B175 transducer
- Thread starter gerry
- Start date
200ft and under, that would be the B175HW. It would provide the largest bottom coverage area while also providing the highest frequency detail but still be able to reach bottom at those depths. The only real disadvantage would be if the bottom has lots of peaks and valleys because in that case the wide beam could be a bit of a disadvantage as it hits some of those and might hide some fish. If the area is mostly flat-ish the HW would be the way to go for sure. If the bottom has lots of structure then one might consider the H (for a more narrow beam). @Deep Blue am I correct in this thinking?
Sparky Wire and gerry,
The B175HW Chirp Transducer utilizes a constant fixed 25° beam width, using a high-frequency Chirp band of 150 to 250 kHz. This transducer has excellent shallow-water performance, and will provide you with good bottom detail, and very good fish-target separation. I often recommend using this transducer for both inshore and pelagic fishing. This transducer has a maximum depth range down to 500'.
I hope that you find this recommendation is helpful..?
- Deep Blue
The B175HW Chirp Transducer utilizes a constant fixed 25° beam width, using a high-frequency Chirp band of 150 to 250 kHz. This transducer has excellent shallow-water performance, and will provide you with good bottom detail, and very good fish-target separation. I often recommend using this transducer for both inshore and pelagic fishing. This transducer has a maximum depth range down to 500'.
I hope that you find this recommendation is helpful..?
- Deep Blue
Quitsa
Furuno Super Fan
I think it matters whether when you say under 200 feet, you mean usually in less than 100 feet or usually between 100 and 200. It also matters what species you are targeting.
Especially if you are typically over 100 feet, a B175H night be a better choice since the narrower beam will provide a lot more detail and target separation than a B175HW. If you will only have one transducer, the B175HW as noted will be more useful for midwater pelagic fish and shallow water bottom fishing than a B175H. I have a DFF-3D and a B175L so I really appreciate the greater detail of the B175H and can use the others for a wider view.
Especially if you are typically over 100 feet, a B175H night be a better choice since the narrower beam will provide a lot more detail and target separation than a B175HW. If you will only have one transducer, the B175HW as noted will be more useful for midwater pelagic fish and shallow water bottom fishing than a B175H. I have a DFF-3D and a B175L so I really appreciate the greater detail of the B175H and can use the others for a wider view.
kjohn911,
The DFF3D transmits at fixed frequency of 165kHz, and the B175H Chirp transducer sweeps its frequencies across 130 to 210 kHz. So, you going to experience interference if you are running both a DFF3D and CHIRP Fish finder (that is using a B175H transducer) at the same time.
My recommendation would be to Key Pulse both units as to coordinate those sounder transmissions and prevent both units from interfering with each other.
- Deep Blue
The DFF3D transmits at fixed frequency of 165kHz, and the B175H Chirp transducer sweeps its frequencies across 130 to 210 kHz. So, you going to experience interference if you are running both a DFF3D and CHIRP Fish finder (that is using a B175H transducer) at the same time.
My recommendation would be to Key Pulse both units as to coordinate those sounder transmissions and prevent both units from interfering with each other.
- Deep Blue
Deep Blue,
Do you think the SS264N 200kHz transducer would be a good alternative? Looking for the best possible tilted element bottom fishing transducer. I think the B175H Chirp would be the best, but SS264N 200kHz seems to be the best traditional? Should eliminate the interference?
Thanks,
Kevin
Do you think the SS264N 200kHz transducer would be a good alternative? Looking for the best possible tilted element bottom fishing transducer. I think the B175H Chirp would be the best, but SS264N 200kHz seems to be the best traditional? Should eliminate the interference?
Thanks,
Kevin
kjohn911,
The SS264N’s CW (conventional wave) 200 kHz frequency with a narrow 6° beam is a good quality transducer alternative that utilizes the elements from AIRMAR's B260 and will provide you with excellent resolution and crisp images down to around 1000 ft for fishing.
I have found that this transducer is perfect for finding fish that are holding tight to other structures, along with good frequency separation away from DFF3D’s 165kHz potential interference .
- Deep Blue
The SS264N’s CW (conventional wave) 200 kHz frequency with a narrow 6° beam is a good quality transducer alternative that utilizes the elements from AIRMAR's B260 and will provide you with excellent resolution and crisp images down to around 1000 ft for fishing.
I have found that this transducer is perfect for finding fish that are holding tight to other structures, along with good frequency separation away from DFF3D’s 165kHz potential interference .
- Deep Blue
Quitsa
Furuno Super Fan
I know Deep Blue does this for a living and I am just a user who fishes a lot and have a DFF-3D and a B175H. If the interference filters are turned off, both units will experience interference in the form of thin vertical lines on the display. However, my experience is that if the filter is set to high, the interference goes away without any noticeable effect on the performance of either sounder. I have a friend who has the same equipment and installed the KEY Pulse cable. He was quite unhappy with the result because it has a number of side effects on performance and means you cannot use heaving compensation.
As for the question about the SS264N, having had one in the past, I would say there is no comparison to the much superior performance of a B175H. It's not bad, it's just not as good as the B175H.
Similar threads
