LVS62

[LWINCHESTER2]

The LVS62 is a real performer. I really can't predict what kind of market success it will have due to the pricing and how good the LVS34 is. Sure it has greater range and depth but with that is a corresponding loss of detail. The larger returns are nice and sure make it easy to locate fish with only a glance at the screen. Occasionally, I have found myself misinterpreting large bait as fish I might catch. The 34 shows the difference well.

The included picture is of a 18 inch bass at 80 ft. I humanely dispatched it by spearing its brain and positioned it on a line by running the line through small skin splits bottom and top. The line extended below it with additional weight to sink it since the air bladder was still intact. I did an AC video and cut and pasted the returns of the fish onto the image you see.

[Royt]

Great image. Very good comparison. I would "assume" that your bait would show up larger on the 62 as well. Any issues with ghost tree/ weak areas on the 62 as compared to the 34. Seems like this issue greatly improved with the 34.
Thanks!

[DR. DROP]

That is a big difference. I guess the 62 has more power-wattage in the transducer beam?
How does the physical size of the 62 compare to the 34?

[puhlw]

How does this lvs62 compare to the old ps31? Seems like it has similar specs? For open water the ps31 seems like it would be the ticket.

[Royt]

Would love to see a similar comparison in about 30 fow with the same 2 transducers. Thank you for your work on this. I know it takes allot of time.

[LWINCHESTER2]

Great image. Very good comparison. I would "assume" that your bait would show up larger on the 62 as well. Any issues with ghost tree/ weak areas on the 62 as compared to the 34. Seems like this issue greatly improved with the 34.
Thanks!

Yes. Baits are much easier to see. There are areas/zones where the returns are stronger and weaker. It doesn't seem to affect fish returns much but it does affect small lure returns. I think the ghost tree is here to stay.....depending on the settings. You can tune it out but not without sacrifices.

That is a big difference. I guess the 62 has more power-wattage in the transducer beam?
How does the physical size of the 62 compare to the 34?

The 62 is about twice the size of the 34. We could call it the big dog. It runs on lower frequencies. That give it the better range. About half the frequency of the 34 so about twice the range.

How does this lvs62 compare to the old ps31? Seems like it has similar specs? For open water the ps31 seems like it would be the ticket.

I don't have a 31 any more so I can't compare them directly. Based on memory, they are in the same ball park but the 62 is more detailed. On one test of the PS31 the maximum distance I could see a 17-18 inch walleye 70 ft deep was 160 ft. Of course conditions, temp, settings all figure in to that. The detail is better on the 62 than what I remember of the 31. Also I have see walleye 200 ft away 80-100 ft deep with the 62.

As much as I like the extra range and larger returns I can't see doing without the 34 for this fall's walleye fishing. For me, because of the detail, it's not a replacement for the 34.

[Royt]

Thanks Leonard.
$1,200 price difference between the 34 and 62 is significant but I sure like the larger returns.

[LWINCHESTER2]

The following screenshot illustrates one of my concerns relating to strong and weak areas/zones. It's not reasonable to think that the school of bait got thinner exactly along those straight lines. Perhaps that relates to the "stitching" some refer to, IDK. Pretty sure it is unrelated to the ghosting. I'm not sure I can document with precision where the weak areas are. Something else I have done exploring this is to point directly at a concrete bridge pier. That usually gives a solid vertical return top to bottom. Then slowly start turning the transducer away. Some portions of the pier get weak or disappear before others. I'm not sure what to make of that.

[BigBry]

Thanks for sharing. Hard to distinguish from a PS31. The only drawback is the massive size of the 31.

[LWINCHESTER2]

Yes there are similarities but LVS62 definitely better. Better detail and that allows a closer to the bottom look but certainly not as good as the LVS34. I have both the 62 and 34 hooked up right now and I find myself using the 34 most. I mistaken spits of deep bait as catchable fish on the 62 but the 34 identifies them as bait.

[Mcjenson]

What a great idea to suspend a keeper sized bass to check it out / test on the livescope.

It is interesting seeing the increased range of the 62. I wonder if some guys will run that as their forward sonar, and then have a 34 at a more downward angle. Could be a best of both worlds.

[LWINCHESTER2]

The one thing I have requested over and over from Garmin and not gotten is a user settable horizontal depth line on LiveScope. For my fishing, right now the walleye I have caught have been right at 70 ft. I may be in water any where from 70 to 150 ft deep, sometimes more. Most of the bass are cruising at 30-40 but regularly drop to 50-60. I try to ignore them. A line across the screen at 60 ft would make less work for my eyes when I see fish at the far right side of the screen. I'd like to instantly know their depth without having to trace a visual line back to the left side of the screen to see if the fish I see are 50. 60. 70 or 80 ft deep.

I'm sure the 62 will be used by people who fish even deeper than I do. It seems to me that something like this would be really handy for them too.

[DR. DROP]

That is a excellent idea. I would like it and I am usually fishing in less than 30.
I had it set on my lowrance always.

[SamMule]

Have you noticed any interference when running LVS62 and PS30 together? Looking at their overlapping frequencies, it seems like that may be an issue.

[LWINCHESTER2]

At times, I do run them together and I do get interference. To get the best use of the LVS62 careful attention needs to be paid to all the frequencies in use.

[SamMule]

I suppose it's easy enough to turn off one or the other. Do you find the 62 has better target separation? Specifically, when fish are close to the bottom?

[LWINCHESTER2]

No. It's worse. The increased range and depth using lower frequencies are amazing but target separation doesn't compete with the LVS34. I can use the 62 and the 34 but for my fishing I can't see doing without the 34, especially from now until the end of January when I'll looking to find fish 70-120 ft deep holding real close to the bottom.

[SamMule]

Sorry, I meant when compared to the PS30.

[LWINCHESTER2]

Great question but I don't have the answer. When I go out tomorrow I'll pay more attention and see if I can offer anything. It seems to me, theoretically, when the PS30 is set to 10 degrees front to back, that it should be better. That's where I usually have it set. But I'm ordinarily not looking at the same targets with it since it's on the transom looking side to side and the 62 is on the TM looking forward. You've aroused my curosity. Check back tomorrow night. It might be late before I post.

[LWINCHESTER2]

Here you go. Sorry that I didn't get to this last night.

Target was a W9 Rapala Jigging Rap.
Depth was about 50 ft.
The lure is bigger on the PS30. The front to back angle was set at 10 degrees.
On this trip, what I saw was that I could pick up the W9 on PS30 after lifting it about 6 inches.
On the LVS62, it was apx 4.5 inches. This was not measured but was visually subjective.
I dropped the lure to bottom, reeled up the slack with rod tip touching the water.
Then lifted until I could see the lure. I then guessed at how much line I could see.
I repeated this several times with consistent results.
The position of the lure in the attachment is not where I did the visual measuring.

This is as aspect of LiveScope I have never understood. I see lures and fish closer to the bottom on it than I can on 2d that has a tighter cone. The LVS32/34 is stated as 20 degree. My old Vexilar is spec'd at 10 degrees but performance is more like 7-8 with the settings I use. The LVS32/34 sees closer to the bottom than the Vexilar. The difference is small but measurable. Both companies spec their transducers at -3db.