Lowrance 67 vs Vexilar, Marcum

I sold a Marcum flasher last year. Loved it but now need to replace it. Primary use would be ice fishing, although I’ll end up putting it on my boat as well. I am looking at Vexilar and Marcum flahers and also Lowrance’s new 67 LCD. I have used the Vexilar and Marcum and think either brand will work great. Although I believe I can pick up more fish with the zoom detail on Marcum’s flasher. I like the size and functions on the 67. Has anyone used this unit yet and have an opinion. I have also dowloaded the demo from Lowrance and can’t seem to get a zoom mode when it shows the flasher. Can anyone help?

One thing to think about with flashers, namely for use in a boat, is the “motion”. Vex has the bottom lock feature, which pretty much does just that. So, if you’re in a good walleye chop, you will get a consitent reading without watching the depth rise & fall with the waves. I had my FL18 on the bow for a little while this summer. Worked great.

Can’t say much about Marcum… never used one. Nor the new Lowrances.

My good friend Ryan Hale said he thought there were a few problems with the new Lowrance yet, and his is the only feedback I’ve had. Both Vexilar and Marcum are good units, and like Lowrance, they are quality manufacturers. I have heard a number of folks say they do like the bottom lock feature on the FL-18.

Bshimp,the FL-18 has a zoom feature on the bottom 6′ of your water column.I have never heard a bad thing about Vexilar units.
The Lowrance Ice Machine had a few things that I did not like that much.The arm that holds your transducer is very cheap looking.Also I was wondering if the screen will get alot of moisture on it during ice fishing with the hot/cold temps that come with ice fishing.
If your in the market for a new unit make sure you check out Jolly Ann Marine.He is a sponsor for this site and has great service and prices.
Ryan Hale

I was dissapointed in reading one of the early responses to your question. Namely, that the FL-18 has a bottom lock feature. Anyone want to buy my FL-8 … It’s time for me to upgrade!

But seriously, I’m struggling with the same question in terms of the LCD and its compatibility with temp variations. I’ve got a Lowrance X-97, used one summer, that I’m in love with and would like to put an ice ducer on it. I’ve been asking around for the past two months and the opinions (few facts) haven’t been very definitive:
* you won’t have any problems
* don’t let the LCD freeze or you will damage pixels and get a garbled screen
* keep the isplay unit in the truck or coat pocket while setting up
* use one of those 4-hour handwarmers, place on the screen while in transit
* LCD is difficult to read in direct sun

I like to run from hole to hole at times and my FL-8 (still for sale) is subjected to the temp variations. At this point I’m not willing to risk my X-97 in those conditions.

JHinty

I’ve been going through the same thing you have. Here’s what I found out from Lowrance.

The X67 can be stored in temps down to -4F (don’t leave it in your truck overnight)

The X67 can operate in temps down to -22F (apparently when the unit is on the risk of freezing goes down slightly)

I figure I can remember to bring it in at the end of the day and keep it in the cab while on my way to and from the lake. If it’s below -22F, I’ll be in one of two places… in my shack, or in my house. Either way the unit will never see -22F. Unless I do forget and leave it in my truck overnight

