Posted 4/5/2009 7:52 PM (#370439 - in reply to #370373) Subject: Re: Larry Dahlberg
Posts: 463
Location: Sw Pennsylvania
I'm thinking within the next few years hes gonna slow down on chasing the weird fish all around the world like he has done for the past years and stay in the usa chasing more musky like what he grew up on. I love his show, but there isn't a chance of me chasing peacocks in the amazon and tarpon in south america. I'd much rather see him chase big fish across canada and the usa. His show has been interesting lately with all his bait building and modifications...
Posted 4/5/2009 8:29 PM (#370457 - in reply to #370373) Subject: Re: Larry Dahlberg
Posts: 1663
Location: Kodiak, AK
He had the Skeeter there with him? With that big 300 Yammie on it? That's alot of boat! I like my 20', but sometimes I think 22' would be nice, and 24' would just be too much in the wind and on the TM.
Hawkeye
Posted 4/5/2009 10:06 PM (#370480 - in reply to #370373) Subject: RE: Larry Dahlberg
Actually, A.R.K., on Larry's last show (or at least a recent one) he talked a lot about the Double Cowgirl lure and several others, and mentioned that he was indeed going to start focusing on Musky fishing again. Good to see him getting back to his roots.
(Sorry...off the topic a little, I know.)
Posted 4/5/2009 10:14 PM (#370485 - in reply to #370373) Subject: Re: Larry Dahlberg
Posts: 646
Location: In a shack in the woods
i think it was the show with the griz on the missippi river he said something along those lines. his flight to somewhere exotic fell through because the price has gone up. ill blame the economy. lol i like that aspect of the show but i would not complain about more musky either. it seems like versus normally plays a musky or lure making episode and a far off place on friday nights. i havent seen a show of his i havent liked. they are all very interesting in different ways. from that dream vacation for tarpon to walleyes and musky on metro waters. seems to me most shows are filmed in mn or far away.
Posted 4/5/2009 10:29 PM (#370491 - in reply to #370485) Subject: Re: Larry Dahlberg
Posts: 941
Location: Freedom, WI
Larry is a very interesting and knowledgeable man. I was at my booth at the show but got a chance to talk with him for a while before the show and learned some great info, mostly bait making.
Posted 4/6/2009 1:49 PM (#370588 - in reply to #370373) Subject: RE: Larry Dahlberg
Posts: 49
Larry thinks that the reason is that the double blade lures are the quietest lures rather than all of the other lures that make so much noise. He used a hydrophone to listen to it. It was interesting.
Any for those who attended the seminar, I am going to try that kite fishing, any one want to help?
Posted 4/6/2009 1:57 PM (#370590 - in reply to #370387) Subject: RE: Larry Dahlberg
Posts: 49
He had some great thoughts but the main thing he said about the double blade phenoms is that they are so much more quiet compared to other lures. It made me think a little bit sound and lures.
Also, if anyone is looking for some nice baits check out Rogers spot below, I bought two nitro s from him, super nice guy and great looking baits I will let you know when I catch my first fish on them
Posted 4/6/2009 2:31 PM (#370594 - in reply to #370590) Subject: RE: Larry Dahlberg
Posts: 734
Location: Watertown, MN
Excellent speaker, talked with several we respect musky guys that alot of people thing highly off, and they just state the he is at a whole nother level. I am sure economy and sponsor will cut back some of the big trips, that is a good thing for us, will see what else he learns and observes if whe spends more time chasing skies. One speaker I would never miss.
Posted 4/6/2009 2:41 PM (#370597 - in reply to #370373) Subject: Re: Larry Dahlberg
Posts: 2024
If they are indeed so quiet then their fish catching abilities similar to big plastics is probably no coincidence. Makes you wonder what stimuli picked up by the lateral line muskies respond to most aggressively.
Posted 4/6/2009 3:08 PM (#370605 - in reply to #370373) Subject: Re: Larry Dahlberg
Location: Twin Cities
It might be quiet on a hydrophone, but it's still displacing a ton of water which will create pressure waves. I would think that comes across as sound as well, but maybe not detected by a hydrophone? IDK, just guessing. I don't know enough about the technology behind the device to say much more.
