[Ben Field]

I know that probably nobody can give a definitive answer to this (that's fishing), but does anybody out there consider line 'noise' while lure fishing (as it sweeps through the water)? Having caught a lot of carp on the pole, one thing that is noticeable on calm days is the amount of noise your taut line makes at the water's surface as the carp swims around quickly below. Maybe it's irrelevant or easily disregarded in reality, but I do think about it when I'm jerking lures about. I suppose the vibration/wave it creates is a different subject, but very similar. Guess that's where line diameter can become more important.

Does anybody think about the vibration and noise their lines make when they fish?

 

[Mick Ward]

I have had simular thoughts, and like you have shrugged them off as boredom setting in, but I do wonder about vibration from say talking or a grindy reel that is sending a vibration down the line that could, to a fish that is designed to pick up vibration, make the braid almost glow with vibration. If there is anything in this I dont think mono would be as bad as braid.

 

[Ben Field]

If there is anything in this I dont think mono would be as bad as braid.

Probably right there Mick. At least on a straight retrieve. Suppose there'd be a lot of variables when you consider diameter etc, but rather than visibility, it would make sense that finer lines are better in clear conditions BECAUSE of less vibration/noise - and not because they're less visible - like we'd probably assume.

 

[Mike Kennard]

A bit weird but this is something I have been thinking of a fair bit lately too. My normal line of choice is Fireline. Just loaded a reel recently with new 20lb Fireline for piking and the vibration from the line/rings when retrieving is VERY noticeable. It MUST make a difference in some conditions. When the sea is calm then any noise will travel along way. When the sea is rough and turbulent then the noise from braid may be lost amongst other background noise. I am sure a lot of this depends on frequency and whether to the fish it is a 'natural' sound or perhaps a sound that is unnatural but not threatening.

 

[Mick Ward]

it would make sense that finer lines are better in clear conditions BECAUSE of less vibration/noise - and not because they're less visible - like we'd probably assume.

Now that is thinking out side the box, fair play to you Ben, thing is, is you may be 100% correct and yet we will never really know eh. I think of all sorts of wierd reasons why I aint catching!! I do think though that on those days when it is gin clear and I'm getting follows but no takes, scaling down line diameter and keeping noise and vibration to a minimum, I surely should start to get more hits....hopefully. I have thought for along time that a fishes sense of vibration is probably as strong as our sense of touch, they surely must be able to sense the line being there?

 

[Ben Field]

I've been thinking a fair bit for HRF as well (with techniques aimed at making noise and fishing static baits) about actually intentionally tapping the butt of the rod to send a vibration down the line - especially if the line holds a glass bead or rattle on the baited end. Whether its a tight or loose line will have to be played with, but I think there's room to play there as well. As silly as it sounds....

 

[Ben Field]

I have thought for along time that a fishes sense of vibration is probably as strong as our sense of touch, they surely must be able to sense the line being there?

Agreed. To be honest, these days I hardly think about sight and only really think about vibration. A lateral line would be an amazing thing to have!

 

[Ben Field]

A bit weird but this is something I have been thinking of a fair bit lately too. My normal line of choice is Fireline. Just loaded a reel recently with new 20lb Fireline for piking and the vibration from the line/rings when retrieving is VERY noticeable. It MUST make a difference in some conditions. When the sea is calm then any noise will travel along way. When the sea is rough and turbulent then the noise from braid may be lost amongst other background noise. I am sure a lot of this depends on frequency and whether to the fish it is a 'natural' sound or perhaps a sound that is unnatural but not threatening.

exactly Mike. Makes a lot of sense that on a flat calm clear day we shouldn't actually be putting too much movement in to lures. Not because they'll look unnatractive but because of the amount of obvious line vibration given off.

 

[Mike Hayes]

fair points guys, kinda reminds me of the line rubbing the finger on retrieve technique? Almost like a high rod retrieve will create a V-wake where the line enters the water near the lure, compared to a low rod retrieve where that v-wake is nearer you than the lure if you know what I mean.

 

[Mike Kennard]

fair points guys, kinda reminds me of the line rubbing the finger on retrieve technique? Almost like a high rod retrieve will create a V-wake where the line enters the water near the lure, compared to a low rod retrieve where that v-wake is nearer you than the lure if you know what I mean.

