Author Topic: Greg-Looking for recommendations regarding 597ci HD DI transducer installation  (Read 23027 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Jerkbait639

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Joined: Nov 2011
  • Location: Nashville, TN
  • Posts: 6
  • Unit(s): 788ci, 997si
  • Accessories: Interlink
 I'm running a 2010 Nitro Z-8, and I currently have a 788CI and a 997 SI (at the console) unit and they are interlinked. The Z-8 had a stock monochrome Lowrance mounted in dash. I use this unit only for depth readings at high speed, and I'm looking to upgrade from this unit. The unit I'm looking at is the 597Ci HD DI. 

The reason that I'm looking into this unit is that I'm not happy with the resolution of the down imaging on my 997 (480 vertical pixels), and I like the idea of having a stand alone unit for DI that has a better resolution (640x640) and an independent transducer.

What I'm having a hard time trying to figure out is how to mount the transducer so I don't get interference from the 997's transducer, and so I still have a unit for running at high speed.  The 997's transducer is mounted on the right side of my jackplate via a transducer shield/saver.  I'm leary of mounting the 597s transducer through my hull because of the possibility of a loss in power/sensitivity thus I wouldn't be improving on what I'm seeing on the 997's DI. But if I mount it back by the 997 on the other side of the jackplate, I may get interference and I wouldn't have a unit for maintaining depth at high speed.  Any ideas for what I could do?


Offline sonar2000

  • Chief
  • Global Moderator
  • *
  • Joined: May 2009
  • Location: Kerr Lake NC
  • Posts: 5970
  • It is not lost ...it has been misplaced.
  • Unit(s): (1) 1197 (1) 1198
  • Software: 6.6
  • Accessories: Tow Fish
Search this site using the tab at the top. Be creative in search words but you can start with nitro and go from there.
There are a lot of postings on nitro mounting and the different transducers. While each may have its own particular place there is a common area for consideration.
Rather than tell you where to put it try the previous postings and see what others have learned thru their experience of mounting.
Chuck

Offline Jerkbait639

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Joined: Nov 2011
  • Location: Nashville, TN
  • Posts: 6
  • Unit(s): 788ci, 997si
  • Accessories: Interlink
Chuck,

I'm still not getting what I'm looking for.  I'm looking for suggestions on what I can do to deal with the possible "cross talk/interference" that may happen by introducing the DI at the transom/jackplate.  I've already got an SI transducer mounted on my jackplate, and I'm looking to add a unit that has better resolution/power for DI.  The 997's screen isn't ideal for viewing DI because of only having 480 vertical pixels. The 500 or 700 series is better set up to provide a higher resolution for the DI because of having 640 vertical pixels in the nearly the same height of screen.

I also have an issue of needing a transducer for running at high speed.  If I eliminate the cheap Lowrance that came stock with the boat, I will still need this function.  I could mount the DI's transducer through the hull, but at a huge risk of losing power and thus making a purchase of an independent DI unit worthless for what I'm looking to do...Do you see my delima?

Offline sonar2000

  • Chief
  • Global Moderator
  • *
  • Joined: May 2009
  • Location: Kerr Lake NC
  • Posts: 5970
  • It is not lost ...it has been misplaced.
  • Unit(s): (1) 1197 (1) 1198
  • Software: 6.6
  • Accessories: Tow Fish
Yes I do see and certainly one that is a dilemma for users of the HB product. Interference concerns are certainly there but with some being ok and some who have problems.
There is a lot of information on this forum but it takes time to wade thru and find even with searching.
Nitro placement is a big topic and has a lot to reference.
Screen resolution is different between units with some electing to go with a laptop connection.
I dont know that there is a one answer that fits all and you are certainly asking a good question.
Maybe some can give specific references to previous posts to look at.
Items to reduce interference include dedicated wiring for the units. Separation of cables, good connections, clean power supply including dedicated supply for the units.
Good grounding of return wires. (kind of hard to do on non-metal boats).
And couple problems with certain transducers not performing above trolling speeds requiring separate transducers.
I would suppose that a thru the hull would be ok for 2d and depth but maynot not for DI/SI.
Dont know that there is a specific exactly for you but you are doing The right thing in asking for previous experiences.
Chuck