I've heard a story about a diver shooting video of DCG's who said he could hear them coming a long ways away, long before the boat engine pulling them.
Posted 4/6/2009 3:35 PM (#370609 - in reply to #370605) Subject: Re: Larry Dahlberg
Posts: 734
Location: Watertown, MN
Bingo, displacing water, look at the size of the blades, displacing the same volume of say a big sucker swimming???? I was thinking it was a big vibe, but the complete opposite, but the rest of the seminar talk about fish instinct and the he stated they are samplers, and through good and bad experience choose dinner. His big statement is find the "Mother Milk" of the fish for that area.
Troyz
sling blade
Posted 4/6/2009 3:38 PM (#370610 - in reply to #370373) Subject: RE: Larry Dahlberg
i think that's kind of funny actually as some of the best night double 10s I throw are the "loud" ones that make a very discernable "clicking" noise.
maybe they like them loud at night?!!!? they do in my experience
Posted 4/6/2009 4:07 PM (#370614 - in reply to #370373) Subject: Re: Larry Dahlberg
Posts: 32886
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin
A hydrophone actually picks up pressure waves. That's what 'sound' underwater is.
From WIKI:
A hydrophone (Greek "hydro" = "water" and "phone" = "sound") is a microphone designed to be used underwater for recording or listening to underwater sound. Most hydrophones are based on a piezoelectric transducer that generates electricity when subjected to a pressure change. Such piezoelectric materials, or transducers can convert a sound signal into an electrical signal since sound is a pressure wave in fluids. Some transducers can also serve as a projector (emitter), but not all have this capability, and may be destroyed if used in such a manner.
A hydrophone can "listen" to sound in air, but will be less sensitive due to its design as having a good acoustic impedance match to water, the denser fluid. Likewise, a microphone can be buried in the ground, or immersed in water if it is put in a waterproof container, but will give similarly poor performance due to the similarly bad acoustic impedance match.'
In a few days you will be listening to double 10 signatures recorded on a piezoelectric transducer while watching the lure move through the water. I've already listened to them quite a bit.
Posted 4/6/2009 4:39 PM (#370623 - in reply to #370373) Subject: Re: Larry Dahlberg
Posts: 147
Location: Leech Lake, Walker, MN.
If you missed the seminar and live in the Twin Cities area Larry is speaking on Saturday April 18th at Thorne Bros Spring sale. He will also be making some of his baits. Every thing is on sale.
Posted 4/6/2009 6:13 PM (#370636 - in reply to #370614) Subject: Re: Larry Dahlberg
Location: Sun Prairie, WI
sworrall - 4/6/2009 4:07 PM A hydrophone actually picks up pressure waves. That's what 'sound' underwater is. From WIKI: A hydrophone (Greek "hydro" = "water" and "phone" = "sound") is a microphone designed to be used underwater for recording or listening to underwater sound. Most hydrophones are based on a piezoelectric transducer that generates electricity when subjected to a pressure change. Such piezoelectric materials, or transducers can convert a sound signal into an electrical signal since sound is a pressure wave in fluids. Some transducers can also serve as a projector (emitter), but not all have this capability, and may be destroyed if used in such a manner. A hydrophone can "listen" to sound in air, but will be less sensitive due to its design as having a good acoustic impedance match to water, the denser fluid. Likewise, a microphone can be buried in the ground, or immersed in water if it is put in a waterproof container, but will give similarly poor performance due to the similarly bad acoustic impedance match.' In a few days you will be listening to double 10 signatures recorded on a piezoelectric transducer while watching the lure move through the water. I've already listened to them quite a bit.
So Steve, just to clarify in my mind...a DCG creates a big pressure wave picked up by the musky's lateral line as "sound", but sounds quiet to the human ear, is that correct? Just want to make sure I'm understanding correctly.
Posted 4/6/2009 6:24 PM (#370640 - in reply to #370636) Subject: Re: Larry Dahlberg
Posts: 32886
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin
Not quiet at all.