Agreed. Additionally sometimes when working topwater lures you get a noticeable 'fizz' just in front of the lure. What effect does that have?
There is also the question of what type of line you are using. Does mono make the same type of noise? does line stretch reduce the amount of frequency of the noise? Line diameter?
A real can of worms Ben!!!!

 

[Ben Pratt]

I've been thinking a fair bit for HRF as well (with techniques aimed at making noise and fishing static baits) about actually intentionally tapping the butt of the rod to send a vibration down the line - especially if the line holds a glass bead or rattle on the baited end. Whether its a tight or loose line will have to be played with, but I think there's room to play there as well. As silly as it sounds....

When fishing for large rays they often open their wings and stick to the bottom when hooked. When this occurs apparently if you pluck the line it sends vibrations through the line and scares them off the bottom.

 

[Ben Field]

fair points guys, kinda reminds me of the line rubbing the finger on retrieve technique? Almost like a high rod retrieve will create a V-wake where the line enters the water near the lure, compared to a low rod retrieve where that v-wake is nearer you than the lure if you know what I mean.

Definitely know what you mean mike. There is the vibration under the water as well that I'm thinking equally about. Especially when the lure is being twitched and the inches (feet even) of line in front of the lure are also zipping through the water, side to side.

Mike K, like Mick says, your probably both right about mono being less direct and more smooth/'swishy' than braid. Perhaps fine mono is the ideal in calm conditions, with optimum (thin) diameter and stretch to cause least unnatural vibration?

From a totally different angle, would it be possible to find an optimum stretch/diameter (let's call it 'Swish') that actually compliments the lures action - being syncronised with it, rather than direct (sharp, quick turns) and perhaps unnatural? Going too far now?!

If you want to present a natural looking bait it all needs to be considered?!

Ben, with their accute senses, must be a bit like having an annoying itchy nose? ;-)

 

[Mike Kennard]

It would be interesting to do some experiments on this. But how? Two anglers fishing side by side but using two different lines? Too many variables to control to do a proper analysis I would think. Fishing is never that easy to prove.
I think it will be down to personal preference and confidence in what we are doing in the end. Catching anything is proving a challenge around here at the moment!!!!

 

[Ben Pratt]

Ben, with their accute senses, must be a bit like having an annoying itchy nose? ;-)

Something like that. :-?

To investigate this further it might be worth looking at the properties of noise in water. For humans, underwater noises travel faster - obviously due to the desner particles but we cannot establish the direction the noise is coming from. But fish, that are adapted to this environment surely can detect the location of the noise. But do fish detect noise as noise or purely as vibrations. What I mean by this can they establish the difference or for them is it the same thing. I suppose for this investigation we are looking at the possibility of both as the line makes vibrations + noise.

Does the noise/vibrations frighten the fish or attract them - as the vibration of the lure is in my opinion the biggest fish attractor(species dependent) but what about line vibrations??

Surely like a string instrument a thiner string (or in this case line) gives off a higher frequency than a thicker string that gives off a lower note?? Which is better I do not know? A lower frequecny = a longer wavelength that will travel futher in water I think. And thus a higher frequency will travel shorter but be more intense.

Heres a link that is quite interesting about fish + noise in water.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/08/science/08fish.html?_r=1&pagewanted=1

 

[Ben Field]

Surely like a string instrument a thiner string (or in this case line) gives off a higher frequency than a thicker string that gives off a lower note?? Which is better I do not know? A lower frequecny = a longer wavelength that will travel futher in water I think. And thus a higher frequency will travel shorter but be more intense.

Nice one Ben. I hadn't considered different sound wavelengths and distances travelled quite yet. Sound vibrations obviously travel more quickly (the speed of sound +plus some because they're in water) than the vibrations created by the line (or a lure!), so it is always going to be the fastest giveaway for a fish to the location of the lure. No doubt you're right about them feeling the sound waves (and hearing them between certain minimal (low) frequencies - research Dicentarchus Labrax ears) and being able to pinpoint their direction. The line (or lure's) 'movement' vibrations will actually be felt later when they reach the fish having travelled more slowly. It gets a little off topic when I/we start considering lure noise/rattles and sound in water though... Like Mike said earlier, real can of worms.

