83KHZ is it important?

[14gills]

I recently bought a fish finder that does NOT have 83khz. After talking to a few folks i am curious if this is an important frequency that i should be using here in utah. I do have 200/455 but is that enough to get good reading?

Is 83khz something you must have fishing here in utah? Or is 200 / 455 enough?

Tell me what you think?
[signature]

[liketrolling]

here are some snapshots
on the Right it is the 200 Khz and the left it is the 83 khz
the lines that you see are the down rigger balls
if it was windy the balls were going up and down.
I think I had it set to max mod and the Sensitivity was high.
this came from the humminbire 998 di si
hope you can make your mind up by looking at this
the way I fish I need the 83 khz but you may not need it.
[signature]

[busman_]

Thank you very much for your post. I just started doing some research and was wondering what to buy. Your side-by-side snapshots just helped me figure out what to buy!

Earth, Wind, Fire and ICE.........
[signature]

[wolfs4evr]

Depth matters verse how detailed one wants to see.

83 kHz which is typically a 60 degree wide cone equals the depth in diameter. 200 kHz is typically a 20 degree wide cone which equals 1/3rd of the depth in diameter. (Laymans terms and not the complicated math version.)

In 100 feet of water:

83Khz gives one a 100ft wide "cone" at the very bottom.

200Khz gives one a 33ft wide "cone" at the very bottom.


[signature]

[wolfs4evr]

This picture posted above by liketrolling doesn't mean his 83kHz is working better by any means. It denotes he isn't trolling over the top of the majority of the fish. In general the fish are outside of the 200kHz cones diameter and not directly under the boat. Good info to have both readouts. Lets one first know there are fish down there and secondly lets the angler know on the next pass go left or right of the track to go over them better.


[signature]

[wolfs4evr]

I'm not up on how 455kHz plays into the 2D sonar on a DI unit. 455 is your primary SI or DI beam or both depending on what unit you have. That I know. So the unit must be taking a slice off the 455kHz freq and using it for 2D purposes. I know it does somehow since the 859/959 are listed as Dual Beam/Switchfire units. There isn't much out there on the web either that I am finding.
[signature]

[Therapist]

What unit do you have??

[mtncat1]

I like using the 83hz or 50hz for trolling in most lakes, if you only have 200hz it works ok but I like having the option
[signature]

[busman_]

This is most helpful. Thanks again!
[signature]

[14gills]

I have the hummingbird 859ci hd di.

Thinking about returning for something else with 83 kHz

What about the lowrance elite 7 chirp, or should I stay with humminbird?
[signature]

[zman2]

very correct as the kzs go up the sound pulse narrows.. but there is also an issue of large scan range and smaller better scan range. wolfs what do ya think??
[signature]

[Tarponjim]

This is funny. Up until just a few years ago, 83 wasn't even available on most "recreational" fish finders like Lowrance and Humminbird. 200 was all we had in the 80's, and 90's, and even into the early part of this century. How did we even catch anything? (It would be like fishing without I-pilot or GPS--No chance of even a bite!)

All you need is 200. 83 is a little wider. The 20 vs 60 comparison has other variables not considered, and the 83 is NOT 3 times as wide as the 200, despite the marketing hype. In fact, the transducers do not even shoot in a true cone shape as often illustrated. But I digress.

The 200 gives you better resolution, and better separation of fish from the bottom and other structure. I have a dual frequency. I fish with the 200. I look for fish with the 200.
[signature]

[PBH]

[quote Tarponjim]How did we even catch anything? (It would be like fishing without I-pilot ...[/quote]

you can fish without i-pilot??
[signature]

[wolfs4evr]

If one is really set on having 83kHz I "believe" that the 859 is capable of it but the transducer that comes with that unit does not have those crystals in it. I have read recently that the older 859/959 units were capable of both 200/83 and 200/455 and it just mattered what transducer one was using. I don't know about current models. Maybe yours isn't capable of 83kHz no matter what. I gave up searching for it.

455kHz is a tighter beam yet than 200kHz. I believe the reason why the 859/959 units come this way verse 83/200 is due to their specific design. That is a unit with very defined Down Imaging characteristics. They put eveything into that unit for that specific reason.

I too rely specifically on 200kHz but 83kHz has it's place if one has it. Shallow water coverage, depending on ones speed if one was trolling deep and using downriggers 83kHz might be the only beam too see the cannon balls, etc

I know my dad way back when use to reach back and angle his transducer so he could see his cannon balls. I don't remember what type of sonars/units he had back then. Something he told me about maaaaany years later once away from the nest, own boat, etc.
[signature]

[wolfs4evr]

I was just looking at the optional equipment list for the newest 859s out there and none of the 83kHz transducers are listed so I guess yours isn't. Something the older ones were capable of from what I have read today.
[signature]

[mtncat1]

the 83/200 is a was released by lowrance a few years back. Before that they only had 200 or the 50/200 . the part number for the 200 and the 83/200 are the same . the 50s and 83s are mainly an advantage for trollers , but any fish finder is better than no fish finder.
[signature]