GT56UHD observation on frequency selection

[mtatua]

Using with a 93sv UHD.

Been out over last few weeks numerous times. Lakes here in Omaha area are shallow (under 30), turbid, heavy silt bottom, and wind seemingly always 15-30 mph.

I've been somewhat unimpressed with 1070 mhz sidevu in said conditions. Kind of grainy, darker returns past 30 feet. Hard bottom shows good. Not terrible, not great. I know screen resolution has something to do with it.

Anyway, switched over to 455 mhz today and it produced a much better image overall for me. Just overall pretty significantly better. I have spent a lot of time trying to force 1070 (countless setting combinations) and should have been using 455 this whole time.

I'm now of mindset to not pay much attention to the number, just use the frequency that gives best image for that day where you are at.

Anyone else use 455 or 800 as much or more than 1070 or 1200?

[Starkfishes]

I use 455 about 95% of the time. I really find myself only ever using 800 or higher when I want more clarity on something I can't quite make out with the 455. In those situations, like you describe, I usually need to be within 30' of the target.

[Centurion]

Thanks for posting. Changing to 455 Saturday. Give it a look.

[mtatua]

Thanks for posting. Changing to 455 Saturday. Give it a look.

I'll be very interested in your thoughts and lake conditions.

[Dens228]

This has me planning on making the change to 455 tomorrow and see the results.

[TOUCH OF CLASS]

Uhd is great in shallow water with a flatter bottom other than that 455 is what I use

[Centurion]

mtatua. I ran 455 on my side view all weekend. Shallow lake 30 feet at the deepest. The 455 did give me better pictures on my Garmin 126sv. Made brush piles look like brush out 30 to 75 feet. With 1070 I just saw dark areas. Thanks for the heads up.

[pdxfisher]

I wonder if it has something to do with water clarity. I have only had my gt56 for 2 weeks but I am running it at 1070kHz. I have been happy with the picture pretty much at every depth. When the range is at 200' (depth about 70') it is definitely getting dark at the edges but I am not as interested in those depths right now. I can see the bottom in about 10' of water where I have tried it.

[mtatua]

I've been out again since I started this and I can tell the 1070 has potential to be sharper image, in the right conditions. But in this lake again (< 30 FOW, turbid, no visibility, high winds) the 455 had a brighter image, but not quite as crisp, but MUCH better range, which for that day made it better. Everything pretty much everyone has ever said about 455 vs 800/mega.

I will be back out tomorrow and later this week, gonna try 800 some and see if I can't split the difference.

I did post this in another thread, but if you're trying to use 1070 in 50+ FOW, you may be asking more than it can deliver.

From the installation instructions: Notice it's rated to only 50 FOW, 200 feet to each side.

GT56.JPG

[mtatua]

Thought I'd follow up....went to different lake today, deeper, much cleaner/clearer. 1070 mhz was spectacular, very pleased. So my takeaway is to start with 1070, but don't hesitate to drop down if you're not getting a good picture based on lake conditions.

Probably something that everyone already knew.

[pfisher]

Thought I'd follow up....went to different lake today, deeper, much cleaner/clearer. 1070 mhz was spectacular, very pleased. So my takeaway is to start with 1070, but don't hesitate to drop down if you're not getting a good picture based on lake conditions.

Probably something that everyone already knew.

Actually this is a great thread. Even with the range of HB's mega there are still conditions where 455 works better for me. "Latest" doesn't always mean "best" I don't care what the technology is.