I'm not sure if we can look at the movement vibration waves the same as sound vibrations waves as they move though the water? It must almost be the opposite of sound in that more intense movement vibrations (higher frequency) actually travel FURTHER through water because of their intensity - while a lower frequency 'movement' wave travels less far because it is more easily diluted ('diluted' isn't the word but I'm not actually that scientific)? This is the whole point of vibration baits!? And this is the opposite of sound waves - where the longer wavelengths travel further through water. I may be totally wrong about all of that though as I don't quite understand myself how they CAN be different?! - they're both 'waves'. Is there a certain wave frequency (somewhere between a low frequency noise wavelength and a long 'movement' wavelength (very, very, very low frequency)) that travels the furthest through water? This would explain the above scenario.

Its a tricky one to get your head around. Sound is ultimately just a wave that we pick up in our ears. Under water, if we had the ability to 'feel' waves through our bodies, then 'hearing (as we know it) isn't actually necessary - which is why I assume Bass (only repeating what I've read here) only 'hear' a very small span of (low) frequencies, but can 'feel' almost any wave frequency. They really don't need their ears! ...although saying that, they still have them, so either they're still evolving or they DO need them for something.

Line noise... all I can deduce so far is that they probably do feel it! lol

 

[Keith White]

I know that probably nobody can give a definitive answer to this (that's fishing), but does anybody out there consider line 'noise' while lure fishing (as it sweeps through the water)? Having caught a lot of carp on the pole, one thing that is noticeable on calm days is the amount of noise your taut line makes at the water's surface as the carp swims around quickly below. Maybe it's irrelevant or easily disregarded in reality, but I do think about it when I'm jerking lures about. I suppose the vibration/wave it creates is a different subject, but very similar. Guess that's where line diameter can become more important.

Does anybody think about the vibration and noise their lines make when they fish?

I think it matters. Thinner lines and sometimes, more stretchy lines that don't vibrate so easily under tension can pay off.
Of course, just a gut feeling thing, no hard evidence. Good topic.

 

[Ben Field]

To add on what might backup the argument on finer lines making less noticeable underwater lines (and to a degree this goes with what you were saying about 'string' diameter, Ben). I've been thinking back again to the pole fishing days and hearing lines and elastics move through the water as they follow running fish....

Thicker lines (and elastics) make a much lower buzz as they cut through the water, just like a thicker string would on a guitar. Finer lines cut through with a higher buzz. If this sound was mimmicked beneath the surface, you are right Ben about finer lines not being so easily felt. The higher frequency noise/vibration would travel for less distance through the water, so would be less noticeable to a nearby fish (which may well be out of range of a high frequency sound, but within distance of a low frequency one). So a finer line would not only be less visible (if it matters), but would in theory give off a vibration that was less detectable - not because it's actually finer, but because the vibrations it gives off don't travel so far?

Verging on contradicting myself now, but we'll get there eventually.

 

[Ben Field]

I think it matters. Thinner lines and sometimes, more stretchy lines that don't vibrate so easily under tension can pay off.
Of course, just a gut feeling thing, no hard evidence. Good topic.

It's definitely given me a few ideas.

 

[Ben Pratt]

Some good thinking Ben!

I think that fish sense sounds and vibrations differently even though they are both waves I think the wave type is sufficiently different enough. They sense vibrations through the lateral line and have some kind of bone in the head that acts as an ear (needs further research).

Did a quick bit of reasearch on sound + how fish respond on google and found this arcticle which has some relevant info + futher reading. Pages 2 and 3 seem relevant.

http://www.marlinmag.com/techniques...s-your-boat-raise-fish-1000081718-page-2.html

Quick summary:

To attract predatory fish pulses of low frequency sound are needed. And high frequency sound scares fish.

However, in terms of line would a high or low enough frequency sound be created to have either effect.

 

[Ben Field]

Sounds about right.

I think the main difference between sound and movement vibrations is not only the frequency but also the speed. 'Tapping' sounds will reach the fish very quickly and the vibration will be over very quickly. It's much more of a pulse than a relaxed movement vibration. I have no doubt that even if a fish couldn't actually hear a sound in it's ear, then it could still tell the difference very easily between movement and sound.

If a lure vibrated fast enough then it'd make a sound. Basically, I guess all waves have the potential to make sounds (is that right?), but some are of such high or low frequency (including movement vibrations) that we can't actually hear them, and as a result don't class them as 'sound'? Is that right? Not all waves travel at the speed of sound, so I'm still missing something in the above.

I've definitely strayed from the line noise topic, but I did say at the very start that we'd probably not be able to answer it. :-?