and Equinox 800/600 series) and the new scale (Manticore, Equinox 900/700 and X-terra Pro).

I've done something similar right after the new detectors came on the market by simply testing a large number of targets when an official comparison chart was not yet available. So you can see for yourself how much I deviated from the official version.

Comparison chart of ID between Equinox 900 and 800 by Jaccob

The ID chart was created by testing individual targets between the EQ 900 and EQ 800.

As you can see from my chart and the official version, it's obvious that someone went to the trouble of doing some thinking on this. So there was not just a simple multiplication of the original ID but the whole scale is converted non-linearly with emphasis on the ID values that occur most often.

This has the effect that although in the positive values for non-ferrous metals the conversion ratio is exactly 2.5 (100 values/40values), certain ranges have a higher conversion ratio than others, resulting in a significant refinement in the medium conductivity targets 14-30 on the older range (16 values) which corresponds to IDs 30-82 on the newer range (52 values)-this corresponds to a conversion ratio of 3.25. So it can be said that in this range the new series has a 3.25x more accurate evaluation.

However, there have been changes in other parts of the ID scale as well; for better illustration, the ID scale can be divided into a total of 4 main categories and the corresponding conversion ratio calculated:

• Iron: -9 to 0 (10 values), new range: -19 to 0 (20 values) = conversion ratio :2
• Low conductive targets:1 to 13 (13 values), new series: 1 to 29 (29 values) = conversion ratio: 2.2
• Medium conductive targets: 14 to 30 (16 values), new series: 30 to 82 (52 values) = conversion ratio :3.25
• Highly conductive targets: 31 to 40(9 values), new series :83-99 (16 values) = conversion ratio: 1.8

The above values show where in the ID scale the most significant changes are likely to have occurred and to what extent they are most evident.

Conclusion

After many years of experience, I can say that the new ID scale was obviously designed by someone with experience in search. From my own experience I can confirm that, for example, high IDs (from about 75% ID range +) do not need to be distinguished with such precision and I always look forward to some bigger coppers and faintly hope for a thaler :D.

For small targets that are hard to detect (up to approx. 10-15% of the range for non-ferrous metals) and the ID is also less stable because of this, then logically there is no need to measure the ID with such precision when one can expect lower stability. In contrast, in the area of moderately conductive targets, where most of the average targets found fall, I think this is a nice and positive change.