Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 39

Thread: Airmar TM165HW feedback wanted.

  1. #16

    Re: Airmar TM165HW feedback wanted.

    Quote Originally Posted by 552Evo View Post
    Thanks Ed good to have some feedback like that.
    How does the screen/signal go at speed ? What I mean is do you get a good image at speed ?
    I guess one of the main reasons for me thinking of a transducer upgrade is to improve the image at various speeds.
    At 25-29 knots (46-53km/hour) I get a very broken bottom on the screen, slower than that it is quite good, also depends on how choppy it is, it could also be that my transducer may need adjustment, I originally just put it on and never really played around with the depth and angle to see it it could be improved.

  2. #17
    Ausfish Gold Member 552Evo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2016
    Location
    Melbourne
    Thread Starter

    Re: Airmar TM165HW feedback wanted.

    Quote Originally Posted by EdBerg View Post
    At 25-29 knots (46-53km/hour) I get a very broken bottom on the screen, slower than that it is quite good, also depends on how choppy it is, it could also be that my transducer may need adjustment, I originally just put it on and never really played around with the depth and angle to see it it could be improved.
    Thanks Ed, food for thought,,,
    I guess if I’m spending the cash I want the best bang for the buck,,,
    I’ll see how my budget turns out.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  3. #18

    Re: Airmar TM165HW feedback wanted.

    Hey Jamie,
    Hope you get it sorted and get improved results....
    I won't be long away from having to get mine organised, so I need you to get it sorted, kinda like the guinea pig .
    I actually scored a new in the box Evo 3 a while back, but got an offer I couldn't refuse, so I'm back to square 1....

    Col

  4. #19

    Re: Airmar TM165HW feedback wanted.

    Jamie

    There are 4 different models of transducers mentioned on your posts.

    1 HSTWSBL (that you currently have) is designed to work on 83khz and 200 khz only;

    2. SS175HW which is designed to operate at 200kh only;

    3.TM165HW which is designed to operate at 200khz only; and

    4. TM150M which is designed to operate at 125khz only.

    Mate I'm having a bit of trouble understanding what you are trying to do. My apologies.

    Does not your Simrad operate at other frequencies?

    regards

  5. #20
    Ausfish Gold Member 552Evo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2016
    Location
    Melbourne
    Thread Starter

    Re: Airmar TM165HW feedback wanted.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ronje1 View Post
    Jamie

    There are 4 different models of transducers mentioned on your posts.

    1 HSTWSBL (that you currently have) is designed to work on 83khz and 200 khz only;

    2. SS175HW which is designed to operate at 200kh only;

    3.TM165HW which is designed to operate at 200khz only; and

    4. TM150M which is designed to operate at 125khz only.

    Mate I'm having a bit of trouble understanding what you are trying to do. My apologies.

    Does not your Simrad operate at other frequencies?

    regards
    Ron it seems we have different information regarding what you mentioned 1 to 4 above.
    1 - Yes I 100% agree, I mentioned I have switched between 83 and 200Khz and observed the results. The Simrad (NSS Evo2) sounder does definitely have chirp capabilities but this tranny doesn't.

    2 - SS175HW Airmar website - chirp ready 150-250Khz
    http://www.airmar.com/productdescription.html?id=194

    3 -.TM165HW is also chirp ready and also works 150-250Khz. http://www.airmar.com/productdescription.html?id=220

    4 - TM150M, that one is not on my wish list.

    What I'm trying to do is blow $800-$1800 and get a more consistent bottom reading trolling speed and up to mid speed searching the bottom (while also getting better target separation (fish in the water column).

    Hopefully I get to stare momentarily at a pretty picture of fish arches just before reeling them in.

    So (in my OP) I was after feedback about the TM165HW before committing to the SS175HW for an extra $1000.

    Jamie.


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

  6. #21

    Re: Airmar TM165HW feedback wanted.

    fyi. there is always the TM185HW.. a transom mount 175 with high frequency wide beam
    Moose

    Marine outfitting solutions
    www.moosemarine.com.au

  7. #22

    Re: Airmar TM165HW feedback wanted.

    First up - operation at speed predominantly comes down to installation. Those little skimmer transducers are traditionally one of the easiest transom mounts to get to work at speed. Changing transducers will not necessarily achieve a better result in this regard unless there is a change in the installation that allows it. There is also no guarantee - even with through hulls that they will run noise free. about the safest way is to find someone with the same hull that is getting good results and copy their install - making sure that there are no differences as far as skin fittings are concerned. Even then, something as subtle as running at a different trim can produce variation in the outcome. A mate across the road is running a 175HW. Unfortunately it's location is partially behind a strake. By trimming a bit more than usual though when high speed trolling he can get acceptable results as it's changing the water flow.