I picked up the Lowrance unit about a month and a half ago after using an Fl-8 last year. I’ve used it in 20 below windchills for over an hour and a half which is pretty rediculous being the holes freeze up every 3 or 4 minutes but it performed flawlessly. Some people seem to be concerned about moisture on the screen. Obviously there will be a little condensation (as anyone knows who wears glasses) on the screen when you go outside in those temps for extended periods of time and then go into a steamy shack but, under most conditions, such as 0 degrees and up, it is unaffected. Also, short little trips from the shack to the hole in those conditions to reset a tip-up didn’t seem to affect it either. Probably due to the fact that the electronics keep it somewhat warm and the insulated bag retains some of the heat and blocks the wind. Simply put, only under extreme temp. changes do you see any noticeable condensation, from my experiences anyway. As far as the unit goes otherwise, it has proven itself to be superior to all units in everyway except it only has half the power of the Marcum, but the Marcum supposedly has some interference issues. It has twice the power of the Vexilars giving it better separation, and with the fish reveal, water temp., fish alarms (which works quite well I might add), scrolling sonar with 2x or 4x adjustable depth zoom (which I find myself using the most), 256 colors vs. 3 colors, etc. etc. etc., this thing is going with me everywhere (hardwater or boat). Probably should mention the battery meter on the flasher screen and the fact that you don’t have to unplug it to conserve battery life and that it doesn’t have a motor therefore having around 4 or 5 times the charge life of the regular flasher units. Also, while it may seem cheaply made, I’m pretty certain the arm will take a pretty good beating as lond nobody jumps up and down on it. All it has to do is hold a little transducer. All this results in one versatile,lightweight, fishfinding powerhouse and I’m happier than a pig-in-mud that I tried something new for a change. My only regret is not shelling out the extra $ for the x68 that comes with GPS.

Vaughn,

First of all, welcome to In-Depth Angling!

We thank you for sharing yor findings with us. Very helpful information. There’s been lots of questions and not much for answers since these were so new that no one had been able to get out and test ’em for a while.

Please keep us posted on your experience with the unit. We’re also interested in any fishing stories or pics you might like to share.

Again, welcome to the site!

Wade

Separation is determined by the receiver, not the output power. The Vexilar only puts out 400 watts peak to peak or 50RMS. RMS watts is the real rating. Peak to peak watts mean nothing. Its only taking the RMS watts and multiplying them by 8. The more RMS watts a unit has, only means it can return a signal in deeper water better. The Vexilar units can separate targets within 2 inches at 200 feet deep which is more than enough.

Derek, I was taught that power does effect separation, but you only need “just enough” power for the receiver to get a strong signal back. The Vexilar certainly has enough power, as does the Lowrance unit. What are your thoughts on this?

Some of the best locators on the market only put out 15 watts of output yet they show the most incredible detail and seperation ever seen.

What do I know? Probably not much but I can tell you this about power and separation. Some years back I was undecided about buying a Zercom Clearwater Classic or a Vexilar FL-8. I bought the Clearwater Classic. Why, because I thought 1000 watts would be better than color for fish identification. My friend bought a Vexliar FL-8. We went to Clear Lake at Waseca. I drilled a couple of holes for my partner in 14 feet of water. I then drilled two holes for myself. As I was scooping out the slush my partner said, “no fish here”. I put my scope down and said, “oh yes threre are, right off the bottom”. I still use my Clearwater Classic. It is great! Too bad that Humminbird bought them out and screwed up the unit. So I think that power has something to do with results. This is based on older units and my own experience. I have nothing to base this on except experience.

Derek I took myself back to school on this topic but couldn’t find much in terms of sonar that deals with Watts P-P or Watts RMS but found alot in audio electronics which is somewhat the same field. Apparently MORE POWER isn’t always better?! Signed, Huge Tim Allen Fan. Apparently “marketing” knows what I like. P.S. How do they figure 4x Watts Peak to get the Watts P-P? We know Watts RMS X 2 = Watts Peak, if you multiply that by 2 like you would do with Voltage Peak to get Voltage Peak to Peak, you would only get 200 Watts. Couldn’t find it in my books. Any info from someone would be great.

Exactly! You can pound out power in a stereo but if the speakers are junk, it ain’t going to do you no good.

Heres a great article from Chuck Husick. He is the editor of the Guide to Marine Electronics and has been for over 40 years.

Chuck Husick

We have been using the MarCum LX-3’s for two years now. Adam and myself both run them as well as our guide clients when they are on trips with us. These are powful units that have a very crisp thin line display. The display on the LX-3 or LX-1 is so crisp I find myself not using the bottom zoom very often. Even when the fish are on the bottom they can be distiguished on with the MarCum units.

