Proving to myself which is better 900 or Manticore

[matt93]

I did go back and put in 7 more hours yesterday in a different area of the camp and had alot of the same results but I tried to pay close attention to the areas with more trash signals and more importantly targets that appeared to have targets very close to each other. There were a few that had a piece or wire very close to a coin and I could definitely tell. Different than the 900 ? Possibly. This part of the camp I have been over a few times and I would always find more but today it seems that I found more than usual but a couple of the spots I hadn't been over at all and found a 1948 Rosie silver dime but more than likely that was simply a case of not detecting that spot before. So this day wasn't one where I could actually say the 900 was as good but really more of a maybe yes maybe no. since I coin probably, and will, go back to the same spots and find even more with the 900. My next trip I plan to mark off an area and heavily grid search it for a couple hours with the 900. then the next 2 hours go back over the same exact area with the Manticore and see what my results are. Since some think doing a GB will make a difference I will alot some time going by Minelabes recommendation of setting to zero and doing a ground balance and re sweep that area. I have done this multiple times before in other areas and really didn't see a noticeable difference but for the purpose of this experiment I will give that a try as well. rain is in the forecast through Saturday so next trip out will more than likely be Sunday so I'll report back early next week hopefully. Stay tuned. Also if anyone is interested in seeing any of this I am doing all of this testing Live on TIK TOK . I usually start around 11am CST and go until 1:00 and take a break and start again at 2:00 and run till I give out lol. If you want to see look up @Magicmantx. You can also view some of the short videos I have posted there. I'm not a big video production guy but hope to create a video compiled of alot of this to post on YouTube but that will be a bit later as I'm old and slow LOL. Stay tuned.

Yes, thank you for taking the time to field test and compare the two machines. Merely a suggestion, could you possibly locate target (a) with detector 1, then swing over it with detector number 2 comparing signals, then dig said target? Honestly I feel this is the only way to truly measure two different detectors objectively. Basically the test is designed to test the effectiveness of the 2d screen and the info it provides to determine “digability” of said target.

 

[Cherry Picker]

Yes, thank you for taking the time to field test and compare the two machines. Merely a suggestion, could you possibly locate target (a) with detector 1, then swing over it with detector number 2 comparing signals, then dig said target? Honestly I feel this is the only way to truly measure two different detectors objectively. Basically the test is designed to test the effectiveness of the 2d screen and the info it provides to determine “digability” of said target.

I do think the 2D screen has a lot of work to be done, but at least they are trying new things. You've got to start somewhere. I think plotting has great potential but needs some refinement.

 

[Diga]

I agree.

What I like to see in a comparison is factory-like programs, generally Park, in the wild looking at targets in their natural environment. Find a target that seems to be a good one and using factory settings check it with each detector. Little commentary is needed, just let me hear and see what each detector finds. Still, I say you will know when you have a game changer. So far what I see is pretty much all the top of the lines are the same in performance.

If only the "factory-like programs" are used, then what about all the manual settings that can be adjusted, that have a significant effect on performance?

I obviously agree that the difference in performance of the newer SMF detectors is marginal. That's no surprise considering they are all reversed engineered Nox 800's in different packages. That's why Minelab is suing the crap out of everyone else lol.

The only game changer I see since the Nox 800, is the D2, and that's only because of its ergonomics. With the D2, one can swing much longer, much more comfortably, and much more efficiently than its competition. That alone will put much more goodies in the pouch, then the marginal performance differences...and in the end, that's all that matters.

 

[Diga]

Although head to head comparisons in the wild, is the best way to compare detectors, there are some issues with even that method.

For example, any legit scientific test in which variables are involved (and with detectors, there are A LOT of variables), the scientists include a "margin of error".

The margin of error with head to head detector comparisons, would be things like differences in swing speed, settings, height of the coil, angle of approach, etc. So what is the amount of margin for error, when it comes to comparing detectors head to head? For example, if one detector hits a 12" quarter, but the other detector doesn't, would that detector have hit that 12" deep quarter if it was only 1/2" or 1" more shallow? If it did, is that 1/2" or 1" within the margin of error? I would say yes.

 

[Cherry Picker]

If only the "factory-like programs" are used, then what about all the manual settings that can be adjusted, that have a significant effect on performance?

I obviously agree that the difference in performance of the newer SMF detectors is marginal. That's no surprise considering they are all reversed engineered Nox 800's in different packages. That's why Minelab is suing the crap out of everyone else lol.

