Go Back  The Hull Truth - Boating and Fishing Forum > BOATING FORUMS > Marine Electronics Forum
Reload this Page >

Please Help My Best Friend Select a Transducer for the Florida Middle Grounds

Notices
Like Tree5Likes

Please Help My Best Friend Select a Transducer for the Florida Middle Grounds

Reply

Old 05-16-2018, 11:21 AM
  #1  
Admirals Club Admiral's Club Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Winterville, NC
Posts: 259
Default Please Help My Best Friend Select a Transducer for the Florida Middle Grounds

Hello,

I am posting this thread on behalf of my best friend who lives in Tampa, Florida. Can you please help him select a transducer? He has a 296 Cobia with twin Garmin 7612xsv. Here is what my friend has to say:

I have the Garmin B164 1 KW Traditional Broadband Transducer. It operates singularly at either 50 KHz or 200 KHz. I fish the Florida Gulf Coast and get to the Middle grounds & Elbow when conditions allow. In other words I operate in depths ranging from 80 to 250 feet deep. I primarily bottom fish.

I also have a shallow water 3-in-one GT50M. It has CHIRP but only at 300Watts. It is really pretty useless in 60 or more feet. The side view is awesome in 30 feet or less. The chirp gets weak past 50 feet and useless in 100. The Chirp on this rectangular transducer is mid-band at 80-160 KHZ.

I want to up my CHIRP game and my question is, what 1 KW transducer do I get? I don't think the B175L that operates between 40-60Khz is what I need. The thing is probably for sword fishermen. Considering how I fish and the fact that I have B164 Traditional, should I get a B175M that operates between 85-135kHZ or the B175H that operates between 130-210kHZ? I understand that CHIRP continually pings throughout its kHz frequency range. If I was using my B164 at 200kHZ, would that interfere with the functioning of a B175H? Or do I have all I need with the B164?

I thank you in advance for your helping my best friend!
[email protected] likes this.
drum is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 05-16-2018, 01:27 PM
  #2  
Admirals Club Admiral's Club Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Apollo beach
Posts: 398
Default

I live in Tampa and will be adding B175HW after some research. Was going to go with H but others convince me, including a friend in Ft Myers, similar t Tampa.

I have 7610xsv and GT51
mp5475 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 05-16-2018, 01:47 PM
  #3  
Admirals Club Admiral's Club Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Winterville, NC
Posts: 259
Default

Originally Posted by mp5475 View Post
I live in Tampa and will be adding B175HW after some research. Was going to go with H but others convince me, including a friend in Ft Myers, similar t Tampa.

I have 7610xsv and GT51

Thanks for your help. What are the pros for selecting the B175HW?
[email protected] likes this.
drum is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 05-16-2018, 04:15 PM
  #4  
Admirals Club Admiral's Club Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Apollo beach
Posts: 398
Default

Originally Posted by drum View Post



Thanks for your help. What are the pros for selecting the B175HW?

It suppose to have wide cone angle and increased sensitivity but due to the wide cone angle, bottom detail is not as clear. But at our depth, dont think it will make too much difference
[email protected] likes this.
mp5475 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 05-16-2018, 04:18 PM
  #5  
Admirals Club Admiral's Club Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Winterville, NC
Posts: 259
Default

Originally Posted by mp5475 View Post



It suppose to have wide cone angle and increased sensitivity but due to the wide cone angle, bottom detail is not as clear. But at our depth, dont think it will make too much difference
Thank you, mp5475!
drum is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 05-16-2018, 04:26 PM
  #6  
Admirals Club Admiral's Club Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Stuart, FL
Posts: 1,749
Default

If he does mostly trolling, the 175HW will mark more fish in the water column. If he likes to bottom fish, it would be better to replace the 164 with the 175H for better differentiation of fish and bottom structure in 700' or less. The M or L bands shine in > 700'.
AlreadyThere is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 05-16-2018, 04:52 PM
  #7  
Admirals Club Admiral's Club Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Apollo beach
Posts: 398
Default

Originally Posted by AlreadyThere View Post
If he does mostly trolling, the 175HW will mark more fish in the water column. If he likes to bottom fish, it would be better to replace the 164 with the 175H for better differentiation of fish and bottom structure in 700' or less. The M or L bands shine in > 700'.

Exact reason why I was going to buy H instead of HW. But off tampa, most of the bottom is hard bottom and three to 5 foot ledge. It’s really hard to find a two foot ledge in 100 feet of water at any speed other than few knots. I also have GT51 for structure.

