I have the in hull 2d already. Any reason to still get 3/1? Or save money and get 2/1? Any differences other than 2d? Running carbon 12s
I have the in hull 2d already. Any reason to still get 3/1? Or save money and get 2/1? Any differences other than 2d? Running carbon 12s
Save your money and take 2-1. Here are 2-1 screensOriginally Posted by Fboro
Agreed. Much easier in that you won't have to constantly select which 2D transducer to use. 2 in 1 is the way to go.
NoCAL
2004TR-21X/2015 250 ProXS
2B112175
Ok thanks. So the only difference in the two transducers is 2d capability? And you think I’ll see better DS images over the LSS2 that I have now? The images posted look good
Last edited by Fboro; 11-30-2020 at 05:40 PM.
Personally think the 3n1 has better 2d images. The answer to your question depends on the 2d transducer you have now. If its a shoot through I'd get the 3n1. I have no issue on my screen selection for either 2d transducer. I only use the shoot thru for on plane use and switch to 3n1 while fishing
I think the downscan is a notch behind the LSS2. There is no comparison as far as sidescan for seeing fish. 2n1 or 3n1 blows LSS2 away
Might be worth a read: https://teamcolibri.blogspot.com/201...-in-1.html?m=1
thats disappointing....
I will probably have folks tell me I’m nuts but I am going to a 3 in 1 and will be selling my 2 in 1 because I recently bought Airmar TM-165 and I want to have to ability to use the narrower cone angle of the 3in1 (same as your puck) for when I am bottom fishing or even in a scenario where I want to view both wide and narrow simultaneously. In my estimation where 2d between 3 in 1 and your puck transducer are stated to be the same performance I could only see an advantage for viewing both 83 khz and 200 khz simultaneously for different coverages.
Great article. Thanks
Good article. sounds like the 2-1 is the way to go if you already have a working 2D transducer in place in the hull.
I have a couple pics of 3n1 downscan that look great, and some not. I think its capable of better down
�� thank you
By no means nuts, by all means well informed on functionality and the effect different coneangles has on sonar. :)
I’ve been a sonar junkie for a while now, but reading some articles including yours TC have really convinced me to go with the different 2d ducers. Looking forward to getting it out and trying it.
TotalScan and 3 in 1 AI are using the 2D element from 83/200 HDI. This is slightly better than the one used in HST-WSBL (and the other 83/200 kHz only transducers), especially in CHIRP mode. A transducer with it's face in direct contact with water will always work better than the same transducer (or transducer with the same element) mounted inside a hull. The hull will attenuate the signal, but with the depths most user here are fishing at this is not important. But when mounted inside a hull the hull becomes part of the transducer, the Q-factor will be decreased and thus the CHIRP resolution and quality will be degraded.
Airmar has done several studies of the effects of mounting transducers with the same element in-hull and with the acoustic window in direct contact with water and when looking in detail at the test results we can see signal attenuation, shift of resonance frequency and increase of Q-factor.
screenshot_2016_09_21_01_35_55_zpsmaxynrus_8b7cd0bec8678151e4a27fdaa7cb2332b73d0fa5.png
I don't know...for me though the 3n1 works just fine for me. I have no issues with 2D, for long runs it's easy to switch to hull transducer for on lane readings.
Boatless
One other deciding factor would be if you fish bodies of water where FishReveal can be a benefit (fish in deep weeds, in rocks, etc), if that is the case the 3 in 1 will work better for that function as the sonar and downscan elements are in the same housing and will give better results.
thank you
Somehow I ended up with both the 2/1 and 3/1. I’m going to start with the 3/1 and see how it goes.
Reply With Quote