The only game changer I see since the Nox 800, is the D2, and that's only because of its ergonomics. With the D2, one can swing much longer, much more comfortably, and much more efficiently than its competition. That alone will put much more goodies in the pouch, then the marginal performance differences...and in the end, that's all that matters.

True, but then if you start making adjustments it becomes more a factor of the user making good or bad adjustments. I feel if the testers did their job well, the factory programs are going to reflect the best overall possibility. A factory program should begin with the best possible basic settings for a large set of conditions. From there the user makes adjustments to meet their conditions and or needs.

I'm just not that impressed with SMF. I've watched far too many videos and used three of the top-rated ones, and see more claims that while SMF is great for shallow target ID, and should give good responses from low & high conductors, a single frequency in the 15 kHz or 20 kHz seems to give the best overall performance. So yes, SMF has a place, just not in my playbook.

 

[Cherry Picker]

Although head to head comparisons in the wild, is the best way to compare detectors, there are some issues with even that method.

For example, any legit scientific test in which variables are involved (and with detectors, there are A LOT of variables), the scientists include a "margin of error".

The margin of error with head to head detector comparisons, would be things like differences in swing speed, settings, height of the coil, angle of approach, etc. So what is the amount of margin for error, when it comes to comparing detectors head to head? For example, if one detector hits a 12" quarter, but the other detector doesn't, would that detector have hit that 12" deep quarter if it was only 1/2" or 1" more shallow? If it did, is that 1/2" or 1" within the margin of error? I would say yes.

Again, true, but as I said, you'll know a game changer when you swing it.

Two game changers I can remember were the Whites Spectrum Eagle and the Minelab E-Trac. From the very first trip out with the Whites Eagle Spectrum was nothing short of WOW. My first recovery at the city park was 3 silver dimes, one a barber, 3 wheats, and 1 war silver nickel all in the same hole. From a site three of us had hunted for many years. And those two buddies were there to witness the results. I couldn't walk two steps without seeing the same mind-blowing recoveries. So many old coins they were layered in the same spots. I recovered more multiple coin digs than single simple because there was so many years of old coins dropped at the same place. That was a game-changing detector.

 

[Diga]

We can discuss performance differences until the cows come home. But again, if we look outside of the box, we can clear up all the advertising hype, and all the BS of "My SMF detector performs way better than yours", by just realizing that all these newer SMF detectors are using Multi-IQ SMF technology that was first used in the Nox. Heck, even the Manticore is using the same Multi-IQ technology as the Nox.

That is why there is no "Oh Wow!" performance difference between these detectors, and also why Minelab is doing the suing over Multi-IQ patent infringement. It's also why Quest won't sell their "Hyper-IQ" (Multi-IQ) detectors in America.

 

[sube]

We can discuss performance differences until the cows come home. But again, if we look outside of the box, we can clear up all the advertising hype, and all the BS of "My SMF detector performs better than yours", by just realizing that all these newer SMF detectors are using Multi-IQ SMF technology that was first used in the Nox.

That is why there is no "Oh Wow!" performance difference between these detectors, and also why Minelab is doing the suing over Multi-IQ patent infringement. It's also why Quest won't sell their "Hyper-IQ" (Multi-IQ) detectors in America.

I never seen much difference between the new and the CTX their all muti freqers I hunted areas I have with the CTX only to find nothing or a wheat penny . Then other places that had more targets I would find more coins that the CTX did not see more coins more thrash more chances of coins on edge or hid by ground.
But the advantages I see of new verses old is the ability to separate ground from coin not target from target their all vlf detectors working the same . The ability to separate the ground from coin is where that coin of 5 inches deep on edge that was consumed by ground is available now . So we are getting more depth but not much the ground still hides coins .
I think most of the coins people missed are seen now to a certain degree not because their bad at detecting just that they could not see them before .
If we get the same depth in the air as ground then we have succeeded in ground to coin separation but were not there yet air test and then bury you will get your answer. sube

 

[Cherry Picker]

We can discuss performance differences until the cows come home. But again, if we look outside of the box, we can clear up all the advertising hype, and all the BS of "My SMF detector performs way better than yours", by just realizing that all these newer SMF detectors are using Multi-IQ SMF technology that was first used in the Nox. Heck, even the Manticore is using the same Multi-IQ technology as the Nox.

That is why there is no "Oh Wow!" performance difference between these detectors, and also why Minelab is doing the suing over Multi-IQ patent infringement. It's also why Quest won't sell their "Hyper-IQ" (Multi-IQ) detectors in America.

