Lowrance Broadband akin to Genetron?

[LWinches]

What about it Dick? With all their promotion about using low power, showing fish in weeds and on the bottom with this "new technology", it sounds a lot like what Genetron has done. Did Lowrance consult with you on this? or buy your technology?

I'd be interested in hearing from someone like Steve Fellagy who may have used both and can compare.

Good fishing to all

Leonard Winchester

[FreeByrd]

It's more like what Raymarine introduced in 2003 when they were the first to market with the HDFI / Digital Sounder Module, and like what Furuno has had available since 2006.

Just like most other things in the world today - Digital Processing provides for improved views / sounds, etc. Think Digital TV or Digital Audio compared to older technology like a tape player.

The biggest benefits I've seen with the digital processing (I had the first Raymarine DSM unit on Lake Erie in 2003 and have been using either the Raymarine or Furuno digital units since then) are:

1) INDIVIDUAL TARGET SEPERATION - you will seee smaller individual marks where in the past you may have seen one larger mark. This is especially true for fish hanging off the bottom.

2) NO CLUTTER - from top to bottom at all speeds. With conventional fishfinders when adjusting them especially for higher speed operation (if you could even get them to hold bottom at high speeds - say above 40 - 45 MPH), the vast majority of units / installations didn't really have the ability to clearly MARK FISH at these speeds. The digital processing allows this. With the digital units and a properly mounted transducer MARKING FISH at 35 - 50 MPH is a reality.

3) Ability to "focus" on the entire water column. With traditional fishfinders when setting them up the settings are typically optimized for a specific depth range to the detriment of other depth ranges. This is more of an issue the deeper the water you are fishing (probably mostly an issue for depths greater than most walleye fisherman typicaly experience), but think about it like this - if you manually set your unit for the best possible readings on the bottom (or some other range) you typically have either clutter (generically from "too much gain") in other sections of the water column - or you mark "NOTHING" in other sections of the water column (generically from "too little gain") in other sections of the water column.

I never had the opportunity to use a Genetron - but from all the reading I've done on here over the years, it sounded like the what the Genetron had figured out was a way to "optimize / tune" the readings for specific areas of the water column and also excelled in shallower water where a lot of the units with "higher power" struggled.

Essentially what is happening with the digital filtering is there are A BUNCH (around 200 I think for the Raymarine implementation) of parameters that are automatically adjusted / optimized with EVERY PING of the transducer to give the best picture. There used to be a pretty good explanation of what was going on for this on the Raymarine website - probably still there.

Good to see Lowrance coming out with a digital implementation - the competition is keeping all of the companies on their toes and we all benefit from better products eventually.

Steve

[Btfrk]

I know I am a caveman, but do you hear and see in a digital format? How can digital be better than analog? Digital signals are sample points of analog and can be "colored" by sample rates, etc.I am sure some flames are coming, so let's have em.:popc1:

[FreeByrd]

I know I am a caveman, but do you hear and see in a digital format? How can digital be better than analog? Digital signals are sample points of analog and can be "colored" by sample rates, etc.I am sure some flames are coming, so let's have em.:popc1:

I'm not a scientist, nor do I play a Dr. on TV (although I have stayed in a Holiday Inn Express on occasion) :rotfl: - and don't have the interest or ability to get into a technical debate on analog or digital, all I can tell you is that based on my experience of using the digital technology since 2003 that from what I've seen - IT IS THE REAL DEAL - does what it advertises VERY WELL. I've only used the Raymarine and Furuno implementations so far and am anxious to see the Lowrance implementation to see how it compares. I suspect Lowrance's may be "better" for some applications like shallow water (meaning less than 15-20 feet) just based on the freshwater market that Lowrance has traditionally targetted.

It's just another tool - choose to use it or not...makes no difference to me. :rolleyes: Kinda reminds me of when the color units first starting coming out - there was some debate about the merits of color early on and now it is just pretty much standard stuff. Again relate it to HD Television or high quality digital audio and the experience for the person viewing / hearing. I've yet to meet anyone that has used the digital units that prefers the "old" technology whether it is for a fishfinder, television, stereo.

No "flame" here - just relating my VERY POSITIVE EXPERIENCE with the digital technology since 2003. Prior to this I was someone that always operated my fishfinders in manual mode adjusting for optimum performance. I was pretty skeptical of the "hype" over this and actually rigged my boat in 2003 with the new digital unit as well as a traditional unit. The traditional unit was removed at the end of the season in 2003 and it has been all digital for me since then.

Have a Merry Christmas & Happy New Year :cheers:
Steve Carlson

[yarcraft91]

I know I am a caveman, but do you hear and see in a digital format? How can digital be better than analog? Digital signals are sample points of analog and can be "colored" by sample rates, etc.I am sure some flames are coming, so let's have em.:popc1:

With a sufficiently sensitive measurement device, you can tell the difference between an original analog signal and a digitized representation of it, but modern electronics have pretty much reduced that difference to the point human eyes and ears cannot discern it. One place where you can still see the difference is in sonar visual display units- even the highest resolution displays have not caught up to the old analog paper graphs. But, I prefer the digital display- so much cheaper and more reliable!

A reason vendors go digital is that it's possible to build signal processing capabilities that are far more complex, more stable and cheaper than with analog circuits. Aftermarket software upgrades are easy to do with digital systems. It is also possible to build electronic memory into a device, something that's really tough with analog electronics.

I spent a lot of time fooling with analog electronics in the 60's and 70's and I don't want to go back.

[orchard frank]

Have to agree with FreeByrd. Last year I went to a RayMarine C-Series with the DSM-300 module. I've always had Lowrance, have had good experience with them. Still use my LCX-104 as a map reader. The DF function was acting up on the 104, easy fixes didn't work, and it was past the age where it could be repaired at the factory. The RayMarine has shown great performance for salmon and walleye on Lakes Michigan and Superior. Works as FreeByrd describes, I run mine on dual freq. gives a great picture, distinct targets, at all speeds. Have only seen pictures of the Lowrance units, but I'm sure they will be a big jump from the present technology. Not sure how many fish the new units put in the boat, but I like new toys and I'm pleased with this one.