Hydrophone one, a test using Musky Innovations Lures, wear a headset or earbuds for maximum effect. I've come a long way with equipment since this one, expect way better results from this week's tests:
Posted 4/6/2009 7:33 PM (#370655 - in reply to #370640) Subject: Re: Larry Dahlberg
Posts: 157
Location: Arlington Heights, IL
I'm not sure about the DC being all that quiet. I know that while Gregg Thomas was filming his latest DVD he had a scuba diver under water filming different baits as he trolled them by him. The diver told Gregg that only bait he heard before he could see it was the DC.
Posted 4/7/2009 12:29 AM (#370702 - in reply to #370373) Subject: Re: Larry Dahlberg
Posts: 656
Location: Forest Lake, Mn.
We, being human, tend to think of sound in human terms. We think of sound as it sounds to our human ears. generally we hear waveforms that move through the air from 20Hz to 20KHz. Does anyone know the hearing range of a muskie? And, at what frequency range does the lateral line pick up, and what is the range for the fishes ears? My point is, Muskies and humans may well hear and interpert "sound" in entirely different ways. Doing a hydrophone test of how loud a lure is, is only of value if we understand and interpert the test results in terms of how the lure sounds to a muskie. They may hear or sense sound at higher or lower frequencys than a human can. Much like we can't hear a dog whistle. Yes, the double cowgirl may sound quiter to us on a hydrophone but to a muskie? Who knows?
Light is also "sound" in a sense that it is a high frequency waveform that moves through the air and water. We do not have senses that percive light as sound. We view those waveforms as light with our eyes. The lower frequency waveforms we call sound. If our bodies had the proper senses we'd be able to see or hear radio frequencys too. Fish see light and color in different ways than we do. Many studies have been done on the structure of fishes eyes. I'm not aware of much study of a fishes hearing. But there could be research done that I'm not aware of.
What I'm trying to say is, any test of sound must be viewed in terms of the senses of the species in question. Does anyone really know what a cowgirl, or any other lure, sounds like to a muskie?
Posted 4/7/2009 7:18 AM (#370717 - in reply to #370702) Subject: Re: Larry Dahlberg
Posts: 742
Location: Grand Rapids MN
fishpoop - 4/7/2009 12:29 AM
Light is also "sound" in a sense that it is a high frequency waveform that moves through the air and water.
Light doesn't need a medium to transmit through like sound, that's why it can travel through space which has no medium. You're stepping into the old debate of particle versus wave with light. I'll agree about the possibility of fish being able to feel at different frequencies. Even in our human body there are parts more sensitive to a particular frequency such as in our hands, feet, torso, head, etc.. This stuff was covered in a Acoustics & Noise Control course I took back in school and I'm sure could be found online somewhere. So I couldn't see why a fish wouldn't be receptive to different frequency ranges versus what we hear or feel.
Steve, interesting stuff you are trying out. I had a hard time trying to differentiate what might have been surface noise from the line when you pulled the dawg or if it was from the lure itself. It just seemed that when the line made a lot of bubbles and waves the sound was the loudest. If I could just throw out a suggestion/idea, maybe use a reel with high line pick up, put the rod tip in the water, and just crank fast to inpart the jerkbait action. This could take out the surface splash of the line. Only a thought. Please keep this kind of stuff coming Steve. It's always interested me. Thanks....
Posted 4/7/2009 11:26 AM (#370754 - in reply to #370373) Subject: Re: Larry Dahlberg
Posts: 2361
I couldn't differentiate much in the sound department either.
Hard to say what the musky reacts to on the double cowgirl. I am not even sure what the turbulence pattern is for sure. They appear to create a vacumn, no, actually they do create a vacumn behind the blades, but what kind of pressure waves they send out is difficult to discern. Many bucktails are more streamlined in terms of design and water displacement, but this vacumn effect behind the blades must be present on all spinners I would guess.
It would be interesting to see what the wave signature of a bucktail actually is. There must be a rythmic pulse coming off the front of the blade, going out from the face, and in smaller bucktails where there is a tail close to the blade or a bulkier tail, there should not be a whole lot of other turbulence, but when you look at the D10's you actually have a stream of water caving in to fill the displacement behind the blade, and that has to be a very UN-streamlined design. A fish swimming through the drink is very streamlined, and I guess is an attempt to smoothly repair the water flow behind it, thus decreasing overall friction in the environment? I am convinced that the streamlining in many glides work against strikes. However, I have no inkling as to how the LACK of streamlining works for Cowgirls, but I believe it works effectively for pull baits.
