Budget friendly SWR meter

[WRXR255]

As the title implies, any recommendations or thoughts?

[WRQC527]

3 minutes ago, WRXR255 said:

As the title implies, any recommendations or thoughts?

The Surecom SW-102 UV is well-liked here. Make sure you get the one with the connectors you want. They come with either SO-239 or N connectors.

[OffRoaderX]

Warning: Do NOT listen to the "experts" that love to spend your money - for occasional tuning/testing of your antenna you do NOT NEED a $500+ SWR meter.

Normal people use inexpensive meters like the Surecom SW-33 or SW-102, and they work just fine.

If you plan on testing/tuning antennas professionally or as some kind of a hobby, then by all means get one that costs much more and is *slightly* more accurate.

[WRXR255]

4 minutes ago, OffRoaderX said:

Warning: Do NOT listen to the "experts" that love to spend your money - for occasional tuning/testing of your antenna you do NOT NEED a $500+ SWR meter.

Normal people use inexpensive meters like the Surecom SW-33 or SW-102, and they work just fine.

If you plan on testing/tuning antennas professionally or as some kind of a hobby, then by all means get one that costs much more and is *slightly* more accurate.

Yeah, im just wanting to tune some of my crap closer enough.  Im hitting a repeater with a UV-5R and the stock antenna at 7 miles from inside my house.  When I get serious with my mobile rig is where i want to do a bit better, but im not looking to go pro for sure.

 

Thanks for the feedback.

[Socalgmrs]

Sw-102 works just fine 

[WRYZ926]

Another vote for the Surecom SW-102. It works just fine.

I do have more expensive analyzers but I mostly use those when I build my own antennas. 

[AdmiralCochrane]

102 works for me too, but I try to tune them ahead of time with a NVA 

[PRadio]

On 4/2/2024 at 10:34 PM, OffRoaderX said:

Warning: Do NOT listen to the "experts" that love to spend your money - for occasional tuning/testing of your antenna you do NOT NEED a $500+ SWR meter.

Normal people use inexpensive meters like the Surecom SW-33 or SW-102, and they work just fine.

If you plan on testing/tuning antennas professionally or as some kind of a hobby, then by all means get one that costs much more and is *slightly* more accurate.

I take offense to that. I use a Surecom SW-102 and I'm not normal. 

[GreggInFL]

Anyone not using a Farzometer 2000 is a loser. 

[back4more70]

+1 for the SW-102

[WRDJ205]

I'm in the market for a SWR/PWR meter as well.  Does anyone use the Surecom SW-33 Plus? 

[OffRoaderX]

7 minutes ago, WRDJ205 said:

Does anyone use the Surecom SW-33 Plus? 

Yes, and it works just fine.

[tcp2525]

On 4/3/2024 at 9:55 PM, AdmiralCochrane said:

102 works for me too, but I try to tune them ahead of time with a NVA 

I second that. There are really only two choices for this task, a Bird 43 meter with appropriate slug on the high end of the price scale, or a Chinese NanoVNA for about $60. I have both and highly recommend Mr. Chung's NanoVNA as I use it for all my antenna building endeavors and checking SWR. I'll even go as far as saying it's totally and utterly foolish and breaks every terrestrial and celestial bounds of human stupidity relying on these cheap meters as I've found them to be off anywhere between 10 to 20 percent off. This even applies to Daiwa meters as well. For the budget minded hobbyist that want fantastic accuracy for only a few bucks, the NanoVNA is the only choice.

[OffRoaderX]

3 minutes ago, tcp2525 said:

it's totally and utterly foolish and breaks every terrestrial and celestial bounds of human stupidity relying on these cheap meters as I've found them to be off anywhere between 10 to 20 percent off

I have tested several against my RigExpert AA-650 and they always come in within ~1%-5% .. Weird.

[tcp2525]

12 minutes ago, OffRoaderX said:

I have tested several against my RigExpert AA-650 and they always come in within ~1%-5% .. Weird.

I'm sure it's just sample variations. I've tested a bunch of meters throughout the years and find that no two meters from the same manufacture will give you the same exact reading. This even applies to Bird meters. Bottom line, one has to accept the possibility that whatever budget meter they use it might be in the ballpark or not. A cheap NanoVNA is the ultimate choice if you're looking to get the best from your installation. This is even more important on UHF.

[OffRoaderX]

3 minutes ago, tcp2525 said:

....if you're looking to get the best from your installation

Thankfully for normal people using a GMRS radio, "close" is plenty good enough.

