Flasher Separation Claims

[leech~~]

When you start to look at different Flashers to buy. Read the separation claims made by all the mfg's very carefully. Some talk about Target Separation, some only list Target ID. They are two different things that sound-read like the same thing in their ads. Most will state Target ID down to 3/4" 1/2" or 1/4" but others will only list one or both and you can see that their Target Separation in more like 2.5" inchs. They also will or will not list both their (PTP) Peak to peak Watts or their (RMS) Root Mean Squired Watts. They will put what they think sounds the best for them to the consumer by using words like More Power,High Sensitivity, higher Resolution etc.

Below is a list of statements taken off most of the mfg's web sites about their higher-end Flasher units. I have taken out the names of them as you can look them up for your self. See if you can figure out which statement goes with which mfg before you look them up.

XXXX Brand

Finally, with a micro-fine resolution of 720 vertical pixels (and less than ½-inch of target separation)—fish tight to bottom can no longer hide from sight.

Incredible sensitivity and target separation that’s so discerning you can even count individual minnows within a school—something that no other ice fishing sonar can do.

XXX Brand

 Intelligently managed sonar engine, driven by 4800-watts PtP (600-watts RMS)

 This provides a keen awareness of fish targets relative to the transducer, and your lure; WHAT!

XXX Brand

SuperFine Line feature improves screen resolution, and enhances target separation down to .75-inch. The XXXXX difference is obvious and immediate.

2,500-watts power driven by a bold 2,500 watts of peak-to-peak power. Super Fine Line Technology - produces ¾ inch Target Separation – anywhere in the water column, and in Zoom Mode

XXX Brand

Zoom mode is fantastic for watching Perch or Walleye while ice fishing. These fish commonly hold tight on the bottom, and with a target ID of less than 1/2 inch, the XX-XX makes them easy to spot!

• Target Separation: 2.65"

• Target ID: .5"

• Power and Sensitivity: 400 Watts Peak-to-Peak

• High Resolution Display: 525 Bits

The XX-XX Brand delivers the best target ID and target separation of any sonar system ever made!

• 525 segments of resolution

• Six depth ranges down to 60 feet

• Target ID of Less than ¼ inch

• Power output: 400 watts peak-to-peak (50 watts RMS)

•

XXXXXX Brand

526 Segment Flasher

Target Separation:2-1/2 inch

Power Output (RMS):300 Watts (RMS)

Power Output (Peak to Peak):2400 Watts (PtP)

XXXXX Brand

Target Separation:2.5 inches

Power Output (RMS):300 Watts (RMS)

Power Output (Peak to Peak):2400 Watts (Peak-to-Peak)

[gixxer01]

I understand the difference between target i.d. and seperation, but my question is...Does a flasher with better target seperation help locate bottom hugging fish when used on a steeper break? I generally fish walleyes as close to or on the break. My flasher usually produces a decent sized "dead zone". I fish one spot that gives me a 9" dead zone in narrow beam. It's frustrating when fishing this spot because I'll get hits in the dead zone! Does better seperation limit this deadzone or do all units have this problem? A cone angle problem?

[PerchJerker]

Better target seperation will not help with the dead zone, cone angle is the only thing that will help with the dead zone. Target seperation will only help with things that are above what the sonar thinks is the bottom.

As you noted there is a dead zone on a drop-off ---- if you're fishing over rocks and a rock sticks up higher than the others you will also have a dead zone (anything below the top of the highest rock that is in your transducer cone).

[Nick Kuhn]

Dave is correct. You would be far better off using a camera if you are looking for bottom hugging fish. Even a walleye on a flat bottom would be pretty tough to pick up if it was laying on the bottom.

[dan z]

I believe you need to understand what your flasher is telling you, there all great units and on the water time is the only thing that makes you better at reading your own flasher.

there are guys out there using the old clearwater classic's and there still catching fish holding to cover.