    High wide transducers..........you Mexican's love them - and for shallow bay work or chasing pelagic fish they are great. They produce fantastic images for the scrap book BUT they have a bit of an issue when targeting bottom fish in deeper water that gets even worse when there is any sort of structure involved. It's known as target masking. Transducer coverage charts are a bit misleading in this regard - they all show essentially a cone - which is certainly the area that a signal will be propagated into and return from. What they don't show you though is that it is physically impossible for the sounder to actually show you everything in the cone as some of the returns are further away from the transducer than the shallowest bottom echo in the cone - they are masked by the bottom echo in the representation on the screen. By the time you get the outer edge of a 25 degree cone, a fish has to be 2.4 metres off the bottom at least to be visible ASSUMING you are on a perfectly flat bottom. If you happen to be running a drop off or in an area with a large pinnacle, the situation is worse. Why is this a problem with "wide" angle transducers - because by the time you get to 100 metres they are covering a pretty large chunk of bottom so by the time you get far enough away from the structure that the targets aren't masked, in a lot of bottom fishing scenarios, you are far enough off the fish that they won't come to the bait. I have experienced this personally in depths of only 30 metres when comparing results between the older Lowrance 20 degree and 8 degree transducers. The 8 degree made getting right on small structure a lot easier. With the 20 a lot of the time I would be off to one side just far enough and would only be catching vermin.

  8. #23

    Re: Airmar TM165HW feedback wanted.

    Jamie
    Are you running a S5100 sounder module?

    If so, it explains what's going on. I couldn't understand why you seemed to only have a couple of low frequencies.

    Are you only using 1 transducer?

    Those transducers are broadband (Chirp) alright. I was talking CHIRP channels which operate across a sweep of frequencies centred on a middle freq. So the TM165HW operates on freqs 150 - 250 khz and centred on 200khz. Ditto for the SS175HW.

    From the freqs being so low, what you've got sounds more like an installation for deep water (like those on US coast).

    Shallower waters are more suited to 455khz and up with 200 khz as a deeper water backup.

    regards
    Ron












    The TM150M was mentioned in one of those posts.

  9. #24
    Ausfish Gold Member 552Evo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2016
    Location
    Melbourne
    Thread Starter

    Re: Airmar TM165HW feedback wanted.

    Quote Originally Posted by chocolatemoose View Post
    fyi. there is always the TM185HW.. a transom mount 175 with high frequency wide beam
    Moose
    Moose - options options
    So the internals of the TM185HW are the same as the SS175HW ?
    Would I be close to the mark if I suggested a thru hull tranny mounted appropriately would be less prone to turbulence at various speeds compared to a transom mount ?
    Eg I've found with the transom mount I'm using now, it works ok at rest, it shows the bottom at mid speed if the boat is trimmed out. Anything else is marginal at best. I'm thinking the turbulence is the factor with the transom mount.
    So would a thru hull give better results at all speeds ?

    Just a bit on from what Ronje1 alluded to re target separation in an earlier post - so a more powerful transducer (1 or more Kw) not only helps in deeper water but also with target separation in general. Have I got that right Ronje1 ?

    Thanks all for the discussion and help.
    Jamie



    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

  10. #25

    Re: Airmar TM165HW feedback wanted.

    The sounder pulse doesn't originate from the transducer. It comes from the head/module and the transducer merely passes the pulse into the water.

    A 1kw transducer simply means that it will take a 1 kw pulse from the head/module without damage. It won't "boost" a pulse in power.

    The target separation/range resolution from CHIRP is determined by the number of freqs swept. Nothing to do with the transducer as long as the transducer is Chirp- wide band - low Q)

  11. #26
    Ausfish Gold Member 552Evo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2016
    Location
    Melbourne
    Thread Starter

    Re: Airmar TM165HW feedback wanted.

    Quote Originally Posted by scottar View Post
    First up - operation at speed predominantly comes down to installation. Those little skimmer transducers are traditionally one of the easiest transom mounts to get to work at speed. Changing transducers will not necessarily achieve a better result in this regard unless there is a change in the installation that allows it. There is also no guarantee - even with through hulls that they will run noise free. about the safest way is to find someone with the same hull that is getting good results and copy their install - making sure that there are no differences as far as skin fittings are concerned. Even then, something as subtle as running at a different trim can produce variation in the outcome. A mate across the road is running a 175HW. Unfortunately it's location is partially behind a strake. By trimming a bit more than usual though when high speed trolling he can get acceptable results as it's changing the water flow.

    High wide transducers..........you Mexican's love them - and for shallow bay work or chasing pelagic fish they are great. They produce fantastic images for the scrap book BUT they have a bit of an issue when targeting bottom fish in deeper water that gets even worse when there is any sort of structure involved. It's known as target masking. Transducer coverage charts are a bit misleading in this regard - they all show essentially a cone - which is certainly the area that a signal will be propagated into and return from. What they don't show you though is that it is physically impossible for the sounder to actually show you everything in the cone as some of the returns are further away from the transducer than the shallowest bottom echo in the cone - they are masked by the bottom echo in the representation on the screen. By the time you get the outer edge of a 25 degree cone, a fish has to be 2.4 metres off the bottom at least to be visible ASSUMING you are on a perfectly flat bottom. If you happen to be running a drop off or in an area with a large pinnacle, the situation is worse. Why is this a problem with "wide" angle transducers - because by the time you get to 100 metres they are covering a pretty large chunk of bottom so by the time you get far enough away from the structure that the targets aren't masked, in a lot of bottom fishing scenarios, you are far enough off the fish that they won't come to the bait. I have experienced this personally in depths of only 30 metres when comparing results between the older Lowrance 20 degree and 8 degree transducers. The 8 degree made getting right on small structure a lot easier. With the 20 a lot of the time I would be off to one side just far enough and would only be catching vermin.
    Thanks Scottar, I'm all ears, or eyes and keen for this info.
    Ha ha yes us dirty disease spreading Mexicans,,,, hmmmmm.
    So I can't find a "theoretical" cone diagram right now the net is woefully slow tonight,