Offline Humminbird_Greg

  • Humminbird Helper
  • Humminbird Staff
  • *
  • Joined: Mar 2009
  • Location: Eufaula, AL.
  • Posts: 6546
  • I help because I can
    • Humminbird Web Site
I'm running a 2010 Nitro Z-8, and I currently have a 788CI and a 997 SI (at the console) unit and they are interlinked. The Z-8 had a stock monochrome Lowrance mounted in dash. I use this unit only for depth readings at high speed, and I'm looking to upgrade from this unit. The unit I'm looking at is the 597Ci HD DI. 

The reason that I'm looking into this unit is that I'm not happy with the resolution of the down imaging on my 997 (480 vertical pixels), and I like the idea of having a stand alone unit for DI that has a better resolution (640x640) and an independent transducer.

What I'm having a hard time trying to figure out is how to mount the transducer so I don't get interference from the 997's transducer, and so I still have a unit for running at high speed.  The 997's transducer is mounted on the right side of my jackplate via a transducer shield/saver.  I'm leary of mounting the 597s transducer through my hull because of the possibility of a loss in power/sensitivity thus I wouldn't be improving on what I'm seeing on the 997's DI. But if I mount it back by the 997 on the other side of the jackplate, I may get interference and I wouldn't have a unit for maintaining depth at high speed.  Any ideas for what I could do?

Jerkbait639,
Let me try to actually answer your questions here.

Your concerns are with where to mount the 597ci HD Di’s transducer where it will give good high-speed depth readings and not cause sonar cross-talk.
Answer: you would have to mount it on a separate boat to guarantee no interference.  The reason for this is that all three units that you mentioned all use the same 200kHz frequency to determine water depth.  Those 200kHz transducer beams expand outwards when they head towards the bottom of the lake, again when they reflect off the bottom of the lake back towards the transducer, and again if they have enough energy to bounce off the surface of the water (and back off the bottom again and again).  All of that expansion of the sonar beam would mean that a boat would not have to be in very deep water to see sonar-to-sonar interference between even a bow mounted and a transom mounted transducer.  Now, there is no guarantee that this will happen and if it does you may be able to filter out that interference by turning on and up the Noise Filter menu.

I suggest that you try testing the 597ci HD DI’s transducer inside-the-hull for high-speed water depth usage first.  Sure it will lose some percentage of the sonar signal but if installed properly this is easily compensated fro by cranking up the Sensitivity a little.  You can see how much signal loss there will be by comparing readings with the transducer held in the water over the side of the boat versus inside-the-hull.

Mounting the DI transducer on the jackplate of the boat would probably result in no water depth readings at high boat speeds.
Greg Walters at Humminbird
gwalters@johnsonoutdoors.com

Offline Jerkbait639

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Joined: Nov 2011
  • Location: Nashville, TN
  • Posts: 6
  • Unit(s): 788ci, 997si
  • Accessories: Interlink
Greg,

I've been racking my brain about how to do this, and to just alleviate the issue with running without sonar I've thought about installing a highspeed transducer inside the hull and then use a switch to go back and forth between the SI and the high speed transducer on the 997. 

If I do this, my only issue would be the crosstalk between the DI transducer and the 997.  I'm thinking that if I ran 83HZ on one of the units and 200Hz on the other, I wouldn't see an issue on the 2d sonar because of the difference in frequencies.  However, I'm not sure about how the DI and the SI would be effected as I would normally run both at 455Hz.  I'm not sure about how/where the sonar comes out of 997's transducer (meaning a thin band or a thick band, and where on the transducer it is emitted) and the same for the DI transducer.  If it was indeed just thin a thin band, could I theoretically just make sure one of the transducers was installed more aft than the other? Or, would you expect to see an issue if I installed the DI transducer on the port side of the jackplate (parallel to the SI transducer) with a transducer shield/saver mount?