Agreed, that there is little to no advantage of one new SMF over the other from what I've seen.

I got an Equinox 800 when they first came out hoping to reproduce the Oh WOW I had with the Eagle Spectrum & E-Trac, but it just never happened. I took it to the same park that still has many great old Oh Wows left and found nothing more than a few wheats fairly shallow. I loved the new design and being able to select frequencies without having to buy a new coil or detector was fantastic.

 

[Diga]

The ability to separate the ground from coin is where that coin of 5 inches deep on edge that was consumed by ground is available now .

When it comes to metal detector performance, truer words have never been spoken

Trying to distinguish between the massive ground signal, and the minuscule coin signal, is what it's all about.

 

[jmaclen]

My plan is to take the Manticore back to the common area of the camp and spend some time in the area I consider to be thoroughly detected and see for myself If I find more than I did with the 900. I'll report back here for anyone who may be interested.

Thank you for your reports.

I have owned or own both of these detectors so I am not just speculating. I am not saying I am right either. Everyone that uses these two detectors may experience them differently.

There have been some good suggestions here about how to possibly improve your comparison of the two besides hunting an area with the Manticore that has already been hunted with the 900 in the past. Using both detectors at the same time with similar settings, flagging/marking wild targets and going over them with both detectors to see how they handle those targets before recovering them and drawing your conclusions from that information would be very interesting at least for me. I didn't get to do that type of head to head testing with the 900 and Manticore.

I was a very early buyer of the 900 after using the 600 and 800 for 4 years. I did not get off to a very good start with the 900 and although it made some really nice finds, I found it to have three things that I just could not deal with after being used to the very consistent behavior of the 600 and 800.

I did not do well with the very jumpy target IDs compared to the 600/800. Part of that was definitely the larger target ID range of the 900. So a wild US nickel target at 2 to 5" depth went from 12/13 on the 600/800 to 23 to 28 on the 900. If the target happened to be a 2 to 5" depth clad dime, silver dime or copper penny the target IDs went from 24 to 28 to a whopping 68 to 99. I simply wasn't expecting that.

Take those same wild coin targets at 4" depth. On the 600/800, I would normally get a normal 2 way single beep hit letting me know the coin sized target was not on the surface. That same target with the 900 even running sensitivity at 20 to 23, I would get triple beeps on each sweep as if the target was on or near the surface along with the wide target IDs. That did not sit well with me either.

I hunt most of the time in dirt with moderate to high iron mineralization whether its coin and jewelry, relics or gold prospecting. The 600/800 ran fairly quietly on these ground conditions with some iron falsing on the magnetite particles and volcanics. The 900 simply did not handle those conditions as well with much more ground noise falsing. The same happened on sites with higher iron mineralization and higher amounts of manmade iron trash.

My first 900 was sent to Minelab for evaluation and I had a talk with one of the 900's engineering team. They sent me a replacement 900 and it basically behaved the same way so I sold it. I owned and used those two 900s exclusively for 4 months. Whatever tweaks, improvements and as the engineer told me: "we chose to take the 700/900 in a different direction" (compared to the 600/800), whatever that direction was changed the 900's ability to easily handle the mineralization where I detect.

I bought a Manticore back in October of 2023. So far, I have not experienced as much target ID instability as the 900, I have not experienced any of the triple beeping on mid depth coin sized objects that mimicked DD coil surface coin responses and I have found the Manticore to run more stable on higher iron mineralized ground and a bonus, it seems to handle EMI quite a bit better than the 600/800 and 900.

Also, the finds I have made with the Manticore on ground that I hunted with the 600/800 and 900 have been pretty astounding even just running the Manticore in basic All Terrain General with the horseshoe button/all target IDs and audio accepted, sensitivity around 23, recovery speed 4 or 5 and iron bias as low as possible.

Is the Manticore $500 better than the 900. I am not sure yet, but probably more like $200 better. Is it measureably better than the 800.....Oh Yeah! The Manticore has better build quality, better ergonomics, seems waterproof, has more features, and most importantly, it really is deeper, faster for target separation and better at unmasking in iron than the 800 and the 800 was a dream machine for me. Like the OP alluded to with his Garrett AT/900 experience, when I started using the 600/800 its was like I was at a seeded hunt. The ground just lit up with targets shallow and deep that I had no clue were there since the iron mineralization had been masking them to all of the other detectors that I had used.