All in all, I am suspicious the cowgirls swim in an "UN-healthy" manner or maybe they just swim in a bigger, better calorie return type of way? I am awaiting some muddy water to look at some things. I wonder what you would see in a wind tunnel? Sworrall needs to build the first "current tunnel" to test this stuff for us. He's gettin pretty old. He needs a big research break thru before he croaks...
Posted 4/7/2009 5:22 PM (#370818 - in reply to #370373) Subject: Re: Larry Dahlberg
Posts: 656
Location: Forest Lake, Mn.
Targa01
you raise a good point. I will admit right now that I'm about at my limit of scientific knowledge and for me to argue much farther on the subject would only make me foolish. I was merely trying to make the point that there are many frequencies of waveforms and that depending on the senses of an animal a given frequency would be interperted differently than the same frequency would be by another animal.
I don't have enough physics background to debate partical vs wave transmission through a medium. I was trying more to look at this from a biology viewpoint and how the same waveform might be interperted differently by different animals. My comment about light being "sound" was meant to suggest that if we had different sensory abilites we might be able to "hear" light rather than see it, or perhaps see sound rather than hear it. Thus to say that a DCG is quieter than other
lures on a hydrophone test is true for us humans but the muskie might think it's louder or whatever, and do we have any real reserch on the hearing of a muskie and what sound it would find attractive or replusive? Any hydrophone test results should be viewed in the light of what the muskie perceives not what we humans perceive.
In addition to a difference between the senses of humans and muskies there is also the matter of brain size and function. A sound wave that is heard by a human brain may induce a completely different reaction than the same sound wave that is heard by a muskie brain. There could well be individual differences too as well as the species differences between humans and muskies. This is also why some people enjoy Heavy Metal music and others enjoy Classical music and another might enjoy both, yet the human brain size and fucntion is similar. But now I'm probably straying far off the subject.
I met Larry Dahlberg a few years ago. A nice and personable man. He is a thinking mans fisherman and has proven his ability to fish and think "outside the box."
Posted 4/7/2009 5:31 PM (#370820 - in reply to #370373) Subject: RE: Larry Dahlberg
Posts: 906
Location: Warroad, Mn
Fished a little with Larry many years ago when he was with In-Fish. Very good fisherman, and an interesting guy.
I'm not sure what makes the DCG type lure so effective, and I guess I really don't care.
I suspect that the fish somehow think what they see and hear is food. For us to guess why using all sorts of different testing devises is surely speculation.
From what I've seen in the past three years the big double bladded bucktails do something to the fish that most other lures don't do. I guess we would have to ask the muskies to find out for sure.
Posted 4/7/2009 5:36 PM (#370825 - in reply to #370373) Subject: Re: Larry Dahlberg
Posts: 656
Location: Forest Lake, Mn.
Doug
Thank you for making my point for me in a simple manner. I was trying, in a long winded way, to point out that any test results of a lures sound is subjective at best, because muskies and humans are different critters.
Posted 4/7/2009 6:26 PM (#370830 - in reply to #370825) Subject: Re: Larry Dahlberg
Posts: 2361
fishpoop - 4/7/2009 5:36 PM
Doug
Thank you for making my point for me in a simple manner. I was trying, in a long winded way, to point out that any test results of a lures sound is subjective at best, because muskies and humans are different critters.
No, I don't really think it IS subjective. Tests can be made and this could be measured and recorded very objectively.
Of course, then you have to interpret what it is you recorded....
Posted 4/7/2009 7:13 PM (#370844 - in reply to #370373) Subject: Re: Larry Dahlberg
Posts: 742
Location: Grand Rapids MN
I knew exactly what you were trying to say fishpoop. I wasn't looking to debate either just givin' a friendly 'jab'.
It's just human nature to wonder what makes things tick and their are some people out there that are really good at what they do (I'm not one of them either). For others as long as it works they don't care, as stated. Each to their own; that's teh beauty of it.....