Sorry to be a bother, I just want to get all of my questions answered before making a purchase...

Offline ITGEEK

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Joined: Aug 2009
  • Location: Maryland
  • Posts: 1552
  • Unit(s): 1198c -Team Watters SS - Lexerd SP
  • Software: 7.670
  • Accessories: XM Weather - Weathersense
Jerkbait:
In my opinion, you are not going to be able to run 2 or more units at the same time on your boat
and have them all working properly, no matter how you mount the transducers.

From what I understand from your posts, you want clear SI with your 997, and
you want to add a 597C to get clear DI., but you want it all working at the same time.
It's hard enough for some folks to get just one unit working on their boat without interference from other electrical devices.  If I understand correctly, you will end up with 4 transducers, if you count the one just for high speed depth reading.

As Greg mentioned, there are going to be sonar beams bouncing
all over the place and you are most likely going to get interference.
For 2d, if you run one unit at 83hz and one at 200hz, you won't be happy with the images on
the 83hz (unless you fish in really deep water).  The 200hz images are much clearer.
I don't think you will end up very happy with the overall situation.

You can mount as many transducers and units as you want on your boat, anywhere you want, but unfortunately, you will have to use ONLY one unit at a time for it to work properly.
Now, if you had a 50 foot boat, you might be able to get away with having a sonar on the front and back, both working properly at the same time.
« Last Edit: January 06, 2012, 07:54:58 AM by ITGEEK »

Offline Jerkbait639

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Joined: Nov 2011
  • Location: Nashville, TN
  • Posts: 6
  • Unit(s): 788ci, 997si
  • Accessories: Interlink
ITgeek,

Technically, yes, I would have 4 transducers if you count the one on the trolling motor (It would be up and out of the water while I'm graphing at the console).  So, there would only be three near the transom.  If I use a switch to go between the High Speed transducer and the SI transducer (I'm assuming that would turn off whichever one is not in use), then I would only be worried about 2 transducers...correct?

It sounds like I'm never going to be happy with the DI/SI clarity unless I completely change brands and go with the Lowrance.  I was really hoping to avoid that.

Offline ITGEEK

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Joined: Aug 2009
  • Location: Maryland
  • Posts: 1552
  • Unit(s): 1198c -Team Watters SS - Lexerd SP
  • Software: 7.670
  • Accessories: XM Weather - Weathersense
But you are still going to have the problem of having a clear DI and clear SI on separate
screens at the same time no matter what brand you choose.
Most of these sonars operate at the same frequencies.
I'm not sure if that is what you want or not, DI and SI on at the same time?

Is getting an 1198c out of the question?
Bigger screen.
I'm not sure if the DI clarity is better than the 597c, but a big split screen
would be easier to see.
« Last Edit: January 06, 2012, 11:00:33 AM by ITGEEK »

Offline Humminbird_Greg

  • Humminbird Helper
  • Humminbird Staff
  • *
  • Joined: Mar 2009
  • Location: Eufaula, AL.
  • Posts: 6546
  • I help because I can
    • Humminbird Web Site
Jerkbait639,
If you mounted the DI and HDSi transducers to the side of each other and tried to use them both at the same time than you would get sonar-to-sonar interference if both were using the same DI/Si frequency.  They could also interfere though the 2D sonar because they would both still be using the same 200kHz sonar – even though you may have the 2D sonar frequency set at 83kHz (in the case of your 997 unit) it is still transmitting at 200kHz.

If you mounted the DI transducer forwards of the HDSi transducer and they were far enough away, than your only problem would be the 2D sonar interfering.  “Far enough away” would have to be determined by the Si range you will be using, whether both transducers are truly pointed straight forwards and not twisted a bit, as well as the amount of beam scatter you may see from underwater structure.  The DI and Si beams are very narrow (1 to 2 degrees I think) so there is not much beam spread (I don’t have any calculations for this right now).