As far as all of these detectors-Equinox 600, 800, 700, 900, Manticore, Legend Deus 2, and possibly the Quest and Rutus SMFs (haven't used those last two) having the same SMF technology......maybe. Minelab is not suing XP and its Deus 2 as far as I know so they must not have infringed on the same US patent/s as Nokta. The Quest and Rutus models are not being sold within the USA as far as I know at the moment.

As far as those most recent SMFs compared to the earlier forms of SMF. I only have my experiences to go on since they don't line up with other people's experiences in other parts of the world.

Sube gave a good analogy: the ability to separate the ground from coin is where that coin of 5 inches deep on edge that was consumed by ground is available now.

I would just say that where I detect the ground itself is the ultimate masker of targets and not only is the 5" deep coin on edge available now with these latest SMF detectors, so is a coin with good orientation at 10". Those targets are not only available for these latest detectors to hit as a beep beep target, those latest SMFs will probably identify them correctly too from my experience since their Multi IQ or Multi IQ cloned technology does a much better job of ignoring the ground itself as a target than earlier SMF tech and single frequency detectors that I have owned, even those running at 13 to 20 kHz.

I will also say that I owned a Deus 1, still own an ORX and own a Deus 2. I have no hesitation taking my Deus 2 into an extremely modern aluminum/steel trashed area in order to do basic high conductor coin/jewelry cherry picking and for nickel/gold target cherry picking too. I absolutely would not do that to myself anymore with a Deus 1 or ORX in these mineralized ground conditions since every target no matter if it was a low or mid conductor ends up having mid to high conductor target IDs from 75 to 99. Deus 2, Manticore, Nox 900 and even the Legend just separate targets better in aluminum/steel trashed areas along with having useable target IDs compared to previous detectors, even the Equinox 600/800 from my experience.

 

[Diga]

Like most of us probaly have, I've pounded the heck out of my back yard. I did so with my 540 (Nox) and my Legend, and dug up everything nonferrous. I'd estimate about 100 various nonferrous targets. When I can't go out detecting, I still occasionally hunt back there, and every once in a while, find a nonferrous target that I missed.

If I were to get a D2 for example, it's the first place I would hunt with it. If I found a nonferrous target with it, I would flag it, and see if my Legend or 540 could hit it. If they did hit it, then I would chock it up to a target that I didn't swing over, or just missed for "whatever" reason. BUT, if they in no way could hit the target that the D2 could, and that happened repeatedly, it's only then that I would confidently say, "The D2 performs better than the Legend and 540 in my ground conditions".

Anything less than that type of methodology when comparing detectors, is so prone to testing flaws and variables, that it's almost meaningless.

 

[longbow62]

"Heck, even the Manticore is using the same Multi-IQ technology as the Nox".

If the Manticore is exactly like a Nox of any flavor why doesn't it act exactly like a Nox? You cannot hunt over the same ground with a Manticore and a Nox 900 and tell me they acted identical on all targets. If you have had a Nox for years like me and picked up a Manticore and found no difference between the two I don't know what to say or what make of it. Park1 and ATHC or Park2 and ATLC are definitely not the same. It's not the same machine with just added features on the Manticore. Fore instance in ATHC the lowest frequency is reported by Minelab to be below 4Khz. The Nox 900 from all I have read has it's lowest frequncey set at 4Khz. If anything the 900 is much closer to an 800 than it is a Manticore. In all honesty the 900 might basically be a better biult more waterproof 800 with a few added features. Just how the Manticore acts in iron vs. the 900 should tell you there is something very different going on with the Manticore. The 800 and 900 use the same coils. The Manticore coils are not compatable with the 900. Is the Manticore much better then the 900? I have no clue, but is the CTX better than the Etrac? I can say for a fact many times at many different sites that I and a buddy have hit so hard with several different detectors that we thought we had exhasted all hope of finding more silver I have found multiple silvers with the Manticore.

Again you should not be comparing the Manticore to the 900 if you don't have any time on the Manticore. I certainly wouldn't be drawing any conclutions from it at this point. In a test garden with known targets in clean ground I wouldn't expect much difference in how they hit targets. Easy targets in a test garden, clean yard or park are just that. Easy targets.

 

[Diga]

Longbow,

Yes, I said the Manticore uses the same Multi-IQ technology as the Nox, and that's a fact that Minelab themselves state. But, that doesn't mean they are going to act "exactly" the same. Reason being, different software algorithms.

