DFF1-UHD and PM275LH-W transdcuer compatibility ?

cptkatz,
The good news you can manually set up the UHD to use a 275LH right now. However the ACCU-FISH and Bottom Discrimination features will be inaccurate due to the wider HF beam width.

Snips
 
Hi Snips,

I am also thinking of upgrading my DFF1 with a SS270W transducer to a DFF1-UHD with a B275LH-W.
1. Do you thick that I will see a significant improvement in very deep water ( say 700m/2100 ft)? At that depth, I am looking for unchartered sea mounts , not fish (that would be a bonus)
2. Any updates since your last entry, i.e. does the DFF1-UHD now recognise the B275LH-W?

Thank you,
 
Southatlantic,
We have no comparison results of the DFF1/270W vs the UHD/275LHW in any depth of water. How deep are you getting with the DFF1/270W?

Snips
 
Thank you, Snips. I usually troll for surface-oriented fish (Sailfish, Marlin, Dorado) in 200m of water, but occasionally need to read the bottom very well at 700 m (2100 ft) to locate unchartered sea mounts. The SS270W is performing the first task well but beyond 500 m I get no digital depth measurement and by fine tuning DFF1 a lot, beyond 600m I can barely see a faint line at the bottom in the middle of a lot of clutter.

Would the DFF1-UHD with a B275LH-W be a whole lot better, on balance? Would a B265LH be a better choice ( balancing the two tasks )? I did notice that in Low, the beamwidth of the two is the same, so I thought the 275 might do as well in the very deep application as the 265? :questions


You may remember this previous thread (last two entries only ), on page 2:

Re: Somewhat disappointing DFF1 performance (NOT ANYMORE)
Postby southatlantic » Fri Dec 06, 2013 1:24 pm

Snips,

I finally made it back to really deep water (600 m - 720 m). At that depth, I could not get a digital readout and no real image (other than clutter) on the screen. After fiddling a lot with the controls that I think I understand :think , the best results came with the settings below. I will try to post a picture in the very next post. This allowed me to just see the bottom and at least try to find an elevation of about 120m that should be there, but no detail at all.
Here were my settings:
Trolling speed (8 its)
LF (the HF screen was blank)
Picture advance : ½
Clutter 67%
TVG 5 or 6
Bottom level LF : +13 (anything lower and the digital readout appeared, but showing a much lower depth

Any suggestions?
southatlantic
Member
Member

Posts: 14
Joined: Fri Sep 09, 2011 7:29 pm
Top
Re: Somewhat disappointing DFF1 performance (NOT ANYMORE)
Postby Snips » Sat Dec 07, 2013 10:23 am

Southatlantic,
You are approaching the depth limits of the DFF1/SS270W combination. Changing the TVG settings will only affect the gain in the upper portion of the water column. Other than making sure your output power is set at 10 there is not much more I can suggest. I would like to see a screen shot when you have one.

Snips
Snips
Moderator
Moderator

Posts: 445
Joined: Tue Sep 06, 2011 8:19
 
Southatlantic,
The 275LHW and the 265LH both have the same low frequency capabilities. The difference is in the beam width of the high frequency, basically 4 vs. 25 degrees. If you want to go deep I would look for a narrow beam low frequency rather than a wide beam high frequency. Maybe the R-109LH is a better choice, I also hear that this will soon be available as a R-109LHW.

Snips
 
Thank you, Snips, but 80% of my fishing is for surface-oriented fish within the first 100ft or so of the water column, so "wide" is important. My ideal transducer would have wide HF and narrow LF... Just the opposite of what the physics of the transducers wants to do...
I have just ordered a DFF1-UHD with a B275LH-W. I am sure the HF portion will be great for fish not too deep, hopefully the LF side will be more effective than my current set up to find deep sea mounts... Any fine-tuning tips will be greatly appreciated ! :furuno
 
You will need to manually configure the UHD for the 275 but that is an easy thing to do. I would expect pretty good fish detection to about 200ft on the wide beam HF side. Post some screen shots after you get it going.

Snips
 
Would it be possible to provide the manual configuration information to get the 275 working with the DFF1-uhd?
 
Snips / Johnny E

I know this is an old thread but I'm about to install (2) TZT2 units with the DFF1-UHD box and leaning towards the 275LH-W transducer.

Normally fishing in 150 - 600 feet of water. Looking to identify salmon, trout and baitfish in the water column. Not necessarily concerned with bottom discrimination. Depending on the time of the season and water temperatures, fish can be as shallow as 10 feet or as deep as 500 feet. This is why I'm considering the wide model.

Would I still need to manually configure the 275LH-W settings or has there been any software updates to pick the 275 from a scroll down menu? Any additional feedback would be much appreciated!

Thanks,
Kevin
Lake Michigan
 
Reel Pursuit 38,
For me it is going to come down to how much time do you spend out in 500ft vs 100ft. From testing I think that the wide HF side of the 275 is good for fish detection to 200ft+. Below are a couple of screen shots from testing the HF side between the two transducers.

Snips
 

Attachments

  • #11.jpg
    #11.jpg
    112.2 KB · Views: 887
  • #8.jpg
    #8.jpg
    272.6 KB · Views: 887
Snips,

Thanks for the insight & the screen shots.

I plan on spending most of my fishing time in 200-400' FOW so I can see the benefits of the B-265LH over the B-275 within that range..

With that being said, do you think I would benefit from waiting patiently for the new DFF3D paired with the 165T-B54 multi beam transducer instead of the DFF1-UHD ?

Thanks,
Kevin
Lake Michigan
>=<((((º> •.¸¸.•´¯`•.¸.•´¯`•... >-=((((º> •´¯`•.¸,..•´¯`•…>-<((((º>
 
Reel Pursuit 38,
The benefit of the DFF3D will be seeing what side of the vessel the fish are actually on. The big difference is the beam pattern between the DFF3D and UHD. The DFF3D is wide port/stbd but narrow for/aft vs, the UHD which will have two different size cones. This means that fish targets on the DFF3D will be seen as shorter than on the UHD.

Snips
 
Back
Top