At cruise speed its easier to mark fish than find a small ledge. Also the pics of H vs HW that I have seen, H is definitely better at bottom detail but HW was much better at marking fish, on the same bottom.
mp5475 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 05-16-2018, 05:02 PM
  #8  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 103
Default

Originally Posted by drum View Post
I also have a shallow water 3-in-one GT50M. It has CHIRP but only at 300Watts. It is really pretty useless in 60 or more feet. The side view is awesome in 30 feet or less. The chirp gets weak past 50 feet and useless in 100
I respectfully disagree regarding the GT50. I use it effectively well past 100 ft. Attached is a screenshot showing a Rapala Jigging Rap W5 5/16 oz lure at 200 ft on my 7610xsv.
LWinchester is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 05-16-2018, 06:11 PM
  #9  
Admirals Club Admiral's Club Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Stuart, FL
Posts: 1,749
Default

Originally Posted by mp5475 View Post



Exact reason why I was going to buy H instead of HW. But off tampa, most of the bottom is hard bottom and three to 5 foot ledge. It’s really hard to find a two foot ledge in 100 feet of water at any speed other than few knots. I also have GT51 for structure.

At cruise speed its easier to mark fish than find a small ledge. Also the pics of H vs HW that I have seen, H is definitely better at bottom detail but HW was much better at marking fish, on the same bottom.


Both H and HW will show you a 2' ledge, the HW image will just look more gradual.

See this to compare the different coverages: http://www.airmar.com/uploads/brochures/tilted-element-chirp.pdf

At 300' the HW is averaging 134' of bottom. Therefore, when you start to see that 2' ledge it's probably 67' in front of your ducer. If you drop your bottom bait there you'll probably catch less fish. The H averages 58' so the actual ledge is about 28' somewhere in front of your ducer. In short, the H allows you to better pinpoint what's under your boat. FWIW, I went with a 175HW, 175L and 51M. The 51M or 50M is a good compromise b/n the H and HW for bottom accuracy and I do more pelagic fishing.
AlreadyThere is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 05-16-2018, 06:14 PM
  #10  
Junior Member
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Pasco County, FL
Posts: 6
Default

Already There, is there any harm if $$ and hull space is not the issue in having both a B175M or H and the B164? Also, in what scenario's would the fixed frequency B164 out perform the CHIRP B175's?
Ken.Caryer@gmail.com is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old 05-16-2018, 06:30 PM
  #11  
Admirals Club Admiral's Club Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Winterville, NC
Posts: 259
Default

Originally Posted by [email protected] View Post
Already There, is there any harm if $$ and hull space is not the issue in having both a B175M or H and the B164? Also, in what scenario's would the fixed frequency B164 out perform the CHIRP B175's?
Ken is my friend and thanks for helping him select the best transducer for his needs! Good luck, Ken!
[email protected] likes this.
drum is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 05-16-2018, 06:31 PM
  #12  
Admirals Club Admiral's Club Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Stuart, FL
Posts: 1,749
Default

Originally Posted by [email protected] View Post
Already There, is there any harm if $$ and hull space is not the issue in having both a B175M or H and the B164? Also, in what scenario's would the fixed frequency B164 out perform the CHIRP B175's?
Hmm, I'm a practical guy so give this answer some leeway. The 164 is a great ducer. You're likely not going to see any more fish with the 175H than with the 164H/L. BUT, with the CHIRP you can better distinguish b/n number and size of fish. Let's put it this way, I'm a diver and know what fish are where on a wreck for example. With non chirp I'd see red blobs and guess what fish they were. With chirp I can confidently say, that's a cuda or kingfish, that's bait or smaller fish, and that's a jewfish! Chirp differentiates b/n inches, traditional differentiates in the feet. The 175H beam is narrower than the 164H so it will better pinpoint bottom structure as discussed above. The 164L (50) opens up deeper stuff. There are mixed reviews about interference with the 175H and 200 frequency ducers. Mostly I read it's not a problem. There definitely wouldn't be a problem w/ the 175M as it's a different frequency.
[email protected] likes this.
AlreadyThere is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 05-16-2018, 06:51 PM
  #13  
Junior Member
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Pasco County, FL
Posts: 6
Question

Originally Posted by AlreadyThere View Post
Hmm, I'm a practical guy so give this answer some leeway. The 164 is a great ducer. You're likely not going to see any more fish with the 175H than with the 164H/L. BUT, with the CHIRP you can better distinguish b/n number and size of fish. Let's put it this way, I'm a diver and know what fish are where on a wreck for example. With non chirp I'd see red blobs and guess what fish they were. With chirp I can confidently say, that's a cuda or kingfish, that's bait or smaller fish, and that's a jewfish! Chirp differentiates b/n inches, traditional differentiates in the feet. The 175H beam is narrower than the 164H so it will better pinpoint bottom structure as discussed above. The 164L (50) opens up deeper stuff. There are mixed reviews about interference with the 175H and 200 frequency ducers. Mostly I read it's not a problem. There definitely wouldn't be a problem w/ the 175M as it's a different frequency.

