SWR Meter or Analyzer? Which One To Buy?

[Wannabe]

I’m looking to get a meter of some sorts to check antenna SWR and tune. I was searching and came across the NanoVNA and the price seems good. Is it more than I need? I just want to tune antennas is all. Would I be better off with the SWR/Power meter instead?

 

Thanks in advance. 

[kidphc]

Nanovnas are awesome. Especially, when building antennas. But overtly complicated for most.

They do have some what of a steep but fast learning curve to them.

Most just buy a surecom, really more then enough. Fairly fast and not complicated.

If really serious, you start looking at rigexperts and up. But they are $$$.



Sent from my SM-S901U using Tapatalk

[WRUE915]

For UHF/VHF (GMRS) I just use the Surecom SW-102 off of Amazon. Gives you SWR, power, and shows the transmitted frequency.

For cutting off the shelf whips and the like it works great.

I also have a variant of the Nano VNA. It it more finicky to use, but does work and gives you tons of information. I use that when making HF antennas. Not necessary IMO for GMRS stuff.

The surecom is easy to use right out of the box. And for the price I think it's worth it. Are there better? Sure, but you'll pay more than you probably paid for your radio... just my 2 cents from my experience.

[Wannabe]

Thanks for the replies, I appreciate the feedback. 

[Sshannon]

If all you want to do is tune antennas, an antenna analyzer is better than an SWR meter.  An SWR meter will only show you the SWR of the antenna for the frequency you're transmitting on and it can be completely wrong if you're looking at a system with lossy cable.

An antenna analyzer connected directly to the antenna can show you the actual response of the antenna.

An antenna analyzer connected to a piece of cable can help you determine problems with the cable, including losses through the cable and velocity factor.  In addition, having a cable cut to the right length can help the antenna system. 

An SWR/wattmeter cannot distinguish between those kinds of things.

Also, a good analyzer can reveal where the antenna is resonant, which is not necessarily the same frequency where it has the lowest SWR.  An SWR meter cannot.

However, if you just want to make sure you don't damage your radio by having it connected to high SWR, an SWR meter is ideal because it can be left inline.  

Also, if you want to test the output of your radio, an antenna analyzer won't do you a bit of good. For that you need a wattmeter.  

They're different tools for different purposes.

[WRVS497]

I purchased the AURSINC NanoVNA-H and the Surecom SW-102 from Amazon. Originally I just had only the NanoVNA but like Sshannon mentioned it doesn't provide power (watt) or impedance matching information. I intend to make my own antennas as well as ensure my radios will last me in the field using the proper gear. At around $125 for both tools you cant go wrong with them in your tool box. Even if you hardly use one over the other, it wont break the bank just to have it when you do need it, or when another radio friend might benefit from that information. The $500 MFJ's or the RigExperts is a different story. Only consider those if you are making antennas to sell or get involved in competition where it makes sense to be as close to perfect as possible.

[Sshannon]

3 minutes ago, WRVS497 said:

I purchased the AURSINC NanoVNA-H and the Surecom SW-102 from Amazon. Originally I just had only the NanoVNA but like Sshannon mentioned it doesn't provide power (watt) or impedance matching information. I intend to make my own antennas as well as ensure my radios will last me in the field using the proper gear. At around $125 for both tools you cant go wrong with them in your tool box. Even if you hardly use one over the other, it wont break the bank just to have it when you do need it, or when another radio friend might benefit from that information. The $500 MFJ's or the RigExperts is a different story. Only consider those if you are making antennas to sell or get involved in competition where it makes sense to be as close to perfect as possible.

I just bought a RigExpert Stick Pro which works up to 600 MHz.  I have the NanoVNA with the N connectors and I feel comfortable using it but it’s a pain in the ass to recalibrate every time you want to switch to a different band or zoom out and realize that your calibration doesn’t include what you’re trying to do.   The RigExpert is much more convenient. Is it $300 more convenient?  I think so, but time will tell.