I think that your main concern here will be the 2D sonar interference which is not always predictable nor is it always preventable (unless you turn one of the units off).  I don’t see anyway around this possibility unless you upgrade your 997 unit to the 1198c Si unit which is only 600 pixels vertical like ITG said.
Greg Walters at Humminbird
gwalters@johnsonoutdoors.com

Offline Jerkbait639

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Joined: Nov 2011
  • Location: Nashville, TN
  • Posts: 6
  • Unit(s): 788ci, 997si
  • Accessories: Interlink
I'm really trying to put together a system that will rival what my friends with the competition's units have. The imagery that is produced on their DownScan with their HDS 8's and 10's is far superior to what have on my 997 unit using the DI software upgrade.  I'm impressed with the power and the clarity of the 597/788 units, and I was hoping to be able to have a standalone unit for the DI. 

I would consider an 1198c if and only if the transducer for the DI has a separate crystal from the SI. To my knowledge it does not.  However, the clarity/resolution of what is represented on 1100 series doesn't come close to that of the 597 or the 788HD DI. The pixels seem to be stretched in the 1100 series. 

For what I'm looking to do with the units, it seems an extra crystal dedicated to DI will show me more, but then again I can't do with out the SI. Wouldn't the 1198 be just a bigger version of what I'm seeing with my 997?  Am I missing something?


Offline ITGEEK

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Joined: Aug 2009
  • Location: Maryland
  • Posts: 1552
  • Unit(s): 1198c -Team Watters SS - Lexerd SP
  • Software: 7.670
  • Accessories: XM Weather - Weathersense
Jerkbait:
It looks like you are not too concerned with using small screens.
I'm surprised that you have a 997 and want to go smaller.
Most people go larger or buy a unit the same size as they are used to.
I think that you are young and/or have excellent eyesight.

I have an 1197c and I am not that impressed with the Down Imaging myself.
I don't even use it.  I prefer 2-D.

Even though the big screens don't have as many pixels, they are much
easier on the eyes, in my opinion, and you can have a map on and still
see good images.
Once I saw the 1197, there was no way I was going any smaller.
With the 1198c, you can have multiple split views and still be able to see something.

Not having ever seen an HDS unit up close, I don't know how the images look.
I've heard good and bad things about the HDS units.

Whatever you decide, it looks like you're going to be spending some serious coin soon.

Good luck to you.

Offline Humminbird_Greg

  • Humminbird Helper
  • Humminbird Staff
  • *
  • Joined: Mar 2009
  • Location: Eufaula, AL.
  • Posts: 6546
  • I help because I can
    • Humminbird Web Site
Jerkbait639,
Let me check on something and get back with you here.  I don’t want to say what it is right now just in case it does not turn out to be true as it would cause some folks to get really ticked off.  Give me until about Wednesday of next week to find out.

Greg Walters at Humminbird
gwalters@johnsonoutdoors.com

Offline Jerkbait639

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Joined: Nov 2011
  • Location: Nashville, TN
  • Posts: 6
  • Unit(s): 788ci, 997si
  • Accessories: Interlink
Thanks Greg, I look forward to hearing what you come up with.  ~Aaron

Offline Whistler

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Joined: May 2011
  • Location: Roswell, GA
  • Posts: 125
  • Unit(s): 1198c SI, 1199ci, Helix 12 SI G2N
  • Software: 7.510,7.460,1.460
  • Accessories: Heading Sensor, NMEA
Jerkbait and Greg,

I'm interested in doing the same thing as well.  And I agree that the DI on my 1198 is not quite as nice as the dedicated DI on the competition, but I also don't believe that most folks using DI understand what they are looking at (i.e. they don't understand the true location of objects/fish that appear on the DI) but that is a whole other conversation.

