Transducer Options

[chocolatemoose]

what did i miss

i wouldnt be suggesting a 1kw... thats just crazy! "unless you have deep deep pockets" in which case! HEY!! 1000 WATTS BABY!

ok so.. if your planning on fishing deep and inside the water column.... and then fish the bottom in shallow water. then id suggest going CHIRP
"yeah i know its a BUZZ word being thrown a round a lot by people but there is a time and a place:P"

CHIRP ... a modulated frequency... attracts far better performance out of smaller watt transducers, whilst have far less concern for interfearance and managing much better target seperation "and there are all kinds of reasons why and how it does this.. which if you would like to know. just let me know but it usually bores people:P"

but heres the nuts and bolts in plain A4.......a 300w chirp transducer can out perform a 1kw for water column fishing and will show up brilliant results in the 30mt and less department. <- thats basically it

BUT!! there is a catch.. your looking at a HDS "and why you would consider BCF is beyond me but its not my place to say anything " to run CHIRP on a HDS you need to run a sonar hub box. and then a TM150 chirp transducer all up.... thats a grand-ish.. so thats a bit of a blow.

then you have other brands to consider as well (lowrance does have a fierce marketing machine! )

Garmin 751xs with a tm150 chirp transducer for about 1900 is a no brainer for a steller unit

or! A Humminbird 899si with its Switchfire sonar + brilliant side imaging/down imaging and bulletproofness for about 1600

simrad nss7 with sonar module box (that we spoke of earleir) and maps for around 2 grand.

raymarine a78 with dragonfly chirp "sorta kinda" and down vision for around 1500 <- good unit. not the best build quality

BUT WAIIIITTT theres more

you also have the garmin 1020xs with HDID sonar <-good!! + downvu <-whilst not side imaging its better than most for down imaging.. 10" screen and all of garmins goodness "and chirp capitable for a few bucks more" for 2200!!


ok this is all prob a bit to late. but always welcome to ask questions or give us a call

Moose

regal marine
shop@regalmarine.com.au or 03 98744624

[scott__henning]

BUT!! there is a catch.. your looking at a HDS "and why you would consider BCF is beyond me but its not my place to say anything "

Haha, yeah I would be going elsewhere but i have $1200 worth of BCF gift cards to use, so its almost free.

thanks for the info anyway!

[frozenpod]

Hey Moose chirp looks great but in terms of traducer power output with all due respect are you kidding?

Scott isn't going to be fishing PPB where you can live with 300w and 600w is very good.

[ducky]

Hey moose. On your average boat eg non charter are there many benefits of going down the route of a thru hull transducer? Is it worth the added expense compared to normal transducers when used recreationally.

Secondly. I have just bought a boat that has a lowrance 5in combo unit. I'm going to mount a lowrance hds4 I'd bought for a yak on the console as well so I can run permanent sounder and gps. I'm just wondering if I mount a second transducer am I going to get interference between the two?

[re-tyred]

If the sounders are the same frequency they will interfere with each other.
Chirp will out perform most 600w sounders. However if you are expecting bottom out over the shelf you are going to need some serious money and large transducers.

[re-tyred]

A normal pulsing type sounder transmits for 0.1milliseconds to maybe 1 milliseconds in deep water. So if it is 600w for example, 0.1ms pulses repeated 50 times a second equals 3watts of average output.
Chirp works quite differently as it transmits constantly, it doesn't pulse. It works by shifting frequency and measuring the time taken for each frequency to return. Chirp sounder outputs are in the 0.5-3watt range. They out perform conventional pulsing sounder because it is much easier to filter out interference. Less interference means larger gain is able to be achieved in the receiver.

[frozenpod]

Yep I get that and Chirp looks to be the way of the future but the increased power output and greater sensitivity of the receiver with higher power transducers still have there merits.

Ducky, IMO and I have seen a few different through hull installations I wouldn't go through hull.
Installation can be costly and difficult (depends on your boat configuration). Most boats you will have to lift the floor to install the transducer in seal buoyancy chambers. (There is also the potential risk of water ingress)
If installed correctly the performance gain of through hull compared with a correctly installed transom mount is small.
Based on results I have seen so far through hull was incorrectly located and lost bottom and performed poorly. Even when the job was done by the experts.

Most people that went through hull have done so because they previously had an incorrectly installed transom mount and they would have been better off relocating the transom mount which is a lot easier and cheaper.

[ducky]

Cheers fp. I was under the impression you could sound a lot more accurately at high speeds with a through hull transducer? As no bubbles form on the unit like a transom mounted transducer.

In my particular scenario my floor will be coming up anyway (down the track) as I'm putting in an underfloor fuel tank as well as a kill tank. I'll do a bit more study as this work isn't happening this year.

[frozenpod]

In theory yes but there are practical limitations which are a problem on smaller boats and bubbles still effect the operation of a through hull transducer.

Vibration from the motor transmitted through the hull effects the through hull transducers. Due to vibration the through hull has to be mounted a long way forward which puts the through hull on most trailer boats in disturbed water. Transom mounts due to the bracket and water acting as a dampener do not suffer the same problem.

At reasonable speed in a bit of chop through hull will often read garbage or loose bottom where as a correctly installed transom mount will continue to work correctly.

The best transducer mounting option is in hull wet faced that has a hole in the hull cut out with a new mounting frame built around the transducer.

The transducer is mounted in the hull and the face is covered with a thin layer that provides a perfect continuation of the hull. This is commonly used in charter boats with 2kw plus transducers.

Basically provides all the benefits of a wet box in hull setup without the loss of signal as the transducer has 1-2mm of material between the transducer face and the water compared with 20-25mm of fiberglass. The only person I know who went this way parted with 5k just for the transducer and installation. Awesome but big $$$$.

[KenR]

I am in the process of looking for a new gps/sounder combo. I had sort of narrowed it down to a Simrad NSS8; but ChocolateMooses suggestions have muddied the waters a bit. I have no fittings for a sender unit on the underfloor fuel tank; so feel that the easiest way to moniter fuel use was have a fuel line sensor. With the NMEA2000 I could also plug other sensors on line as needed.

Ken