Quote:
Humminbird Ice 55 Review
#12 Gill Pill in 24 foot of Water
To begin the actual performance comparison I headed for deeper water. I wanted to test the sensitivity and target separation in a scenario that is common to the way I fish. For me “common” would be 20+ foot of water and small jigs for crappies and bluegills. The jig I picked was a #12 gill pill from Custom Jigs and Spins (one of my favorites of late )and that jig would be used on the same rod and line in all tests going forward.
The test was started with the Humminbird ICE 55 in the wide beam transducer setting. Gain was turned up enough to return a bottom reading. That reading, if memory serves, was under 5 out of the possible 25 gain settings on the ICE 55. Once the bottom was established I slowly began to lower the jig. After the jig had been lowered approximately 7 – 8 feet below the ice the jig was given time to come in under the cone. After a wait of sufficient time with no mark for the jig showing on the ICE 55 display it was apparent that more gain would be needed.
The gain was turned up slowly with the jig held motionless. The jig did not appear as a steady return on the ICE 55 until the gain had been turned up past 15. Once the signal for the jig had been established at a gain setting past 15 the jig was again slowly lowered deeper. As soon as the jig started to move the ICE 55 unit lost the jig and would only display a very intermittent return on the display.
The gain was again increased to maintain a useable return signal from the jig. As we continued to lower the jig that gain had to be increased. At 20 feet the gain was at a setting of 25. Maxed out for this unit. As the jig was sent deeper to just above bottom in 24 foot of water the ICE 55 absolutely could not display a return for the jig. When the jig was raised back shallower than 20 feet the jig would again be displayed as a flickering return on the ICE 55 display. Clearly the unit has some incredible sensitivity issues in the wide beam setting. So much so that we opted to not attempt a target separation test in the wide beam as there was no way to substantiate performance if the unit was unable to display returns for the targets.
In narrow beam the ICE 55 did a better job. Once the narrow beam was selected the jig was immediately displayed and the gain setting could be turned down to a setting of 3 – 4 depending on depth. The ICE 55 did a acceptable job of tracking the jig as it fell, the signal was fairly consistent as the jig fell in the water column which allowed me to track the movement of the bait most of the time as it fell towards the bottom.
BACK FROM THE DEAD! I dont know why but when I type up “Humminbird Ice 55 review” James Holst review was the first to come up on google search. LOL…
I thought it be interesting to see what the reviews were on the Ice 55 unit back then. Upon reading further I saw something which didnt sound right? Just for the score im am not bringing this back up to stir the pot. I only want to point out what I think is an error.
Dont get me wrong, im a BIG MARCUM FAN. I have owned at one time the VX1, LX3tc, LX5, and currently the LX6 which is my main go to unit. Sadly my Ice55 is now my backup unit since the release of the LX6 but still gets good use.
I bought the Ice 55 knowing full well it didnt have the target separation or crispness detail that I was so used to with Marcum. But the bird unit was a welcome change and I have learned to come love it even more then my LX5. I liked the backlight for low light, large dial screen, 6 color palette that appear bright & pretty on screen. The auto depth was awesome and one of the main reason why I bought the unit. The digital scale was a welcome for a frequent run & gun hole hopper like me.
I also find most amateur ice anglers especially those who have never fished with a flasher before liked the Ice 55 unit more then my LX5. More more I had used it, the less I had reached for my LX5.
With this aside the flaw I see here was gain in this review. And this may have very well be Humminbirds fault. I remember purchasing my Ice 55 the year it came out, about 3-4 years ago.
In the flasher manual it says “GAIN” has a setting of 1-25 for the Ice 45/55 models. That is false and looks like it contributed to this review? I just liked to point out that the gain on my Ice 55 has been 1-50 from the beginning.
So in part I was wondering on this review if back then the the Ice 55 unit that was tested only had a 1-25 gain range didnt seem right? Could this have contributed to the poor test results here that gain wasnt set properly? Maybe I am wrong? Did Humminbird change something in the current models that the 1st year gen Ice 55 model units didnt have? Im pretty sure I have a 1st year model, if not 2nd year.