Notices
Marine Electronics Forum

Chirp vs traditional

Old 09-28-2014, 03:27 PM
  #1  
Admirals Club Admiral's Club Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 354
Received 94 Likes on 49 Posts
Default Chirp vs traditional

Lots of threads about the advantages of chirp. Fishing in areas where discriminating fish suspended above indiscriminate bottom chirp systems seem to work well. But where I fish in the gulf I don't need to I'd fish I need to I'd bottom structure. The chirp systems all seem to be less capable of identifying bottom structure than traditional sonar. Furuno products in particular return a far better picture of the bottom than anything else on the market, IMHO. To a man, every gulf commercial or charter capt I know have used and dismissed the chirp systems in favor of their traditional furunos. The fact is, if we can find the bottom structure the fis will be there. I don't need to see the fish. Most of the screen shots of chirp returns I see posted only concentrate on suspended fish which in some cases is important but in mine not so much. Sooooo..... The question is, who has used a bottom machine as I do and found chirp to be superior to the traditional sonar I am used to?
Old 09-28-2014, 03:56 PM
  #2  
Admirals Club Admiral's Club Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Va beach area
Posts: 3,962
Likes: 0
Received 502 Likes on 266 Posts
Default

This is what I'm interested in as well
Old 09-28-2014, 04:21 PM
  #3  
Admirals Club Admiral's Club Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 93
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Subscribed
Old 09-28-2014, 04:24 PM
  #4  
Admirals Club Admiral's Club Member
THT sponsor
Marine Advertiser
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 23,916
Likes: 0
Received 1,696 Likes on 929 Posts
Default

Good bottom detail is generally considered directly related to cone angle of the transducer more than any other parameter..
A narrow cone angle is far better than a wide cone angle of equal element transducers when looking for bottom detail.....regardless of the sonar processing..CHIRP vs traditional etc.

A Furuno FCV 587 and a B260 will have a cone angle of 6 degree at 200 kHz .
A Furuno DFF1-UHD and a CHIRP B175C-LHW will have a cone angle of 25 degree....130 to 210 kHz.
The bottom detail will be superior with the 6 degree B260 due to the narrow cone.

If the CHIRP CM111C-LH is used for example...then you have 8 to 4 degrees of cone angle...excellent bottom detail..due to the narrower cone.

Many variables for bottom detail ...but starting with the proper cone angle is important...regardless of the processing technology.

Last edited by semperfifishing; 09-29-2014 at 06:54 AM.
Old 09-28-2014, 05:17 PM
  #5  
Admirals Club Admiral's Club Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: sebastian, floriduh
Posts: 2,160
Received 111 Likes on 52 Posts
Default

so what would you recommend to produce similar performance in reference to painting bottom of a furuno 585 / m260 combo in a chirp system?

1040xs / 840xs and a b75h / b175h?


Originally Posted by semperfifishing View Post
Good bottom detail is generally considered directly related to cone angle of the transducer more than any other parameter..

A narrow cone angle is far better than a wide cone angle of equal element transducers when looking for bottom detail.....regardless of the sonar processing..CHIRP vs traditional etc.

A Furuno FCV 587 and a B260 will have a cone angle of 6 degree at 200 kHz .
A Furuno DFF1-UHD and a CHIRP B175C-LHW will have a cone angle of 25 degree....130 to 210 kHz.
The bottom detail will be superior with the 6 degree B260 due to the narrow cone.

If the CHIRP CM111C-LH is used for example...then you have 8 to 4 degrees of cone angle...excellent bottom detail..due to the narrower cone.

Many variables for bottom detail ...but starting with the proper cone angle is important...regardless of the processing technology.
Old 09-28-2014, 05:46 PM
  #6  
Admirals Club Admiral's Club Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 354
Received 94 Likes on 49 Posts
Default

Sempervivum, u will need to offer some screen shots to make me believe what you say but I admit what you say makes sense. My commercial friends have had very little success with chirp and bottom I'd. Different cone angle makes sense and I may be dumb but your detailed knowledge is tough to understand absent a bit more explanation.
Old 09-28-2014, 06:15 PM
  #7  
Admirals Club Admiral's Club Member
THT sponsor
Marine Advertiser
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 23,916
Likes: 0
Received 1,696 Likes on 929 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by toolate390 View Post
so what would you recommend to produce similar performance in reference to painting bottom of a furuno 585 / m260 combo in a chirp system?

1040xs / 840xs and a b75h / b175h?

A B175 H has a cone of 10 to 6 degrees.

And for water under 300' I think the GCV 10 or a Simrad evo2 structure scan etc..would be a good option for bottom detail also as that is what it is designed for.



GCV 10

Last edited by semperfifishing; 09-28-2014 at 06:45 PM.
Old 09-28-2014, 06:20 PM
  #8  
Admirals Club Admiral's Club Member
THT sponsor
Marine Advertiser
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 23,916
Likes: 0
Received 1,696 Likes on 929 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by crossbones1 View Post
Sempervivum, u will need to offer some screen shots to make me believe what you say but I admit what you say makes sense. My commercial friends have had very little success with chirp and bottom I'd. Different cone angle makes sense and I may be dumb but your detailed knowledge is tough to understand absent a bit more explanation.
Even with traditional sonar....one never uses a wide cone..lets say..20 degrees if good bottom detail is required.
And the frequency range is important also....higher frequencies give greater detail than the lower frequencies..

Here is an excellent explanation from Raymarine:

"The signal is strongest along the centerline of the cone and gradually diminishes as you move away from the center. Wider angles offer a larger view of the bottom, yet sacrifice resolution, since it spreads out the transmitter's power. The narrower cone concentrates the transmitter's power into a smaller viewable area. Cone angles are wider at low frequencies and narrower at high frequencies.

To sum up, a wide cone angle can detect fish around the boat and not just those directly under it while exhibiting less target separation. A narrow cone concentrates the sound output enabling it to better detect small details, such as fish or bottom structure, but only scans a small amount of water at a time."

http://www.raymarine.com/view/?id=197
Old 09-28-2014, 06:42 PM
  #9  
Admirals Club Admiral's Club Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Va beach area
Posts: 3,962
Likes: 0
Received 502 Likes on 266 Posts
Default

So how would the b265 do at reading the bottom?
Old 09-28-2014, 06:47 PM
  #10  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: New Port richey
Posts: 1,708
Likes: 0
Received 149 Likes on 92 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by crossbones1 View Post
Lots of threads about the advantages of chirp. Fishing in areas where discriminating fish suspended above indiscriminate bottom chirp systems seem to work well. But where I fish in the gulf I don't need to I'd fish I need to I'd bottom structure. The chirp systems all seem to be less capable of identifying bottom structure than traditional sonar. Furuno products in particular return a far better picture of the bottom than anything else on the market, IMHO. To a man, every gulf commercial or charter capt I know have used and dismissed the chirp systems in favor of their traditional furunos. The fact is, if we can find the bottom structure the fis will be there. I don't need to see the fish. Most of the screen shots of chirp returns I see posted only concentrate on suspended fish which in some cases is important but in mine not so much. Sooooo..... The question is, who has used a bottom machine as I do and found chirp to be superior to the traditional sonar I am used to?
X2, I own chirp. And I'm probly going back to furuno for exactly the reasons in your post. $4000 lesson learned. John
Old 09-28-2014, 06:57 PM
  #11  
Admirals Club Admiral's Club Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Va beach area
Posts: 3,962
Likes: 0
Received 502 Likes on 266 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by tint dude View Post
X2, I own chirp. And I'm probly going back to furuno for exactly the reasons in your post. $4000 lesson learned. John
This is the mistake I do not wanna make! What transducer do you have? Is the bottom detail really that bad? Does it show wrecks down 600ft? What's your main complaint?
Old 09-28-2014, 07:52 PM
  #12  
Admirals Club Admiral's Club Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: sebastian, floriduh
Posts: 2,160
Received 111 Likes on 52 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by coastalfiberglass View Post
This is the mistake I do not wanna make!
man you aint lying.... ive read quite a few complaints about the chirp units not painting the bottom like people were expecting. then you see a guy like gil who really knows his shit and he is quite fond of the new chirp units. i just cant figure it out.

at first i thought it was just a matter of people using a wide cone angle transducer and that was causing it but now ive talked to a couple guys who are using a narrow cone angle transducer and they think the old units that they used to use paint the bottom better than the new chirp units they have now.

im at the point where i think im gonna just stick with what i know for the new boat and get a 587 with a b260 and stop worrying about it. i dont wanna wind up with a buncha money in a new chirp system and wish i had my old furuno system back....
Old 09-28-2014, 08:43 PM
  #13  
Admirals Club Admiral's Club Member
THT sponsor
Marine Advertiser
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 23,916
Likes: 0
Received 1,696 Likes on 929 Posts
Default

No one system or technology is good for every fishing condition .
What works for fishing cheesy bottom for grouper may not even come close to working for single tuna off Cape Cod.
Or fishing Salmon in the Puget Sound could require a completely different system than one requires for tile fish in the Gulf of Mexico.

Todays systems ..both CHIRP and traditional.. have excellent features that if properly understood and utilized can benefit the fisherman.
The key is to fully understand the equipment parameters and and make certain they apply to ones fishing situations.
And regardless of traditional or CHIRP technology......proper transducer selection is a key element.
Cone angle, number of elements , Q factor and proper mounting are the basics that require consideration for some of the more challenging sonar needs.


.

Last edited by semperfifishing; 09-29-2014 at 10:14 AM.
Old 09-28-2014, 11:39 PM
  #14  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Norway
Posts: 16,471
Likes: 0
Received 1,134 Likes on 924 Posts
Default

As Gil has explained, the most important factor for detection of bottom structure is transducer cone angle. This is why the scanning sounders has extremely narrow inline angles of the transducer beam.