What about this scenario:

I have an 1198 at the console and I currently use a Y cable for in hull sonar.
I am considering adding say a 596 for DI.
If I disconnected the in hull transducer from the Y cable but leave the y cable attached to the 1198 and used only 455kHz SI on the 1198 (or is the 2D signal required?), could I then in-hull mount the 596 DI transducer and use it for 2D sonar (200kHz only) as well as 800kHz only DI?  Would there be any chance of cross talk with the 1198?
« Last Edit: January 10, 2012, 02:15:40 PM by Whistler »

Offline lcookie

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Joined: Jan 2010
  • Location: GA
  • Posts: 112
  • Unit(s): 998SI/1198SI/788DI/587DI
  • Software: 6.68/6.64/6.64/6.09
  • Accessories: Ethernet, GRHA, ASGPSHS,WeatherSense
I have a 997 at the bow and a 1198 at the console.  I too was not impressed with the DI from SI conversion so I purchased a 788 to get true DI and it has lived up to my expectations.  The SI transducer is located on the right side of the boat about 6 inches off center.  I mounted the DI transducer on the left side about 12 inches off center.  I have been in water depths ranging from 4 to 150 ft and only got cross talk between the two when I was in about 6 ft of water and the bottom was very very rocky.   




ila_rendered
« Last Edit: January 10, 2012, 09:48:39 PM by lcookie »

Offline Bob B

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Joined: Oct 2010
  • Location: Creve Coeur, Il
  • Posts: 1568
  • Unit(s): 1197c si, 1198c si
  • Software: 6.310, 6.490
I have a 997 at the bow and a 1198 at the console.  I too was not impressed with the DI from SI conversion so I purchased a 788 to get true DI and it has lived up to my expectations.  The SI transducer is located on the right side of the boat about 6 inches off center.  I mounted the DI transducer on the left side about 12 inches off center.  I have been in water depths ranging from 4 to 150 ft and only got cross talk between the two when I was in about 6 ft of water and the bottom was very very rocky.   




(Attachment Link)


Now that is interesting....I have an 1197 at the console, and have been thinking about getting a 788ci hd di that I could move between the console and the bow by getting another transducer and base.
Are you running the 1198 and 788 at the same frequency?
**Looking for the one that makes it all worthwhile**

Offline Whistler

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Joined: May 2011
  • Location: Roswell, GA
  • Posts: 125
  • Unit(s): 1198c SI, 1199ci, Helix 12 SI G2N
  • Software: 7.510,7.460,1.460
  • Accessories: Heading Sensor, NMEA
Lcookie - would it be possible for you to post a photo of your transom that shows both the DI and SI transducers?  Are you using an in hull transducer for 2d on the 1198?  Do you have any special settings on your units (i.e. some sonar frequencies disabled) to prevent interference or just the standard/typical settings?

Offline Bob B

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Joined: Oct 2010
  • Location: Creve Coeur, Il
  • Posts: 1568
  • Unit(s): 1197c si, 1198c si
  • Software: 6.310, 6.490
Whistler, If you look close, the SI transducer is on the right of the image he posted. ;)
**Looking for the one that makes it all worthwhile**

Offline Whistler

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Joined: May 2011
  • Location: Roswell, GA
  • Posts: 125
  • Unit(s): 1198c SI, 1199ci, Helix 12 SI G2N
  • Software: 7.510,7.460,1.460
  • Accessories: Heading Sensor, NMEA
Sorry Bob the device I'm viewing this on chopped off the right half of the image  :-\  I couldn't see past the centerline of the boat. But now that you mentioned that I was able to scroll the image over to make it visible.
« Last Edit: January 10, 2012, 11:40:40 PM by Whistler »

Offline Bob B

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Joined: Oct 2010
  • Location: Creve Coeur, Il
  • Posts: 1568
  • Unit(s): 1197c si, 1198c si
  • Software: 6.310, 6.490
I'm curious about your other questions also.
**Looking for the one that makes it all worthwhile**

Offline lcookie

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Joined: Jan 2010
  • Location: GA
  • Posts: 112
  • Unit(s): 998SI/1198SI/788DI/587DI
  • Software: 6.68/6.64/6.64/6.09
  • Accessories: Ethernet, GRHA, ASGPSHS,WeatherSense
Bob/Whistler,