We have been very happy with the performance of these units and our customers have been as well. We give the MarCum units our highest recommendation.

Derek,

Great info! Thanks!

I think the lesson here is that there are a number of factors that make make a good fishfinder.

Well the RMS power may not be as relevant in this area

as in the audio world. RMS stands for Root Mean Square

and is easily thought of as “heating power”. For example in

your wall outlets, the voltage is labeled and 120V 60hz. It

is a simple sine wave which goes up to a peak of roughly

120+ Volts and then swoops down to a negative peak of -120v.

Power in watts is Volts times Amps (Current) so if you

averaged the Volts times Amps of the electricity going into

your heater, it would average out to zero…. Obviously

not right.

RMS power is the amount of power a DC power source would

need to generate in order to produce the same Heat output

as the AC power source.

Back in the bad old days, before stereo equipment

manufacturers where required to measure output in RMS, they

would claim “Peak output power” which the amp would only

have to be able to generate for a millisecond of time under

theoretical but not realistic configurations.

I contend that peak power has more relevance in a fish

finder than RMS. It is clear

that no fish finder powered by a 12v 7Ah battery is likely

providing 40W RMS output as I’ve defined above. What they

are claiming is “while the finder is generating signal, it

is producing 40W RMS”. I’m sure you’ve all heard the clicks

from the transducer… most of the time it is not generating

signal.

So for a given RMS rating, you may have one unit with a peak

value of 600W and a signal duration of 1/10th of a second.

And another unit which has a peak value of 1200W and a

signal duration of 1/20th of a second. (yes I know the

numbers are messed up, but ya get the point).

Higher peak output will likely have better penetration and

resolution at greater depths (Return echo’s will be

correspondingly louder to the transducer).

I can’t really see any advantage to longer clicks.

As to what Derek said about the “reciever” providing the

resolution… He is partially right….

A weaker receiver can be offset by a louder transmitter.

I would expect that the signal processing (that which

takes the echoes heard by the receiver and translates

it into flashes) in all modern fish finders should be

able easily handler much more than can be displayed on

the flasher circles. (Considering what calculations GPS

receivers are able to do based on the speed of light)

The Marcum can display a 5 ft range on 1/2 the display (lx3)

and the Vexilar can display a 6ft range on 1/2 the display.

So the Marcum wins (slightly on the 20/40ft ranges).

I’ve used the Vexilar in 60ft of medium clear water and

the zoom functionality seemed somewhat crippled at that

depth (I had a hard time tracking by my bait).

I obtained an LX3 from a guy at work who is moving down

south, and look forward to trying it’s higher power under

similar circumstances.

Sorry for the rambling post.

Mike

Rambling? Holy smokes man! Awesome info… I read through the first time quickly and need to go back and slow it down to digest it all. What can we say other than “nice first post.”

Ya………I’m still gathering it together.
I would like to see you do a product review!!!!!

How is it that a finder with 2,000 watts peak to peak only draws one quarter of an ampere on a 12 volt battery. Since RMS is measuring the same resistance, wouldn’t it be possible to generate the same amount of heat from a 7amp battery? Basically RMS is the same heating effect as AC only its DC.

Secondly, comparing audio to sonar is almost comparing apples to oranges. Sound travels 5 times faster (I believe) in water than it does in air. Depending on how deep your fishing will depend on how much peak to peak power is needed to return the signal. Fishing in waters less than say 40 feet will return the signal so quickly back to the receiver, there isn’t enough time for the transmitter to use all the watts it may be able to put out.

I agree the FL-18 zoom, just like the MarCum zoom will decrease the deeper it is used. The FL-18 is a perch and walleye unit and was made just for that purpose. I believe most anglers ice fish in waters less than 40 feet in Minnesota so they wouldn’t be effected by the zoom in deep water. You can also have a hard time tracking any bait with any locator with 60 feet of line out. Depending on what your using, the line can create a bowing effect and with any natural current, your bait could easily be dancing on the edge of the finders signal. Thats usually when you see your bait flickering on the display.