    Given I spent my fishing time about 80% in the bay up to 25m
    and 20% off the coast at up to 50-60m at the most, is a "wide" angle as you explained too big of an area to get good results in say 40m ? Target masking,,
    I suppose when I really want to utilise the sounder is that 20% of the time in 20-60m of water off the coast - looking for reef. The only time I've ever gone deeper close to 60m is to look/prospect for tuna. 3-4 times honestly.
    The other 80% in the bay is soaking baits or actually sighting the shallows for weed and sand chasing squid and KG whiting. So in the bay for the most part, there's not much to see on the bottom.

    Interesting your advice about the mounting and adjustment of the skimmer tranny's. Glad for all the info here. My decision has swung again. I'm in no rush anyway I've got weeks of fun and joy being locked up.



    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

  12. #27
    Ausfish Gold Member 552Evo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2016
    Location
    Melbourne
    Thread Starter

    Re: Airmar TM165HW feedback wanted.

    Quote Originally Posted by blacklab View Post
    Hey Jamie,
    Hope you get it sorted and get improved results....
    I won't be long away from having to get mine organised, so I need you to get it sorted, kinda like the guinea pig .
    I actually scored a new in the box Evo 3 a while back, but got an offer I couldn't refuse, so I'm back to square 1....

    Col
    No worries Col. happy to be the guinea pig ha ha.

    Nice score
    I will stick with the “old” Evo2 unless I happen to find a spare 4+G to upgrade.

    Jamie


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  13. #28

    Re: Airmar TM165HW feedback wanted.

    Quote Originally Posted by 552Evo View Post
    Thanks Scottar, I'm all ears, or eyes and keen for this info.
    Ha ha yes us dirty disease spreading Mexicans,,,, hmmmmm.
    So I can't find a "theoretical" cone diagram right now the net is woefully slow tonight,

    Given I spent my fishing time about 80% in the bay up to 25m
    and 20% off the coast at up to 50-60m at the most, is a "wide" angle as you explained too big of an area to get good results in say 40m ? Target masking,,
    I suppose when I really want to utilise the sounder is that 20% of the time in 20-60m of water off the coast - looking for reef. The only time I've ever gone deeper close to 60m is to look/prospect for tuna. 3-4 times honestly.
    The other 80% in the bay is soaking baits or actually sighting the shallows for weed and sand chasing squid and KG whiting. So in the bay for the most part, there's not much to see on the bottom.

    Interesting your advice about the mounting and adjustment of the skimmer tranny's. Glad for all the info here. My decision has swung again. I'm in no rush anyway I've got weeks of fun and joy being locked up.



    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
    The wide cone angle at 60 metres will make a pinnacle a much more rounded return due to the time it spends in the cone angle. Whether it's an issue or not will depend on the physical areas of reef and the species you are targeting and their tendency to move to a bait or stay tight on the structure.

  14. #29
    Ausfish Gold Member 552Evo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2016
    Location
    Melbourne
    Thread Starter

    Re: Airmar TM165HW feedback wanted.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ronje1 View Post
    Jamie
    Are you running a S5100 sounder module?

    If so, it explains what's going on. I couldn't understand why you seemed to only have a couple of low frequencies.

    Are you only using 1 transducer?

    Those transducers are broadband (Chirp) alright. I was talking CHIRP channels which operate across a sweep of frequencies centred on a middle freq. So the TM165HW operates on freqs 150 - 250 khz and centred on 200khz. Ditto for the SS175HW.

    From the freqs being so low, what you've got sounds more like an installation for deep water (like those on US coast).

    Shallower waters are more suited to 455khz and up with 200 khz as a deeper water backup.

    regards
    Ron












    The TM150M was mentioned in one of those posts.
    Hi Ron, no I haven't got the S5100 module, I gather the 2 frequencies I can run are limited by the HSTWBL. I don't believe it's capable of chirp.
    I do have a structure scan transducer, which I guess if I went with a smaller cone angle transducer for reduced target masking as Scottar advised would still give me the ability to check out what's happening off to the sides - on the bottom.

    I think the TM150M was mentioned as a comparison to the TM165HW,
    I won't negate any options for now I'm just trying to pick the most suitable to my budget and my fishing style.
    When there's too many options I think that's why some may just follow the crowd because it's beyond understanding when it gets down to the tech nitty gritty.
    I'm not there yet,


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

  15. #30

    Re: Airmar TM165HW feedback wanted.

    Given your majority of shallow usage, the wide angle is probably going to be ok. There is always the option of replacing your HSWSBL with something like a p66 down the track at a cost that won't break the piggy bank should the performance in deep water not be to your liking.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Join us