I run both units at the same frequency. 455 most of the time. I have a metal boat so in hull is not an option. 2d is running in the SI ducer and the DI ducer.  I was not clear in my previous post.  When I say I don't get interference from 4 to 150 ft I was speaking of the DI and SI views.  Sometimes I would get interference on the 2d view on the DI unit but not the SI unit.  It does not bother me much because I keep the DI unit on the full DI view 100% of the time. I have not disabled any sonar frequencies but it think you could if you could put a plastic cover in the proper pin so that that connection was not made.  Have not tried that though lol.   In my picture you can see an old 2d Low ducer next to the SI ducer.  I use to run those at the same time when it was hooked up.  I would change the ping speed on the Low to cut down on interference.  Come to think of it I have always had 2 or 3 units on my boat running with little to no interference.  But if I was in a cove with someone else things would go haywire every now and again.  I rationalized it as all my units were pinging at the same time from the same depth and the returns were hitting back at the same time.   

Offline Humminbird_Greg

  • Humminbird Helper
  • Humminbird Staff
  • *
  • Joined: Mar 2009
  • Location: Eufaula, AL.
  • Posts: 6546
  • I help because I can
    • Humminbird Web Site
Jerkbait639,
Let me check on something and get back with you here.  I don’t want to say what it is right now just in case it does not turn out to be true as it would cause some folks to get really ticked off.  Give me until about Wednesday of next week to find out.

Sorry guys but I had to teach classes last week and so did not get back to this post until today.

What I was checking on would not work so I don’t know of a good solution for your problem Jerkbait.
Greg Walters at Humminbird
gwalters@johnsonoutdoors.com

Offline Humminbird_Greg

  • Humminbird Helper
  • Humminbird Staff
  • *
  • Joined: Mar 2009
  • Location: Eufaula, AL.
  • Posts: 6546
  • I help because I can
    • Humminbird Web Site
Lcookie just hit upon the magic words for causing or preventing sonar-to-sonar interference: “all my units were pinging at the same time from the same depth and the returns were hitting back at the same time”.  If you could get all of your sonar units transmitting and receiving at different rates you could almost eliminate any sonar-to-sonar interference.  This is why some people have the problem and some do not.

If you are seeing sonar-to-sonar interference and turning up the Noise Filter does not help enough you can also try setting a manual Lower Range menu setting that is different than what the other unit is using.


Disconnecting the 2D transducer from an AS-Si-DB-Y cable may cause arching of the 2D transmitter and unit failure…

Greg Walters at Humminbird
gwalters@johnsonoutdoors.com

Offline Whistler

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Joined: May 2011
  • Location: Roswell, GA
  • Posts: 125
  • Unit(s): 1198c SI, 1199ci, Helix 12 SI G2N
  • Software: 7.510,7.460,1.460
  • Accessories: Heading Sensor, NMEA
Sorry to revive an old post guys but I'm still trying to come up with a creative solution to this problem and wanted to ask Greg if it would be possible to accomplish cross talk free dedicated DI in the following scenario.

1st Unit - 1198 with transducer for SI mounted to jack plate with a splitter cable to an in hull 2D puck - sharing its 2d sonar with another unit (say a 788ci HD DI)
2nd Unit - 788ci HD DI with DI transducer mounted to jack plate sharing 2D sonar from 1198

First off I'm not sure you can share the 2D sonar between two units via Ethernet.  But if you can does the unit that is connecting to the shared sonar (in this case the 788) disable its sonar?  If it does not could I use a second splitter cable on the 788 and just orient the in hull puck in such a way that it was impossible for it to cross talk with the 1198 to occur?

Offline Humminbird_Greg

  • Humminbird Helper
  • Humminbird Staff
  • *
  • Joined: Mar 2009
  • Location: Eufaula, AL.
  • Posts: 6546
  • I help because I can
    • Humminbird Web Site
Whistler,
No it would not be possible to do this with the model units you listed.   The 788ci HD DI unit can only share its sonar with another DI model unit (not an Si/Di unit like the 1198c Si).

If they could share sonar, the second unit’s sonar is disabled as the unit is using the sonar data from the Ethernet connection.