So help me here, the potential interference problem is when a transducer pings off a different frequency than another nearby transducer. My B164 will typically be kept at 200 kHZ. The B175M works between 85-135 kHz. So if I added a B175M and used it at the same time as the B164 on my Cobia 296, I could experience interference problems?
Ken.Caryer@gmail.com is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old 05-16-2018, 06:53 PM
  #14  
Junior Member
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Pasco County, FL
Posts: 6
Default

I wish I could get my GT50M to perform like that. At 120 feet, the CHIRP on my GT50M only showed bottom, while my B164 showed everything.
Ken.Caryer@gmail.com is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old 05-16-2018, 06:56 PM
  #15  
Admirals Club Admiral's Club Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Stuart, FL
Posts: 1,749
Default

Upon further thought, here's what you should do, IMO. Run the 164 (50/200) to one of your 12 (or 8?) pin outlets. Run the GT50 off the other 12 pin outlet. Run a 175 HW off an 8 pin outlet. You can select the 164 (200 KHz) if you're interested in pinpoint accuracy for bottom fishing. Select the 164 (50 KHz) if you're deep dropping >1000'. Select the 175HW if you're trolling to see as many fish in the water column or you can use it in conjunction with the 164 (200) to differentiate better b/n different fish while you're bottom fishing. All bases covered ! The GT50 will still be painting the bottom and bait fish to the sides w/n 150 +/- ft.
AlreadyThere is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 05-16-2018, 07:02 PM
  #16  
Admirals Club Admiral's Club Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Stuart, FL
Posts: 1,749
Default

Originally Posted by [email protected] View Post
I wish I could get my GT50M to perform like that. At 120 feet, the CHIRP on my GT50M only showed bottom, while my B164 showed everything.
Were you running it in side scan? Side scan on my unit mostly shows structure, not fish (other than clouds of baitfish to the sides of my boat). The traditional M frequency of the unit is decent with fish but the 175 HW kills it there.
AlreadyThere is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 05-16-2018, 07:06 PM
  #17  
Admirals Club Admiral's Club Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Stuart, FL
Posts: 1,749
Default

Originally Posted by [email protected] View Post
So help me here, the potential interference problem is when a transducer pings off a different frequency than another nearby transducer. My B164 will typically be kept at 200 kHZ. The B175M works between 85-135 kHz. So if I added a B175M and used it at the same time as the B164 on my Cobia 296, I could experience interference problems?
Yes you could see interference b/n the GT50M and a 175M but most people say they don't. You won't see interference b/n a 175M and B164.
AlreadyThere is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 05-17-2018, 03:01 AM
  #18  
Junior Member
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Pasco County, FL
Posts: 6
Default

Originally Posted by AlreadyThere View Post
Were you running it in side scan? Side scan on my unit mostly shows structure, not fish (other than clouds of baitfish to the sides of my boat). The traditional M frequency of the unit is decent with fish but the 175 HW kills it there.

No sir. I give up the side scan after ~45 feet. 300W's is not that much power. I really like the side scan on the artificial reefs in 35 feet. It is pretty awesome there. So, I do not run it on side SCAN deeper than ~45 feet. But I do try to use it's CHIRP function, and the 300W power CHIRPer on the GT50M is disappointing. It just does not have the power. Right now, the GT50M is the only CHIRP I have on my Cobia 296. So on my middle grounds runs, the B164 is carrying the ducer work load.

Question: Can the B175HW contribute to bottom fishing....or only make the scope more confusing?
Ken.Caryer@gmail.com is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old 05-17-2018, 06:18 AM
  #19  
Admirals Club Admiral's Club Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Stuart, FL
Posts: 1,749
Default

Originally Posted by [email protected] View Post
No sir. I give up the side scan after ~45 feet. 300W's is not that much power. I really like the side scan on the artificial reefs in 35 feet. It is pretty awesome there. So, I do not run it on side SCAN deeper than ~45 feet. But I do try to use it's CHIRP function, and the 300W power CHIRPer on the GT50M is disappointing. It just does not have the power. Right now, the GT50M is the only CHIRP I have on my Cobia 296. So on my middle grounds runs, the B164 is carrying the ducer work load.

Question: Can the B175HW contribute to bottom fishing....or only make the scope more confusing?
That's really not what it's designed for. It will show individual fish better than the 164 even at the bottom, but with its wide beam you don't know if those fish are under your boat or 70' from it in any direction (depending on depth).
AlreadyThere is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 05-19-2018, 06:34 PM
  #20  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 299
Default

I have the B175 HW. It shows good detail at least to 200'. It has a 25 degree cone angle, so +/- 12.5 degrees. The standard High, without the wide, might work excellently for your purpose.

Go the the Airmar website and check the cone angle on the standard high, and compare that to the other options.
c1steve is offline  
Reply With Quote

Thread Tools
Search this Thread
 
  • Ask a Question
    Get answers from community experts
Question Title:
Description:
Your question will be posted in: