A
Anonymous
Guest
While refitting my boat, I will soon purchase a new sounder/transducer.
My primary use is salmon and halibut fishing in Alaska in 300' or less.
I am considering the DFF1-UHD paired with either the CHIRP B265LH or the CHIRP B275LHW.
The 265 has "bottom discrimination" but a 10 degree beam near 200 kHz, 15-25 near 50 kHz.
The 275 does not have "bottom discrimination" but has 25 degree beam across all kHz.
For finding halibut grounds, the 265 bottom discrimination could be useful if in fact it results in a more robust bottom signal signature.
For example, my old school Furuno sounder doesn't have "bottom discrimination" but still does a great job at showing mud bottom (thin red line) vs. rock bottom (thick green/yellow mass).
So my questions:
Is the difference between the two just that the 265 is programmed to sort out the type of bottom return into the 4 bins (rock, gravel, sand, silt) and the displays on the two would actually be the nearly the same, or does the 265 provide a more definitive bottom signal signature?
If the bottom signatures were close to the same, I might be inclined to go with the 275, as the wider beam near 50 kHz would be good for upper water column salmon, and I can still manually track the bottom type when hunting halibut.
Interested in your experience/perspective.
My primary use is salmon and halibut fishing in Alaska in 300' or less.
I am considering the DFF1-UHD paired with either the CHIRP B265LH or the CHIRP B275LHW.
The 265 has "bottom discrimination" but a 10 degree beam near 200 kHz, 15-25 near 50 kHz.
The 275 does not have "bottom discrimination" but has 25 degree beam across all kHz.
For finding halibut grounds, the 265 bottom discrimination could be useful if in fact it results in a more robust bottom signal signature.
For example, my old school Furuno sounder doesn't have "bottom discrimination" but still does a great job at showing mud bottom (thin red line) vs. rock bottom (thick green/yellow mass).
So my questions:
Is the difference between the two just that the 265 is programmed to sort out the type of bottom return into the 4 bins (rock, gravel, sand, silt) and the displays on the two would actually be the nearly the same, or does the 265 provide a more definitive bottom signal signature?
If the bottom signatures were close to the same, I might be inclined to go with the 275, as the wider beam near 50 kHz would be good for upper water column salmon, and I can still manually track the bottom type when hunting halibut.
Interested in your experience/perspective.