[fish_eat_sleep]

any machine is better than no machine! i have an off topic specification question.. lets say you have you have a significantly higher wattage flasher than your fishing buddy (same frequency flasher). your flasher's cone angle crosses the other one. will the higher watt one cause the other a lot more interference with the lower watt flasher due to the higher power? is that why some say more watts is actually better?

and as far as separation.. I can tell a pretty big difference in 20' or deeper between a vx-1p and the lx-3tc. I have owned both and both are fantastic for the price. every brand and model is better than nothing. all are very nice and have their place in the market. but the thinner lines and brighter color really help when you have a small #14 jig in 23" and a small crappie is taking a look. I can actually tell the 2 lines a part. right up until the fish bites. now thats pretty impressive. at least for me anyway who isn't used to that awesome clarity.

[griff321]

Where would a good place to view a buying guide that includes some of the older models?

It'd be nice to see some a variety of models side by side minus the marketing junk.

[Esox_Magnum]

Leech just posted it, nothing much has changed in any of the brands over the years, a 2000 year Vex and a 2011 Vex are the same, same with the other brands....

[fisherman-andy]

I see no point by confusing the already confused people over brand X features. Most know what they are already pretty much, if you ever bother to read the manual or do a little investigating on the features of your favorite flasher.

If the point here was to clearify what target separation is, and what target ID is this post fails to educate except state the obvious features of each product. Because I dont see them comparing the two as the same thing in their statements. So this does not confuse me as false or mis-leading claims.

[pikerliker]

Ummm.... can you repeat the part... about the stuff.. about the things?

[griff321]

Leech just posted it, nothing much has changed in any of the brands over the years, a 2000 year Vex and a 2011 Vex are the same, same with the other brands....

Not really. I think that helped illustrate the massive amount of marketing spiel customers have to deal with. However for a new guy trying to wade through all of this manure saying that a Vex made in 2000 is the same as a vex made in 2011 is just terrible advice. They seem to vary widely by model and even then they have different packages of each model. It's confusing as heck. By that logic you're saying a zercom colorpoint is no different than the marcum VX1P, same engineers. Or that a FL8 is the same as a FL12, it's still a vex right!?

[fishwater]

I believe he was implying that a 2000 fl-18 was the same as a 2012 fl-18. The fl-8 and fl-12 are very similar.

Just wanted to add that newer fl-18's are in fact different. Recent year units can no longer be switched to deep range units.

[leech~~]

I see no point by confusing the already confused people

Sorry Andy. I will try to make things more clearer next time I try to help.

[PurpleFloyd]

How about coming with with something like a drop shot scale, which would be fairly easy to standardize.

Essentially what is the smallest size of drop shot that the sonar can identify at various depths ad the target ID rating and then for the target separation rating you would have the closest you can put 2 drop shot of a specific size to each other and still show up as two separate objects.

Is that something along the lines of what you were looking for?

[leech~~]

PF, I think something like that will work for testing at the Flasher Shoot-out. What I want is to have testing and results that all there can agree on that are there at the event.

[throwback]

Purple Floyd

Your idea of a drop shot scale sounds very interesting. I would really like to see that kind of comparison.

[PurpleFloyd]

It would be simple, cheap and definitive. I am actually surprised this hasn't been done before but yes, if you are looking to do a side by side comparison Leech, this would seem the way to go.

It would be very easy to take an assortment of split shot from the smallest to the largest sizes and put each size on a line and lower them down a hole with each flasher to see the smallest size each flasher can pick up then pick a size of split shot or even two different sizes and place them on a line starting with touching and separating in 1/4 inch increments up to say 2.5 inches.

I have a different test I use for my x67c. I put a housefly on a small piece of lead core and drop it and I pick out each of their 6 legs and also which direction the legs are pointing. But I am not sure you could do that with the rest of the flashers.

[leech~~]

PF, I was kind of on the same path you are. I had thought about having three rods setup with three different size jigs on it but I think your idea of split shot will be easier to make adjustments to fairly fast. I just picked up a used x67c (not sure why) and will be up at Appledorns tomorrow actually trying it out and a Huum 55 I also picked up used. I'm leaving the FL-18 at home so I can spend all my time playing with the other two to see how they do. I got the x67c for a $100 bucks W/O a battery but I already had an extra one anyway. If i don't like it for ice fishing I can alway throw it in the boat. Not sure where I am going find any Flys this time of year to try your test out? Maybe you can round some up for the Flasher Shootout and we can try them out then!