CHIRP is not worse than fixed frequency when it comes to bottom structure, it's the transducer cone angle at the frequencies the transducer is operated which is deciding the frequency. And a CHIRP sounder is not a sounder which only can output swept CHIRP signals. They are also capable of single frequencies over the entire frequency band of the transducer. All transducers (except B175H-W) will change the cone angle with frequency, a higher frequency will give a narrower cone. So with a CHIRP system you have the benefit of max resolution and least noise in CHIRP mode, while fixed frequencies can be used to tailor the cone angle for different applications. For structure try the highest supported frequency, 210kHz, which is giving the narrowest cone for shallow water or detecting targets close to the surface try the lowest supported frequencies (25, 42, 85, 95 or 130 kHz depending on transducer model)
Old 09-29-2014, 05:06 AM
  #15  
Admirals Club Admiral's Club Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: RI
Posts: 1,550
Received 82 Likes on 58 Posts
Default

great original question. I'm trying to understand this as well.
Old 09-29-2014, 06:08 AM
  #16  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 5,216
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

I am thinking the commercial fisherman didn't have a good crash course on how to use their new sonar. It is also difficult to see benefits when you have someone with years experience on a given system that works well. I don't know that I would change out a good Furuno sonar for a CHIRP sonar, but if starting from scratch I would go with a CHIRP sonar. The reasons I would go with CHIRP are because the transducers are just night and day better than the old transducers. Much more sensitive and higher quality. You can also switch between CHIRP and fixed frequency whenever you want, and dial in the frequency as well. If the commercial guys didn't like how the CHIRP painted the bottom, they should have been able to switch to fixed frequency and gotten similar images to what they are used to.
Old 09-29-2014, 08:42 AM
  #17  
Admirals Club Admiral's Club Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Broussard, LA
Posts: 1,414
Received 83 Likes on 66 Posts
Default

This is a great thread. I am going to update my electronics next year and was wondering the same thing. I am much more interested in painting the bottom in up to 2000ft and don't know which way to go....
Old 09-29-2014, 10:22 AM
  #18  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Norway
Posts: 16,471
Likes: 0
Received 1,134 Likes on 924 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by CME View Post
I no longer sell chirp WITHOUT a traditional sounder/transducer for the reason above. The Raymarine units offer both simultaneous use without degregation. It becomes very clear that it's the pair of different systems makes the best overall system. IMHO.

Hype will get you down a rabbit hole. I love the pics some post here, but real world is different.

Chirp can take a ton of effort to get ideal results. If a guy isn't a button-pusher, I won't suggest Chirp only systems to him.
Is this something new, I thought selling CHIRP sounders with traditional high-Q transducers had been your main business for quite some time

No reason to have a fixed frequency sounder in addition to proper CHIRP. The low Q-factor Airmar transducer are much better than their non-CHIRP counterparts. And my experience is that the CHIRP sounders I've used all are excellent in fixed frequency as well (I have experience with single and dual channel CHIRP from both Simrad and Garmin, I have not used CP450i and DFF1-UHD)

BTW, how do we produce the screen shots posted in this thread if not by capturing the real world

Simrad and Garmin single channel CHIRP unuts works well in full auto modus at least with the most common CHIRP transducers. Some more fine tuning of the algorithms are needed before all CHIRP transducers can be said to work as expected under all conditions, but the amount of tuning needed is still quite limited.
Old 09-29-2014, 12:17 PM
  #19  
CME
Admirals Club Admiral's Club Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 3,874
Received 214 Likes on 117 Posts
Default

I think many of the pictures here give some people a false sense of reality. The reality is, Chirp is not always that easy. On some boats, it's just plain tough!

Second, based on the private pm's I get when I dissagree with some specific posts about the potential complexity of real work performance of Chirp, I will keep offering my opinion.

I do install, I do sell, but I am first and foremost a consumer advocate for my customers.

I don't sell on the Internet for a living.
Old 09-29-2014, 12:39 PM
  #20  
Admirals Club Admiral's Club Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Florida
Posts: 519
Received 3 Likes on 2 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by abbor View Post
As Gil has explained, the most important factor for detection of bottom structure is transducer cone angle. This is why the scanning sounders has extremely narrow inline angles of the transducer beam.

CHIRP is not worse than fixed frequency when it comes to bottom structure, it's the transducer cone angle at the frequencies the transducer is operated which is deciding the frequency. And a CHIRP sounder is not a sounder which only can output swept CHIRP signals. They are also capable of single frequencies over the entire frequency band of the transducer. All transducers (except B175H-W) will change the cone angle with frequency, a higher frequency will give a narrower cone. So with a CHIRP system you have the benefit of max resolution and least noise in CHIRP mode, while fixed frequencies can be used to tailor the cone angle for different applications. For structure try the highest supported frequency, 210kHz, which is giving the narrowest cone for shallow water or detecting targets close to the surface try the lowest supported frequencies (25, 42, 85, 95 or 130 kHz depending on transducer model)
That's what I was thinking. You have chirp and traditional choices with a chirp transducer.

Good thread.

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information -

Copyright © 2021 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.