 

[Diga]

Park1 and ATHC or Park2 and ATLC are definitely not the same. It's not the same machine with just added features on the Manticore. Fore instance in ATHC the lowest frequency is reported by Minelab to be below 4Khz. The Nox 900 from all I have read has it's lowest frequncey set at 4Khz.

Even if that was true, it doesn't change the fact that 800, 900, and Manti use the same fundamental Multi-IQ technology.

So, is 4 khz the lowest frequency on the 900 or even the 800?

Well, when the metal detector engineer on this forum tested the transmitted frequencies on the Nox 800, the lowest transmitted frequency was right around 2.5 khz. Then again, the transmitted frequencies aren't nearly as important as the received and processed frequencies.

 

[longbow62]

You are correct Multi-IQ vs. Multi-IQ+ much like FBS and FBS II. Basically new alternate/improved versions of the originals. I've made a point myself of saying there are not vast differences between any of the SMF detectors performance wise in my ground. I do think the Manticore is a solid improvement over the Equinox line. Is the cost benefit worth it? My 800 was long out of warranty and I was needing to upgrade anyway. I jell with Minelab better than I do XP so that's the only reason I don't have a D2 in my arsenal. I do have a Legend although I just have not had much time or inclination to learn it presently.

 

[Diga]

You are correct Multi-IQ vs. Multi-IQ+

Ya, there is that pesky + thing at the end lol.

That plus could just be about the extra Tx power, or a slight change in the transmitted frequencies. What it most certainly is not, is new SMF technology. If it was, Minelab would have a patent on it, and they would tout that new patent and technology. None of that happened.

 

[Cherry Picker]

Having never used the Manticore or 900 I'm not really qualified to comment on how they compare other than just my opinion. But, from what I've watched on videos, the Manticore & 900 are different monsters. The SMF tech may be the same, but the detector functionality is not.

 

[sube]

"Heck, even the Manticore is using the same Multi-IQ technology as the Nox".

If the Manticore is exactly like a Nox of any flavor why doesn't it act exactly like a Nox? You cannot hunt over the same ground with a Manticore and a Nox 900 and tell me they acted identical on all targets. If you have had a Nox for years like me and picked up a Manticore and found no difference between the two I don't know what to say or what make of it. Park1 and ATHC or Park2 and ATLC are definitely not the same. It's not the same machine with just added features on the Manticore. Fore instance in ATHC the lowest frequency is reported by Minelab to be below 4Khz. The Nox 900 from all I have read has it's lowest frequncey set at 4Khz. If anything the 900 is much closer to an 800 than it is a Manticore. In all honesty the 900 might basically be a better biult more waterproof 800 with a few added features. Just how the Manticore acts in iron vs. the 900 should tell you there is something very different going on with the Manticore. The 800 and 900 use the same coils. The Manticore coils are not compatable with the 900. Is the Manticore much better then the 900? I have no clue, but is the CTX better than the Etrac? I can say for a fact many times at many different sites that I and a buddy have hit so hard with several different detectors that we thought we had exhasted all hope of finding more silver I have found multiple silvers with the Manticore.

Again you should not be comparing the Manticore to the 900 if you don't have any time on the Manticore. I certainly wouldn't be drawing any conclutions from it at this point. In a test garden with known targets in clean ground I wouldn't expect much difference in how they hit targets. Easy targets in a test garden, clean yard or park are just that. Easy targets.

The differences are frequency weightings one weighted higher one weighted lower . The nox was a all around not the best for silver not the best for gold . The manticore fixed that hc and lc can't have ever thing in one setting .Now I had the manticore and tested it against the deus 2 and CTX the deus was cheaper lighter and tested as well .The screen to me was not any improvement over the CTX .But was better in separation from ground and coin .
As Mark Lawery stated there well never be another manticore a one and done so I think new tech is coming And I do agree with Diga it is muti- Iq . I think the manticore is a fine machine but the tech is the same . sube

 

[longbow62]

My point is the Manticore behaves in my opinion a lot different than any flavor of Equinox. That was my main point. Obviously Multi-IQ and Multi-IQ+ are closely related. Take the Etrac and CTX. Both have FBS in common. I've swung both the Etrac and CTX some. To me there was not as big a learning curve between them. The Equinox and Manticore to me are much more different. I don't see how anyone expects to make comparisons between them when you've just pulled the Manticore out of the box. Let's put it this way the Beast is much harder to tame as in learn. Pussy cat vs. Jaguar.