Posted 4/9/2009 9:35 PM (#371333 - in reply to #370702) Subject: Re: Larry Dahlberg
Posts: 317
fishpoop - 4/7/2009 12:29 AM
We, being human, tend to think of sound in human terms. We think of sound as it sounds to our human ears. generally we hear waveforms that move through the air from 20Hz to 20KHz. Does anyone know the hearing range of a muskie? And, at what frequency range does the lateral line pick up, and what is the range for the fishes ears? My point is, Muskies and humans may well hear and interpert "sound" in entirely different ways. Doing a hydrophone test of how loud a lure is, is only of value if we understand and interpert the test results in terms of how the lure sounds to a muskie. They may hear or sense sound at higher or lower frequencys than a human can. Much like we can't hear a dog whistle. Yes, the double cowgirl may sound quiter to us on a hydrophone but to a muskie? Who knows?
Light is also "sound" in a sense that it is a high frequency waveform that moves through the air and water. We do not have senses that percive light as sound. We view those waveforms as light with our eyes. The lower frequency waveforms we call sound. If our bodies had the proper senses we'd be able to see or hear radio frequencys too. Fish see light and color in different ways than we do. Many studies have been done on the structure of fishes eyes. I'm not aware of much study of a fishes hearing. But there could be research done that I'm not aware of.
What I'm trying to say is, any test of sound must be viewed in terms of the senses of the species in question. Does anyone really know what a cowgirl, or any other lure, sounds like to a muskie?
BINGO! Just like color. You see pink, I see Pink. Muskie? Who knows? Especially in different colored water. Also, That pressure wave Big Blades make may be subsonic, and felt more than "heard"
Posted 4/10/2009 12:00 PM (#371434 - in reply to #370373) Subject: Re: Larry Dahlberg
Posts: 73
Location: Indiana
Just cause the blades are moving super quick, doesn't mean they make "noise". The blades on a DCG are like the prop on an airplane. The prop spinning doesn't make much noise at all. But airplanes are loud right? Yes...but MOST of the noise comes from the engine (until the tips of the props break the sound barrier). Until the prop reaches that point, it's virtually silent!!! Look at it this way...how much noise does the prop of an airplane make when it's sitting on the runway and the wind pushes it backwards...or better yet those giant windmills, not much noise. Or if you're in a dive in a plane with the engine off...it's silent and the props spinning pretty good...good enough to get the motor to come out of a stall...at which point the engine makes noise again. So when you think about it, the prop doesn't make much noise at all...until it's going super fast. Well, the DCG blades are essentially a prop...they work the same way. The line essentially pulls the DCG blades forwards meaning that there's a silent engine (like the wind). And they won't make much "noise" at all until they go super super fast...too fast for us to reel mind you, even though there are a few people who probably claim to be the fastest reelers on the planet. (I think I heard someone say that in a video). HA!
Now the blades DO create vibrations. And those vibrations ARE soundwaves....just not "noisy" ones. For example, plane props create vibrations while spinning silently in the wind. But we can't feel it because air is not solid enough. And we certainly can't hear it because the waves they create are of such a low frequency that it's virtually non existant to us. So the DCG blades do create these vibrations as well. However, even though the water is more solid than air, the frequency is still so low that they product virtually no "noise". The frequency is just too low for humans to hear. And probably for muskies too....except for those darn lateral lines.
So, the answer is, you are all right. DCG's are "silent" yet make noise. They don't produce a soundwave that is anywhere near the spectrum of hearing for a human. Yet the muskies can pick up this soundwave as a vibration in their lateral lines.
Here's a good way to explain it. Next time you're at the ocean, swim out from shore a bit. Go underwater and float there with your eyes open. You will find that you move towards and away from shore a few feet at a time...you will move with the waves. That is the scale of soundwaves I'm talking about...obviously a low frequency. You can't HEAR them (not talking about the waves breaking on the shore...talking about the waves themselves...you can't hear them). But you can FEEL yourself moving back and forth....you can FEEL the movement even though you can't HEAR it.
So, in essence the DCG is silent, but creates a vibration that's WAY louder to a muskie's lateral line than any other lure.
Posted 4/10/2009 12:06 PM (#371436 - in reply to #370373) Subject: Re: Larry Dahlberg
Posts: 32886
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin
You are going to be surprised!