[tcp2525]

3 minutes ago, OffRoaderX said:

Thankfully for normal people using a GMRS radio, "close" is plenty good enough.

I totally agree. I'm just saying for the people that want to get the most out of their GMRS installation is to do it right the first time and squeeze out every bit of performance for maximum enjoyment. As we see on the forum we have many people not getting the performance they deserve. Like you said, "close is plenty good enough" for most people.

[WSAA254]

After reading all the feedback, I would say if 10 folks are saying use XXX meter, then you probably  can't go wrong.  I use a nanovna h-4 for swr, its overkill, however one thing I have noticed, swr numbers can vary by 2-3% depending on connections, coax type, coax run length, or if you have any antenna switches in the feed line ( I do).  I have seen my swr numbers vary by 0.1 depending on the coax type I connected to the nanovna, which hindsite what it is I probably would go with what has been recommened as opposed the nanovna.  As long as you have a meter that works in the frequency range required, and you have a few other folks that say Yep this works for me, then your good...   Best of luck..  All info is good info...   regards.   The image attached is swr after a antenna switch and using the same coax that connects to the kg1000.

[SteveShannon]

Just some things to consider:

Byrd 43 wattmeters are an expensive and desirable product. Yet they only advertise +/- 5% accuracy. And that’s with slugs tuned to a narrow frequency band and specific to a limited power range.
Most hobby SWR meters (Daiwa, Comet, Nissei, MFJ, etc.) claim +/- 5 to 10%.  
I don’t have an SW-102, but I have nothing against them. In fact i really like the built in frequency counter. I have seen posts on this forum going back a couple years (but not recently) by people who were getting significantly incorrect power readings, to the point where they thought their radio was malfunctioning. 
I’m a hobbyist, not a pro. I buy things because they’re fun to use, convenient, and good enough. I think that as long as a person checks his/her SW-102 against some known values it should be just fine. 
 

 

[tcp2525]

4 hours ago, WSAA254 said:

After reading all the feedback, I would say if 10 folks are saying use XXX meter, then you probably  can't go wrong.  I use a nanovna h-4 for swr, its overkill, however one thing I have noticed, swr numbers can vary by 2-3% depending on connections, coax type, coax run length, or if you have any antenna switches in the feed line ( I do).  I have seen my swr numbers vary by 0.1 depending on the coax type I connected to the nanovna, which hindsite what it is I probably would go with what has been recommened as opposed the nanovna.  As long as you have a meter that works in the frequency range required, and you have a few other folks that say Yep this works for me, then your good...   Best of luck..  All info is good info...   regards.   The image attached is swr after a antenna switch and using the same coax that connects to the kg1000.

Good advice! I really don't think the NanoVNA is overkill, it's just an inexpensive slightly more complicated device with a small learning curve that will give the user important information to help optimize their installation. I have read on this forum that some people are extremely happy with a 2.5:1 SWR since it is only reflecting 18% of your power back. I don't want to deprive anyone of their happiness, just as long as they are really happy. At 467 MHz every little thing adds up and can decrease performance. I know I wouldn't be happy dumping power into 50' of LMR400 and an antenna reflecting 18% of my power back, that's just me.

Hell, maybe I'm too anal. But, when I tune duplexers, I try to get every 1/10th db return loss back I can. Bottom line, if whatever you're doing delivers the performance you want,, just roll with it.

[SteveShannon]

19 minutes ago, tcp2525 said:

Good advice! I really don't think the NanoVNA is overkill, it's just an inexpensive slightly more complicated device with a small learning curve that will give the user important information to help optimize their installation. I have read on this forum that some people are extremely happy with a 2.5:1 SWR since it is only reflecting 18% of your power back. I don't want to deprive anyone of their happiness, just as long as they are really happy. At 467 MHz every little thing adds up and can decrease performance. I know I wouldn't be happy dumping power into 50' of LMR400 and an antenna reflecting 18% of my power back, that's just me.

Hell, maybe I'm too anal. But, when I tune duplexers, I try to get every 1/10th db return loss back I can. Bottom line, if whatever you're doing delivers the performance you want,, just roll with it.

First, I never said I was extremely happy with 2.5:1.  It’s just not the kiss of death that being anal might make you think. Here’s why:
The 18% that is reflected is not lost. That power reflects back from the antenna to the radio where it reflects again and goes back to the antenna. This time 82% of the reflected power goes into the antenna and 18% of the 18% reflects again. It does that over and over until all the power goes out the antenna or is attenuated by the cable. 
Attenuation in your cable often has a much greater effect than having an SWR greater than 2.0:1. 