Saying that you ran the sonar for each unit at the same time anyways; I am sure that you could angle the transducer(s) in a manned that would not allow for sonar cross-talk but I do not know at what angle this would be.  The DI beams for both the DI model and Si/Di model units is not as wide (front-to-back) as a conventional 2D sonar beam, but you could end up with an unusable angle.

Greg Walters at Humminbird
gwalters@johnsonoutdoors.com

Offline Roddy

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Joined: Feb 2011
  • Location: Mount Pleasant,Charleston Co,SC. USA
  • Posts: 607
  • Scan,scan and rescan
  • Unit(s): 797c2, 947c,987SI/DI,570di,1198,1155,Ip
  • Accessories: wx/Tow Fish,Drop Cam's,ROV''s
Ditto Greg! Mounting transducers  parallel  to each other  will cause  interference.

But forward and aft of each other with about  3 feet separation has worked for Me.

Roddy
Scan,Scan and Rescan Roddy

Offline Whistler

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Joined: May 2011
  • Location: Roswell, GA
  • Posts: 125
  • Unit(s): 1198c SI, 1199ci, Helix 12 SI G2N
  • Software: 7.510,7.460,1.460
  • Accessories: Heading Sensor, NMEA
Greg,

That's kind of unfortunate. I'd like to buy a dedicated DI unit and know that it won't interfere with my 1198. If the software allowed for it I could accomplish this by sharing the only the 2d sonar.

Offline Humminbird_Greg

  • Humminbird Helper
  • Humminbird Staff
  • *
  • Joined: Mar 2009
  • Location: Eufaula, AL.
  • Posts: 6546
  • I help because I can
    • Humminbird Web Site
Sorry Whistler, two different types of down imaging here.  It’s not just about the 2D sonar interfering; the same 455kHz (or 800kHz) frequency is used by both units for their down imaging sonar.  You could get by the down imaging interference by either having each unit use a different frequency or by mounting the transducers far enough fore and aft of each other like Roddy has, but would still have the possibility of 2D sonar interference.

Additional thought on this: If there was 2D sonar interference you may be able to squelch it out by using the Noise Filter menu setting on the unit showing the interference.  No guarantees that you will or will not be able to do this.
Greg Walters at Humminbird
gwalters@johnsonoutdoors.com

Offline Whistler

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Joined: May 2011
  • Location: Roswell, GA
  • Posts: 125
  • Unit(s): 1198c SI, 1199ci, Helix 12 SI G2N
  • Software: 7.510,7.460,1.460
  • Accessories: Heading Sensor, NMEA
Greg,

I understand all of that. However it would be much easier to get the needed front to back separation to keep the 800/455 beams from overlapping than it would be to keep the 200/83 cones from overlapping.

Your point about being able to control the interference by limiting the unit frequencies would also be great, but as I understand I'll still likely have 2d sonar interference and that is why it seems to me that sharing the 2d sonar would eliminate that problem if it were an option.
« Last Edit: July 18, 2012, 02:10:11 PM by Whistler »


Share me

Digg  Facebook  SlashDot  Delicious  Technorati  Twitter  Google  Yahoo

 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
2 Replies
7286 Views
Last post July 08, 2009, 09:35:07 PM
by George
2 Replies
7568 Views
Last post January 09, 2010, 10:20:21 PM
by Pmcclung
6 Replies
10120 Views
Last post March 10, 2010, 09:31:10 PM
by soretoe
3 Replies
5914 Views
Last post July 30, 2010, 03:11:05 PM
by Humminbird_Greg
3 Replies
8065 Views
Last post October 22, 2012, 08:56:37 AM
by BazzaD
4 Replies
5166 Views
Last post January 22, 2013, 03:37:43 PM
by Humminbird_Greg
7 Replies
5168 Views
Last post September 09, 2014, 06:40:02 AM
by basshunter.1
9 Replies
7729 Views
Last post March 15, 2015, 06:14:27 PM
by Spd 135


anything
SimplePortal 2.3.3 © 2008-2010, SimplePortal