We are hoping to record number two in the MuskieFIRST Muskie Lure Footprint series (Hydrophone 2) this weekend. By the way, all studies I have read indicate fish (specifically muskies) see color very well, WHEN it's available. The 'color vision' cone cells are definitely there, as are the B&W rod cells, and a collection of triangular shaped cells that Jerry Bucholtz looked into that may indicate something else entirely. Keep in mind the water is a very alien environment for us, and we need to be thinking available light to determine what colors are even visible,
Posted 4/10/2009 2:14 PM (#371460 - in reply to #370373) Subject: Re: Larry Dahlberg
Posts: 742
Location: Grand Rapids MN
Either way you look at it just keep it up Steve! Most of the time tests/studies lead to more questions, directions, and of course conversation topics. Will we ever reach the end and answer them all to where everyone is satisfied, NO, but the journey is the best part.
You need to add Muskiefirst Lab Coats to the line up!
Posted 4/11/2009 7:42 AM (#371555 - in reply to #371460) Subject: Re: Larry Dahlberg
Posts: 480
Did Mr Dahlberg invent fishing for muskies with balloons? I remember last summer seeing a boat trolling on tonka with little pink balloons in front of the lures.
Posted 4/12/2009 5:30 AM (#371657 - in reply to #370373) Subject: Re: Larry Dahlberg
Posts: 656
Location: Forest Lake, Mn.
There was a subtle message in my post too that I was trying to get across. We humans, as I've said, tend to view animals in human terms. I believe the word is anthropomorphism. Which means to give animals human traits and characteristics. It is this tendency we humans have, that gives the animal rights groups the ammo they need to take away our hunting and fishing rights. That little bunny is cute and cuddly just like a human baby is cute. Therefore, rabbit hunting is immoral. etc. Whoever would shoot the Easter bunny is a monster. It's also why animals are used in advertising. We react to them in human terms and it sells product. The Energizer Bunny. for example. or the Geico Gekko. and the AFLAC duck.
I was trying to get us away from thinking of fish hearing lures the same way humans do because if we understand the fishes sense of hearing better and don't view it in human terms we can therefore better use sound and vibration to catch fish. But at the same time it helps to strengthen the line that separates humans from animals and takes away the ammo the animal rights groups use against us.
Animals aren't human so we must stop thinking of them in human terms.
Any test results of a lures sound through the water should be interpreted with the knowledge of the muskies ear structure and the function of it's lateral line. With that in mind we can then use lures that will better appeal to the muskies sense of hearing and hopefully catch more fish.
Sworrall used to post on the subject of anthropomorphism. Any comments. Steve?
We seem to have gotten away from the subject of Larry Dahlberg here. But I wouldn't be surprised that should he read this thread he would enjoy it and most likely have a few opinions of his own on the subject of lure sound and anthropomorphism.
Posted 4/12/2009 9:34 AM (#371685 - in reply to #370373) Subject: Re: Larry Dahlberg
Posts: 32886
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin
Absolutely. The footprint of any lure we see or hear will not be perceived the same way by a muskie; they have completely different sensory organs, and perhaps more importantly, no where near the interpretative ability we have. What the testing WILL do is allow us to look at and experience what each lure out there looks like and sounds like, and look at it graphically, as well. We can then 'compare' the different footprints and by applying that information to experience, perhaps come up with some ideas why certain baits with a certain signature illicit the reaction from our quarry we experience on the water. I'm particularly interested in seeing what differences there might be between my 'hot' Weagle/Rumbler/Violent Strike etc. and identically built models that are not 'hot'....if there is any.
I would make one comment; the idea ANY lure is 'quiet' when compared to the everyday prey the muskie consumes is not accurate.
Posted 4/12/2009 10:37 PM (#371779 - in reply to #370373) Subject: Re: Larry Dahlberg
Posts: 656
Location: Forest Lake, Mn.
Steve:
Thanks for correcting my error. Anthroppmorphism was the word I was looking for and not Animisum. Mea Culpa. I was on the right track at least.
You raise another interesting question. Why is one lure "hot" and gets all the fish and another seemingly identical lure fails to illicit any response?
Larry Dahlberg