[tcp2525]

7 minutes ago, Sshannon said:

First, I never said I was extremely happy with 2.5:1.  It’s just not the kiss of death that being anal might make you think. Here’s why:
The 18% that is reflected is not lost. That power reflects back from the antenna to the radio where it reflects again and goes back to the antenna. This time 82% of the reflected power goes into the antenna and 18% of the 18% reflects again. It does that over and over until all the power goes out the antenna or is attenuated by the cable. 
Attenuation in your cable often has a much greater effect than having an SWR greater than 2.0:1. 

That's my point. Why suffer with a preventable issue?

[SteveShannon]

11 minutes ago, tcp2525 said:

That's my point. Why suffer with a preventable issue?

Because it is less of an issue than most people believe. We have people on this forum who hold the mistaken belief that an SWR of 2.5:1 causes suffering and that’s just wrong. 
When an antenna is easily or cheaply tuned I would recommend tuning it.  I enjoy that kind of thing, but my original comment was made in response to an instance of a person who had an antenna with a 2.5:1 SWR and another person recommended that they go buy another antenna. That’s poor advice. 

[tcp2525]

31 minutes ago, Sshannon said:

Because it is less of an issue than most people believe. We have people on this forum who hold the mistaken belief that an SWR of 2.5:1 causes suffering and that’s just wrong. 
When an antenna is easily or cheaply tuned I would recommend tuning it.  I enjoy that kind of thing, but my original comment was made in response to an instance of a person who had an antenna with a 2.5:1 SWR and another person recommended that they go buy another antenna. That’s poor advice. 

Agree, it's definitely less of an issue on 10/11 meters and VHF, but when you are in the UHF region, one has to put in a little more effort to optimize their installation as it not only affects transmit, it attenuates recieve. A lot of newcomers rely on us to get the most out of their gear. I feel it best to advise them how to achieve the best performance, but also give them the option to get it just good enough if they have monetary and/or technical limitations. It's all about compromise, but UHF doesn’t handle compromise without a fight. That's just my opinion. 

[SteveShannon]

2 hours ago, tcp2525 said:

Agree, it's definitely less of an issue on 10/11 meters and VHF, but when you are in the UHF region, one has to put in a little more effort to optimize their installation as it not only affects transmit, it attenuates recieve. A lot of newcomers rely on us to get the most out of their gear. I feel it best to advise them how to achieve the best performance, but also give them the option to get it just good enough if they have monetary and/or technical limitations. It's all about compromise, but UHF doesn’t handle compromise without a fight. That's just my opinion. 

You’re absolutely right about higher frequencies. It’s because of the additional losses in the feedline that occur as a result of high SWR at those higher frequencies. An installation with a super short feedline, such as a cell phone or handheld radio isn’t bothered nearly as much by high SWR. 
And I completely agree that we shouldn’t be giving poor advice to newcomers; that’s why I think we should de-emphasize the myth of 1.0:1 SWR and help people understand why and under what circumstances SWR is important and where SWR should be measured. 

[WSAA254]

On 4/14/2024 at 3:51 PM, tcp2525 said:

Agree, it's definitely less of an issue on 10/11 meters and VHF, but when you are in the UHF region, one has to put in a little more effort to optimize their installation as it not only affects transmit, it attenuates recieve. A lot of newcomers rely on us to get the most out of their gear. I feel it best to advise them how to achieve the best performance, but also give them the option to get it just good enough if they have monetary and/or technical limitations. It's all about compromise, but UHF doesn’t handle compromise without a fight. That's just my opinion. 

Just to put the SWR in context, years ago (50+) I had a Heathkit hw-16 I used for novice license work on 80 meters.  Crystal controlled etc.  I did not have a SWR meter initially, I finally got one, then checking the di-pole antenna, had a SWR of 6:1.  I know this is all comparing apples to oranges.  I guess at this point my Standing Wave Ratio became Sitting Wave Ratio.   When I went and sold the HW-16, (all tube).  the guy who bought it had the tubes checked, and the final output tube was a little weak.  Guess that reflected energy was not the best thing.   From what little I know, if you can stay under 2:1 its good, anything under 1.5:1 is better.   Having said that I have seen the smallest things affect SWR.   Antenna is one in the list.    Excellent input/feedback.   All info is good info..   regards