I agree, good post Mike. You made me go back and refresh my Ohms law from college. Like I posted above, some of the best units and most expensive on the market only need 15 watts of power to display incredible images. The money on these units are spent on the receiver so thats why I keep scratching my head when it comes to raw rated power in sonar.

1/4 amp at 12v to produce 2000w Peak to Peak…

Well it’s possible… basically playing the same games

the old cheap amp manufacturers used to play….

The unit is drawing 3 watts of power so it must use

a duty cycle of less than 3/2000. (Think of the flash unit

for a camera)

As far as how some of the best units can operate on 15 watts

of power (peak or RMS Without knowing of the unit you

speak of, I would have to guess that they focused some on

the receiver to augment it’s sensitivity. But (just

guessing here) The majority of the additional cost is spent

on signal processing and presentation. The flasher units

are presenting the sonar data in nearly a raw format with

very little correlation between successive sonar samples

(exceptions for bottom lock on FL18).

I’m not an engineer for a fish finder manufacturer so I’m

flyin’ by the seat of my pants here. Nor do I have any

experience in the field with the units of which you speak.

However, I would seem to me that the power output of the

unit and the receiving sensitivity of the unit are a

balancing act. And barring outside factors (exploading

fish and such) higher power output is a better solution

than increased receiver sensitivity as it raises the signal

above the ambient noise floor.

For example drawing back on the stereo/audio market again;

DBX noise reduction works by compressing the audio source

then amplifying it during the recording process. Then on

playback, the normalization of attenuating the audio

as it comes off the tape prior to expansion drops the

noise floor of the tape by the percentage of the attenuation. (Kind of like hiking up your pants when

walking through a puddle. With your pants being the

music, and the puddle being the low level noise on

the tape)

That being said, if the most expensive units are using

sensitive receivers and low level transmitters… there

must be a reason, I just don’t know what it is.

Cheers,

Mike

Mike, great posts. I have read them 3 times each and probably will read them 3 more times each. Thanks for sharing that info.

As for the unit Derek is talking about, one is the Genetron graph. It is my understanding they use a relatively low power output, 9-15 Watts, yet they can still generate a pretty good display of what lies beneath. It is also my understanding that these units have very expensive receivers and thus the $2000 per unit price tag.

Not sure if one can compare a graph and a flasher but I wouldn’t mind hearing your thoughts on this Mike.

With all that said, I still like my MarCum LX-3’s!!

So what does a casual ice-fisherman buy? I have around $300 to spend on something. Where is the best bang for the buck?
Steve

Check out the MarCum LX-1, I think you will be getting your money’s worth. All the features of the LX-3 without the adjustable zoom.

Steve,

I have not personally viewed the Marcum, only the Vexilar. I love the vex but Scott and some other guys really like the Marcum units. There are some darn good fishermen on both sides of this fence. I don’t think you could go wrong with either the Marcum or the Vexilar. That’s based on my experience and on what I hear from these guys on here that I have a lot of respect for.

For around $300, in Vexilar it would be the FL-8 Pro Pack and in Marcum, the MarCum LX-1.

Best of luck!

I’ve had my FL-18 for just over a year now… and loved it. That was until Scott “Marcum Boy” Steil let me use one of his LX-3’s on a recent trip up to Mille Lacs. I do think the Marcum does have better seperation than the Vex… a point that is making me purchase an LX-3! The adjustable zoom is a nice feature… but I mainly fish for walleyes, so I’m typically only concerned with the bottom 6 feet (which is the standard, non-moveable zoom the Fl-18 has).
So, I can say I’ve used both. They both perform flawlessy. It’s pretty much up to you, as a consumer, on which way to go between those 2 units. Everybody is different, so if you have the means to try both, that would be the best way to decide. The one drawback the Marcum has, IMHO, is the lack of contrasting colors. The green on the vex is very nice… something that I did miss while trying the Marcum.

