HST-WSBL , HDI 83/200&455/800 and Airmar TM 160 =Chirp

[Shooter 1]

I’m currently using the supplied HST-WSBL with my Carbon & SS 3D.
Before I got the Carbon my old units did not support Chirp. But since having and trying it I really like using it. Way better than regular sonar for sure.

Im wanting to improve it if possible and wondering what kind if any real improvement the HDI or TM 150 will give me.
Most of my fishing is in 30 ft or less depth.

The Tm 150 is medium chirp but can run different frequencies. I think the HDI is medium and high. Not sure.
Seeing as though the 150 is medium will it out preform the HDI on high?

Currently running a 9” on the console but seriously thinking about adding another 9””. One for the chirp and map the other Sidescan and DownScan

Advice and suggestions more than welcome.

Thanks

[wetaline2]

Any follow up advice, I'm currently in the same situation. I have a standard 83/200 installed, but have a spare HDI 83/200/455/800 lying around, but requires rewiring my boat to swap it in. Will the HDI give better cleaner images and target separation. I generally fish in 0-20' or less of water. Or would the Tm150 produce better results in really shallow say under 20 feet of water? I know the Tm150 is good once you go over 30' but what about really shallow. So 83/200 vs HDI vs Tm150 for shallow water? Some comparison pics would be good, I've read heaps of posts but seen no side by side pics.

[yupitsme]

The HDI is not a chirp transducer. What you get is a Lowrance software driven version of Chirp. What you get with the HDI chirp you can get with the HST - WSBL chirp. If you want a true chirp transducer and more importantly if you want the performance/capability of a chirp transducer you have to use a chirp transducer - TM-150 w/o question. The advantage of an HDI transducer is its down scan capability.

[wetaline2]

So are you saying Chirp is better in really shallow water under 20feet? I've read a few guys with the Tm150 say they just use 105hz in shallow water? Also do you think there's any difference between the standard 83/200 skimmer and the HDI in image quality? Some say it's the same element but think the HDI works better.

[Treeguyus]

yup sums it up perfectly.. Rule of thumb, wide cone angle more coverage less resolution, narrow cone angle better resolution. chirp affords better target separation which is a noticeable plus. The TM 150 is the best but honestly, the images with the 83-200 skimmer are very good too. Some of the HDI's will have narrow cone angles compared to the 83-200 skimmer.

This may help a lot of information on the Airmar site

http://www.airmar.com/uploads/brochu...ide%202009.pdf

Transducer Beam Width

A second important feature when selecting a depth finder transducer is the width of the beam (also known as cone angle) it was designed to emit. Transducers with a wide beam width of up to 50° will "see" around their location at a wide section of the bottom. As the amount of area is increased, the bottom resolution is decreased, so a wide beam is fine for searching for fish in the water column but not detecting bottom details like breaks, shallow holes or small contours.A narrow beam of 10-15°, on the other hand, concentrates its energy on a section right below the boat. When looking for individual fish or bottom structure in shallow water (say under 100-200'), a narrow-beamed transducer should be the first choice. Note that there is a certain amount of correlation between a transducer's frequency and its beam width. As a general rule, lower frequency and a wider beam angle tend to go together while higher frequency and narrower beam width are usually companions. This makes sense, as the latter makes a great depth sounder while the former is an obvious choice as a fishfinder.
.
Also what gets forgotten is a dead band with a wide beam transducer. I recall my fishing buddy bragging that his unit showed more fish than the ones I was using. Digging deeper realized he was using a wider angled transducer so naturally, he had more coverage area thus more fish shown on the screen

[Team Colibri]

So are you saying Chirp is better in really shallow water under 20feet? I've read a few guys with the Tm150 say they just use 105hz in shallow water? Also do you think there's any difference between the standard 83/200 skimmer and the HDI in image quality? Some say it's the same element but think the HDI works better.

There is more to this than chirp/no-chirp.
TM150M has a better ceramic element then HST-WSBL, so it is better also in fixed frequenzy like 105kHz.
HDI uses a slightly better element then HST-WSBL, giving less sidelobes.

[wetaline2]

Thanks guys, don't think I'll spend the $ on the airmar at this stage, but sounds like it's worth pulling out the 83/200 and replacing with the HDI since it's just sitting around. A job for next weekend perhaps.

[drifter106]

Have a HDS gen2 non-touch (used for mapping) that is still hooked up to a 83/200 ducer. My 9 inch carbon is hooked up to a airmar tm150 and ss3d. The tm150 whether in shallow (less than 10ft) or deep water (more than 10ft) gives me better target seperation and more defined detail of fish and structure. The 83/200 was there so I plugged it in...will continue to utilize the airmar as it is a versatile tool for imaging.

Granted, my 83/200 has many hrs on it and a fish or piece of structure kinda looks like a blob. The age of the ducer could have an effect on my results.