[WRQC527]

I would get a decent SWR meter. I have an antenna analyzer, which is great for tuning antennas, and in my humble opinion, is more for hobbyists and antenna builders. But my good old fashioned SWR meters reliably (and without batteries) give me the information I need to install radios and antennas, including reasonably-accurate power readings. I had a NanoVNA also. It lasted a few months before the readings went completely wonky, and while my SWR meters generally match my antenna analyzer, the NanoVNA never read the same even on a good day. I cannot recommend them.

[axorlov]

SWR meter: a measuring instrument most often used to ruin the tuning of good antennas.
NanoVNA: an inexpensive electronic device that is used miscalibrated to obtain the results that are misunderstood.

[WRWB464]

If I only had one, I would probably get a good analyzer. Does basis SWR plus so much more especially if you get into building antennas or just tuning them. I recently bought the Comet and absolutely love it. I own(ed) multiple SWR meters and I bought and returned a nanoVNA. Nothing against the nanoVNA it seems a good bit of kit but it seemed a bit fragile especially for messing around in the dirt rigging up outside antennas. I would always have an SWR meter and on any kind of base rig I would keep in in line so I always know if something has got messed up. 

[Lscott]

11 hours ago, axorlov said:

SWR meter: a measuring instrument most often used to ruin the tuning of good antennas.

That's discussed in the book at the following link.

http://www.w3pga.org/Antenna Books/Reflections III.pdf

[axorlov]

1 hour ago, Lscott said:

That's discussed in the book at the following link.

http://www.w3pga.org/Antenna Books/Reflections III.pdf

Great book, I've read it before. But it's too damn much for the audience and the author of a certain youtube channel. Head-a-splode.

[Lscott]

2 hours ago, axorlov said:

Great book, I've read it before. But it's too damn much for the audience and the author of a certain youtube channel. Head-a-splode.

Yes, it is a lot to digest. The first chapter is likely all most people need to read. The bottom line is worrying about the different between an SWR of 1:1 verses 1.5:1 isn't worth the trouble.

[marcspaz]

47 minutes ago, Lscott said:

Yes, it is a lot to digest. The first chapter is likely all most people need to read. The bottom line is worrying about the different between an SWR of 1:1 verses 1.5:1 isn't worth the trouble.

 

My HF 228 foot OCF dipole is resonant on 1.9 MHz (and a few others / MIMO), but the antenna network has a 9.1: SWR at that frequency.  I literally work the world on that OCF dipole on 5 bands.  The principles in that book are the main reason I tell people not to cut pre-tuned antennas to adjust the SWR.  My radio performance at home is proof positive that its true.

[kidphc]

 
My HF 228 foot OCF dipole is resonant on 1.9 MHz (and a few others / MIMO), but the antenna network has a 9.1: SWR at that frequency.  I literally work the world on that OCF dipole on 5 bands.  The principles in that book are the main reason I tell people not to cut pre-tuned antennas to adjust the SWR.  My radio performance at home is proof positive that its true.

What's the power fold back like on the swr meter?

Sent from my SM-S901U using Tapatalk

[AdmiralCochrane]

My use of nanoVNA has always given results of SWR less than 1.5:1

[marcspaz]

5 hours ago, kidphc said:

What's the power fold back like on the swr meter?

Sent from my SM-S901U using Tapatalk
 

Its been a long time since I checked... like 3 years. I remember it's not horrible. Like, 4.2 dB net transmission loss... so about 37% match efficiency. 

 

EDIT:  I guess the right answer is, 800w out, 290w-300w reflected.

[kidphc]

Its been a long time since I checked... like 3 years. I remember it's not horrible. Like, 4.2 dB net transmission loss... so about 37% match efficiency. 
 
EDIT:  I guess the right answer is, 800w out, 290w-300w reflected.

Not bad really for 9:1 swr.

Sent from my SM-S901U using Tapatalk