If you have 300 to spend, save up 50 more and look
around for a lx3. They had a new one at Trails End
store on 65 south of 610 for 320$ recently. May have
been one of a kind.
I’d mortgage the cat for a few extra bucks for the
zoom capability of the FL18 or the LX3.
In my opinion it is worth waiting for.

I’ve had the Marcum out once now, so I’ll provide
some early observations:

I like the color presentation on the FL18 better.
Green/Yellow/Red on FL18 vs Yellow/Orange/Red on the LX3
Perhaps a partial color blind person (Isn’t blue/green
most common?) might find the Marcum better.

Both seem about the same as far as brightness.

The LX3 appears to be able to cram the bands closer
togeather than the Vexilar. (More display resolution)

In 45ft of water, the FL18 seemed to be able to filter
out the chaff better than the LX3. That can be good
or bad depending on the willingness of the operator to
use grey matter for filtering.

Raw facts and associated observations:

The LX3 has scales of 20ft,40ft,80ft,160ft
The FL18 has scales of 20ft,40ft,60ft,80ft,200ft
Edge here to FL18 for having the 60ft range if you
fish between 40 and 60ft.

LX3 has a two stage zoom which either zooms to a 5ft
or 10ft range on the 20 and 40 foot ranges (10ft/20ft
on the 80 and 160ft ranges) The zoom is adjustable
to anywhere on the display, however it defaults to
the top 5/10ft (Wouldn’t it be nice if it started out
zoomed to the bottom)

The FL18 has a fixed zoom on the bottom 6ft of the range.

Edge on zoom capabilities clearly to the LX3 (Those fish
bouncing between 5 and 7ft from bottom always were a pain
with the FL18.)

The FL18 has a bottom lock feature for use on “soft water”
ie attached to boat.

The FL18 has a low power option for fishing in shallow water.

The LX3 has a higher output power than the FL18.

The LX3 has a flat black finish whereas the FL18 has
glossy finish…. IMHO LX3 looks better

Both are good flashers, I wish I could combine features
of each into the ideal flasher:
FL18’s flasher color scheme.
LX3’s Zoom system
FL18’s Selectable output power.
FL18’s 60ft range
LX3’s display resolution
And a 100$ price point

Hope this helps some,
Mike

BTW, If somebody want’s to see both in action and is willing
to commute to NW Twin City Metro area, drop me a line and
we can work out a time (Unfortuantely next 3 weekends are
out)

Mike

Comparing graph vs flasher…

Having never used graphing unit this is purely a
“mental excercise” Real world feedback would add
a lot.

As I stated in an earlier post, there is almost no
intellegence applied to successive samples on flasher
units. Each “ping” is displayed and forgotten.
With graphing unit’s the display is capable of conveying
much more information, and as such and information that
can be correlated between successive “pings” can be
presented to the operator.

This ability to accumulate information about whats going
on underwater over successive “pings” is what makes graphing
units MUCH more useful in a moving environment (such as
a boat under power). A flasher unit is pretty much
only useful as a depth sounder on a moving boat especially
one moving at any speed above a crawl. The graphing unit
will be able to identifiy objects which have moved relative
to the surrounding and identify them as fish, and provide
a visual picture of the bottom as opposed to a single point
of “depth”.

To me this means that a flasher is ideal for ice fishing
and other forms of fixed location fishing. Whereas for
mounting on a boat, some form of graphing or LCD panel
display device is better suited.

Mike

MIke, thanks for your info. I understand the benefits of a flasher versus a graph for ice fishing applications. I was more interested in hearing your opinion on how a Graph such as a Genetron can have a power output of 9-15 watts of power and these flashers 400-1500 Watts as advertised.

Travis, the LX-3 you were using was an old model. It is my back-up unit. I should have let you use the new unit. The display is much brighter and there is a bigger contrast between the colors on the new models. I am sure you will notice the difference on your new unit.