Have a HDI ducer mounted on a "stick" at the bow on another carbon. Not impressed with it that much...especially seeing what the Livescope can do...lol

[Treeguyus]

Team can better answer this question. When does the wattage capabilities play into the equation? The TM 150 is a higher wattage than the 83-200, would it allow more from the mfd? Shooter has a carbon which I believe is around 3000 watts

Output Power

Output power is quoted in watts just as any transmitter or audio receiver. Here, however, the ratings have little meaning and more power is not always better. Too much power in shallow water is as ineffective as too little power in deep water. Generally speaking, units in the 100-200 watt range are sufficient for shallow water use and units up to 1,000 watts and more may be necessary to probe deep canyons and drop-offs. Using a transducer from a 100-watt unit on a 1,000-watt unit is also not a good idea as the excessive energy from the more powerful fishfinder will soon destroy the crystals within the small transducer.

[Treeguyus]

shooter another link I find helpful

www.airmartechnology.com/bottom-calculator.html

[Team Colibri]

Team can better answer this question. When does the wattage capabilities play into the equation? The TM 150 is a higher wattage than the 83-200, would it allow more from the mfd? Shooter has a carbon which I believe is around 3000 watts

Output Power

Output power is quoted in watts just as any transmitter or audio receiver. Here, however, the ratings have little meaning and more power is not always better. Too much power in shallow water is as ineffective as too little power in deep water. Generally speaking, units in the 100-200 watt range are sufficient for shallow water use and units up to 1,000 watts and more may be necessary to probe deep canyons and drop-offs. Using a transducer from a 100-watt unit on a 1,000-watt unit is also not a good idea as the excessive energy from the more powerful fishfinder will soon destroy the crystals within the small transducer.

This is a very good question, and I don`t have all the answers. Yes, in deeper water you need more power (measured in W), and yes aplying to much power in shallow water will give worse results then less power. But then it gets a bit complicated....

In theory, with fixed frequanzy the only way to transmit with more power is to increase how long the single pulse is, thus putting more power into each pulse. The problem with this, is that with fixed frequanzy pulselength is the opposite of resolution, so the more power you use the less resolution you get. In theory this is not a problem with chirp, beacuse with chirp the resolution is given by the bandwith (how far from lowest to highest frequenzy within the sweep).

Then real life hits us, and we get this also with chirp:

Left side is high power, right side is less power. With chirp and using a very good transducer (Airmar TM185HW). More on the subject in this thread: http://www.bbcboards.net/showthread.php?t=986396
Squirus has also posted a lot of info and examples over on THT over the years.

As for the last part in the quote, using a high power sonarunit in shallow water today is not a problem, neither is using a high power sonarunit with a "weak" transducer like HST-WSBL (or TM150M), as long as the transducer is recognized by the sonar. Modern sonar adapts its output to the transducer you are using, going from just a few watts up to whatever is the max. (For HDS that is pretty close to 1000W, if what I`m told is correct and it usually is).

Usually the high-power transducers are not just high-power. They are also more sensetive, since the larger ceramic element pics up on weaker echos then the smaller ceramic element in a weaker transducer. The quality of the element and how its dampened as well as the quality of the connections in the transducer also plays a role in the total.

Airmar TM150M is a 300w-transducer, and if I remember correctly HST-WSBL is more or less the same wattage (maybee 250). In this case "the rest" of the specs are better on TM150M though, leaving us with better images on our sonar.

[Team Colibri]

As for HDI.

Old screenshot (2014) from my HDS 5 using a 83/200/455/800-HDI for some vertical fishing in murky freshwater. Depth in meters so about 15 feet deep.


Black arrow is a small zander (looks like your walley) of 7-ish ounces/ 200g. Red is my jigg and green is the connector between my braid and the trace. The connector is only a few millimeters, but still it is shown well with very litle general noise. I still don`t get much better sonarimages in these depths today with my Live and TM185HW, the same but not much better. 5 years later and a few thousand USD poorer, and I like both my Live and my TM185HW. But I don`t catch more zander.

[yupitsme]

Transducer "Power" drives a lot of things - it looks like. Though the 185HW has over 3 times the power of the 150M the specifications indicate a max depth of 500' for the 185HW and 600' for the 150M. It takes power to create that constant 25 degree cone angle the 185HW is known for. It takes power to create the higher frequency. In any case... the "Chirp" function requires a bit of power as well. If you were to take the 1K power that the 185HW and apply it to a single frequency transducer you'd be capable of sounding depths>2-3000'. The lower frequency of the 150M is the one of the reasons "why" it will function at greater depths with less power than the 185HW. It helps to keep in mind the definition of "Frequency" in lay mans terms "how often" The lower the frequency the less it happens. "IT" being the signal. More signals are generated over a defined period of time with the higher frequency. Hence the ability to create target separation.

[Waxy]

In my experience, the 83/200 HDI skimmer is hands down better when it comes to clarity, target separation, and holding bottom than the HST-WSBL. I think it's the best 2D transducer that Lowrance makes. If you've got one, do yourself a favor and make the swap, you won't regret it.

The Airmar TM150 is another step above. It takes some fine tuning to get the frequency right and experimenting with CHIRP, but it's an excellent transducer, especially in deeper water, 20 ft+, it really shines. The more I use it and learn it, the more I like it.

I have both on my boat, and I'll generally have them both on my screen most times in a split screen, the HDI on 200 or high CHIRP, and the TM150 at 105 or Med Chirp.

Waxy