The Hull Truth - Boating and Fishing Forum

Go Back   >
Search


Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 01-11-2017, 10:03 AM   #1
Senior MemberCaptains Club Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Narragansett,RI
Posts: 983
Default Furuno TZ2 Touch and Airmar M-260 Transducer

Is this a rezboost compatible transducer? If not, can you still connect it without the benefit of rezboost? Thanks.
ifish42na is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-11-2017, 10:21 AM   #2
Senior MemberCaptains Club Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: hernando beach fl.
Posts: 542
Default

That's what i had connected to it, work's great but no rezboost.
bobm03 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-11-2017, 11:05 AM   #3
Admirals Club
THT sponsor
iTrader: (2)
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 5,445
Trader Rating: 2 (100%+)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ifish42na View Post
Is this a rezboost compatible transducer? If not, can you still connect it without the benefit of rezboost? Thanks.
It isn't a Rezboost ducer.
Yes you can use it without Rezboost.
InternationalMarineBrian is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 01-11-2017, 11:38 AM   #4
Senior Member (used to be B-Faithful)Captains Club MemberPLEDGER
THT sponsor
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: iFishMD.com
Posts: 15,685
Default

I would think that if resolution is that important that you would want to go with a true through hull or transom mount transducer.

Here are furuno's thoughts on a shoot through hull: https://www.furunousa.com/Learning%2...erGuide-LR.pdf
Quote:
These benefits do not come without a price, and that price is performance. The signal will experience
loss when shooting through the hull material. This means that the performance of your fish
finder will suffer. Most modern in-hull transducers are designed to compensate for this loss.

Last edited by iFishMD; 01-11-2017 at 12:33 PM.
iFishMD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-11-2017, 11:12 PM   #5
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Posts: 251
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by iFishMD View Post
I would think that if resolution is that important that you would want to go with a true through hull or transom mount transducer.
This is good advice!

Also, if resolution is very important, the next step up will be to get a DFF1-UHD module and CHIRP through-hull or transom mount transducer.

Here is some info from Furuno on CHIRP: http://www.furunousa.com/Company/CHIRP-Marlin.aspx

Quote:
The DFF1-UHD TruEcho CHIRP Fish Finder, coming this Spring, transmits and receives pulses across a range of 90 frequencies (50kHz +/- 20kHz, 200kHz +/- 25kHz) within each transmission. The equivalent sound energy transmitted into the water can be up to 1,000 times greater than a conventional Fish Finder, resulting in more energy on target, which provides greater resolution and depth capability than a comparably powered standard Fish Finder.
Please note - this is older material from the Furuno website and the DFF1-UHD is already available.
OZFish is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-12-2017, 09:50 AM   #6
Senior MemberCaptains Club Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Edgewater, Maryland
Posts: 605
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by iFishMD View Post
I would think that if resolution is that important that you would want to go with a true through hull or transom mount transducer.

Here are furuno's thoughts on a shoot through hull: https://www.furunousa.com/Learning%2...erGuide-LR.pdf
I have this transducer (shoot through) for my nav net vx2 machine. I asked the Furuno USA rep in MD about the compatibility to the newer TZT2 machine and if I would see a marked improvement in Sonar performance. His answer was maybe. He said they did testing and that the shoot through transducer can lose up to 30% of its power exiting the hull and the same when coming back through the hull to the in hull ducer. There are hulls/installations that are better than others for the shoot through ducer. He indicated I would be better off with a 600w through hull titled element ducer if I wanted to see better separation of bait and prey as well as bottom discrimination. If and when I replace my Nav Net vx2 system with a TZT2, I would definitely heed his advice and get a new transducer. I am holding off for a couple reasons...one of which is the delamination issue discussed in another thread.
old hat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-12-2017, 09:56 AM   #7
Admirals Club
THT sponsor
iTrader: (2)
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 5,445
Trader Rating: 2 (100%+)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by old hat View Post
I have this transducer (shoot through) for my nav net vx2 machine. I asked the Furuno USA rep in MD about the compatibility to the newer TZT2 machine and if I would see a marked improvement in Sonar performance. His answer was maybe. He said they did testing and that the shoot through transducer can lose up to 30% of its power exiting the hull and the same when coming back through the hull to the in hull ducer. There are hulls/installations that are better than others for the shoot through ducer. He indicated I would be better off with a 600w through hull titled element ducer if I wanted to see better separation of bait and prey as well as bottom discrimination. If and when I replace my Nav Net vx2 system with a TZT2, I would definitely heed his advice and get a new transducer. I am holding off for a couple reasons...one of which is the delamination issue discussed in another thread.
Thank you for sharing your experience and the explanation from Furuno.
InternationalMarineBrian is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 01-12-2017, 10:26 AM   #8
Senior MemberCaptains Club Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Sandy Hook / Toms River
Posts: 1,620
Default

I currently have this transducer along with a TZT2 and am very happy with it. It reads from 2ft to as deep as I have had it (about 250') at all hull speeds to WOT and I feel I see clearly what is under the boat. I have always heard about shoot thru hull transducers losing performance but so far this has not been my experience. In my particular boat, this transducer was recommended by a trusted friend in the marine electronics world and it does seem to be a good fit. I will say that I installed the unit and the installation was planned and tested very carefully by me and it was very time consuming. I think more time consuming than a standard thru-hull install.
Scott D is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-12-2017, 03:03 PM   #9
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Posts: 251
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Scott D View Post
I feel I see clearly what is under the boat. I have always heard about shoot thru hull transducers losing performance but so far this has not been my experience.
Although it might suit your purpose, performance would be improved with the same transducer type that has a face in direct contact with the water. Try to think of it like placing a piece of fibreglass against your ear - you would still hear things, carry out conversations, etc. but you will miss the quieter sounds, and never hear as clearly as with it removed. Bear in mind the acoustic signal of the transducer takes 2 hits each ping though - 1 during transmit and 1 during receive.

It works fine and is 'good enough' in a lot of cases but you 100% for certain lose performance shooting through the hull.
OZFish is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-13-2017, 04:55 AM   #10
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 1,892
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by OZFish View Post
This is good advice!

Also, if resolution is very important, the next step up will be to get a DFF1-UHD module and CHIRP through-hull or transom mount transducer.

Here is some info from Furuno on CHIRP: http://www.furunousa.com/Company/CHIRP-Marlin.aspx



Please note - this is older material from the Furuno website and the DFF1-UHD is already available.
Without getting into the whole CHIRP debate enough real world screen shots with Rezboost have been posted to show that CHIRP isn't necessarily better resolution unless you are fishing deep waters.
davepjr71 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-13-2017, 01:53 PM   #11
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Norway
Posts: 11,739
Default

I have yet to see such screen shots posted.
abbor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-13-2017, 05:23 PM   #12
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 1,892
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by abbor View Post
I have yet to see such screen shots posted.
Oh please. IFishMD has posted shots many times. Once you own a Furuno TZT2 you can comment. However you work for Simrad so I doubt you would.
davepjr71 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-13-2017, 05:45 PM   #13
Senior MemberCaptains Club Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Narragansett,RI
Posts: 983
Default

What does this say about the M-260? It's not an inexpensive transducer. Is using a shoot thru transducer a inherently compromise in performance? I see a lot of boats equipped with them. Mine is currently hooked up to a Furuno 585 and produces great images? I was thinking about connecting it directly to the TZ2 and getting rid of the 585. I'll have the opportunity to compare both set ups and see which is better next season. Thanks for the responses. Geoffrey
ifish42na is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-13-2017, 05:53 PM   #14
Admirals Club
THT sponsor
Marine Advertiser
iTrader: (2)
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 19,207
Trader Rating: 2 (100%+)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ifish42na View Post
What does this say about the M-260? It's not an inexpensive transducer. Is using a shoot thru transducer a inherently compromise in performance? I see a lot of boats equipped with them. Mine is currently hooked up to a Furuno 585 and produces great images? I was thinking about connecting it directly to the TZ2 and getting rid of the 585. I'll have the opportunity to compare both set ups and see which is better next season. Thanks for the responses. Geoffrey
No compromise exactly..

Firing thru a fiberglass hull will attenuate the signal somewhat depending on the thickness and quality of the hull material etc.
So..in a nutshell ..you simply lose a bit of overall depth capability due to the attenuation.

But targets detection is still very good at the working depths.

And going to the TZT with your M260 I think will be a postive.


.

Last edited by semperfifishing; 01-13-2017 at 08:19 PM.
semperfifishing is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-14-2017, 02:05 AM   #15
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Posts: 251
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by semperfifishing View Post
No compromise exactly..

Firing thru a fiberglass hull will attenuate the signal somewhat depending on the thickness and quality of the hull material etc.
So..in a nutshell ..you simply lose a bit of overall depth capability due to the attenuation.
Don't forget the frequency is shifted and the Q value is raised so it's more than just depth range that is affected.

They still work very well but still there are performance losses.
OZFish is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-14-2017, 04:43 AM   #16
Senior MemberCaptains Club Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Sandy Hook / Toms River
Posts: 1,620
Default M260

Having used thru hull transducers (not shoot thru) on 2 different boats prior (one was a 260 ducer) with a Furuno 585 on both boats and comparing it to my current shoot thru 260 setup with the TZT2, I see no difference. As said I've only used it up to 250'. Performance may be degraded but it's not effecting my application. I'm looking for structure, bait and fish.

No argument but that's my real world experience.
Scott D is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-14-2017, 05:46 AM   #17
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Posts: 251
Default

For what it's worth, I'm interested in putting an in-hull in my boat. I'm waiting to see how the new Airmar M422C shape up. I don't want to seem like I'm trying to turn people off of that transducer style. The important thing is people that are looking for best performance understand there are some small trade-offs in that regard with shooting through the hull.
OZFish is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-14-2017, 07:47 AM   #18
Senior MemberCaptains Club Member
iTrader: (1)
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Falmouth, MA
Posts: 4,420
Trader Rating: 1 (100%+)
Default

airmar has done the testing and the reduction in range for a m260 is typically ~5% compared to a b260.

and the idea that 'rezboost' has been proven to be a replacement for chirp is absurd.
chainsaw42 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-14-2017, 08:02 AM   #19
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Norway
Posts: 11,739
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by davepjr71 View Post
Oh please. IFishMD has posted shots many times. Once you own a Furuno TZT2 you can comment. However you work for Simrad so I doubt you would.
He has never posted anything which is similar to CHIRP with a low Q-factor transducer in performance. Due to the high Q-factor of the transducer he is using it's far behind a CHIRP sounder with a low Q-factor transducer independently of the TZT2 performance.

I'm not working in the marine electronics industry and if I should buy something else than Simrad or Lowrance it would be Garmin xsv due to the integrated high performance CHIRP sounder.
abbor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-15-2017, 05:39 PM   #20
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 76
Default

The debate of inhull transducers have been going for over 40 years if not longer. The issues that come with Inhulls can be over come by simply making the transducer larger. Larger transducers equal more $$$ money.
Then the issue of a narrower beam from a larger transducer will come into play. The never ending debate of transducers. Simply put, can't please everyone
Tasc1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:51 AM.


©2009 TheHullTruth.com

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.9.3.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.