HDS Live and Airmar transducers

[fisheye216]

I have a 5 year old TM150 connected to a HDS Live with latest software. Images do not seem to be as good as they use to be, and the sonar screen often freezes, necessitating a reboot. Thinking about upgrading the TM150, but concerned about the possibility of the screen freezing even with a newer unit. I primarily fish 20-60 ft maximum depths, and am interested in the best target separation. Any recommendations for a different model Airmar, and do the newer ones have the same problem with the Live units? Thanks .

[Team Colibri]

Best is TM185HW, next is TM165HW and third is what you have.

[fisheye216]

Best is TM185HW, next is TM165HW and third is what you have.

TC

Have you heard of any screen freezing problems with the 185 and 165 using the HDS Live? All of the above ducers have a wide cone angle. When you're marking waypoints or recording sonar logs to create a C-Map social map, will the information be less accurate than, say a 200 hz ducer with a narrow cone angle? Thanks.

[Team Colibri]

I don’t know of any issues.
Yes, the wider coneangle has a negative effect on how accurate depth is registered. HST-DFSBL, P66 and even better TM260 are the best transducers for such use. Those are again less ideal for pelagic targets and shallow water fishing. :) The difference in coneangle between 150/185/165 is however quite small.

[glennie]

There’s a known issue with the TM150M freezing at around 10 to 10.5 feet. Switching to manual mode is a workaround. Also, make sure your noise rejection is off. Networking with the 3-in-1 as the other ducer can result in a bunch of incompatible frequencies being given as choices for the TM150M. A soft reset is often needed.

As for the TM165HW, I’ve had my eye on one for a while. I’ve yet to see screenshots that convince me it’s better in shallow water than the TM150M at 105 kHz though. If more info becomes available on preferred single frequencies with the TM165HW, then I’ll consider it some more. CHIRP in shallow isn’t beneficial IMO.

[fisheye216]

I don’t know of any issues.
Yes, the wider coneangle has a negative effect on how accurate depth is registered. HST-DFSBL, P66 and even better TM260 are the best transducers for such use. Those are again less ideal for pelagic targets and shallow water fishing. :) The difference in coneangle between 150/185/165 is however quite small.

TC

Do you know how the displayed depth is actually calculated? Is it an average of the depths within the cone angle or is it determined by where the signal is the
strongest or some combination of these? Thanks.

[Team Colibri]

Basis for digital depth is the shallowes point within the coneangle which the sonar sees as bottom (and that is based on the hardnessin the echo).