Decent handheld antennas?

[Chickenhawk56]

I am getting tired of wasting my money on highly-rated handheld antennas that everyone says are great but end up with SWR readings through the roof.

Does no one actually TEST their antennas or do they just accept everyone else's product reviews at face value? Do they just watch youtube videos that compare receive capability without realizing a straightened coat hanger could almost receive just as good, and ignore the ability to transmit?

I sometime wonder if I am better off NOT knowing, and just packing up my digital SWR meter.

When I first got it, I knew it was not going to be 100% accurate but would at least be useful to test antennas back-to-back on the same radio and in the same conditions. I tested all the antennas I bought or came with various handheld radios, on the 70cm band and commercial UHF frequencies. I made sure to hold the radio and attached meter vertically and hold it the same way every time.

Just to prove that the meter (Surecom SW-102) would at least be useful for comparing antennas, my Diamond SRJ77CA antenna had the lowest readings of 1.02 to 1.03. My Tram 1185 mobile antenna had a SWR on 70cm of 2.0 and an amazing 1.00 on commercial UHF. The smaller Nagoya UT-108UV had opposite readings: 1.7 on 70cm and 2.0 on commercial UHF. All three readings were perfectly acceptable for a handheld, and about what I expected.

The two shocking results were the Wouxun ANO-001 and the Nagoya NA-701C. SWR readings were through the roof! The Wouxun has had good reviews, but on commercial UHF, it was 9.6 and on 70cm band, SWR was an shocking 14.3.

No big deal, I thought. It is probably better than many factory stubby antennas on cheap amateur radios. I will just read some reviews and get the best-rated equivalent - the Nagoya NA-701C.

Nope. SWR readings were almost as high: 7.9 on the 70cm band, and 8.1 on the commercial UHF band. (Where the 701C is designed to be optimum.)

So, did I just spend on this money on 3 antennas, customs, taxes and shipping ... just to get three fakes? No, I bought the Nagoya antennas from the biggest, reputable dealer on Amazon, and they passed all the tests illustrating they were "genuine" Nagoya.

I am now confronted by one of the following choices:
- Maybe ALL Nagoya NA-701 antennas are fake.
- Maybe all genuine Nagoya NA-701 antennas are garbage, and no one ever bothers to test transmit ability or SWR.
- Maybe everyone who tested SWR on Nagoya antennas was given a 'special" 701 antenna for review purposes, and none of the reviews that include SWR numbers are credible.

Quite frankly, I am getting tired of buying antennas that are well reviewed but turn in SWR numbers so high, my 5-watt handheld is now transmitting about 2-watts. (Plus, causing potential damage to the radio?)

The Diamond SRJ77Ca is an outstanding performer, but it is just too long for everyday use.

So how do I find a GOOD 8" handheld antenna that I know will provide good SWR results that I can find BEFORE I spend all my money. I understand that one shouldn't rely just on SWR readings, but when you get above 8 or 10, that is just stupid high.

I tried two more tests to ensure the validity of the comparison, if not the accuracy of the actual numbers. I threw on a little cheap Retevis RHD-701 8" antenna that came with my Retevis RT5, and yes, it was decent: 2.5 SWR on 70cm and 2.0 on commercial UHF. Not bad.

I then tested all the antennas at various ranges in an urban area, recording the results on an audio recorder. The transmit results pretty much duplicated what was predicted by the SWR readings: The long Diamond handheld was easily the best, and surprised me with how many blocks I could travel and how many trees and building I could get between the two radios and still get readable results. The Wouxun and Nagoya handheld antennas didn't do too bad until they got to the fringes, where they were broken and barely readable while the longer Diamond was still clear. The Retevis RHD-701 was not as clear as the Diamond but certainly noticeably better than the Wouxun or Nagoya.

So, before I toss these Wouxun and Nagoya NA-701 antennas in the trash, I have to ask: does no one make a DECENT handheld antenna suitable for everyday use that is about 8" tall?

Or should I just throw away my SWR meter and not worry about these stupid high results?

 

[nd5y]

Trying to measure SWR with the following equipment setup
radio > coax jumper > SWR meter > hand held antenna with no ground plane
usually will not produce useful readings and won't tell you much.

Measuring the antenna directly attached to an antenna analyzer will be closer to real life used on a hand held but a crappy antenna can still have low reflected power.

The only way to accurately compare hand held antennas is by making field strength measurements.

 

[mmckenna]

Are you looking for single band or dual band?

For single band, Larsen/Radiall will custom tune hand held radio antennas. Not sure if they do dual band or not.
It's not cheap, in cost or quality.

But, what you say is true. Some folks have a twisted idea of what's "best". Often "best" can mean "this is the one I bought, therefore everyone else should too". That's not always a good argument, as you've discovered.
The cheap Chinese antennas are like their radios, hit and miss. Reports range from "good enough" to "way off". The ones sold on E-bay are reported to be all over the place, and often not resonate any where near the claimed frequency.

On the flip side, I've tested Motorola and Kenwood sourced antennas and found them to be pretty good. 2.0:1 is pretty reasonable for a portable antenna, if you are getting better than that, it's a good sign.
I actually took an old Kenwood TK-290 that had been scavenged for parts. It took it apart and soldered a length of coax onto the antenna jack and reassembled it. I've used that to test antenna by connecting them to my analyzer. Seems to work well.

What I've found over the years:
The ground plane presented by the portable radio is important. Often gets overlooked. Small radios make for poor ground planes on lower frequencies.
Bandwidth is often narrow, around 10% or so.
Antennas take a helluva lot of abuse. Our PD is pretty rough on them.
The ones that look really bad on the outside are not always bad on the inside.
Sometimes they just go bad.
Manufacturer quality is important. Most of the name brand ones I've disassembled are built pretty well. Soldered connections, quality parts.


So, yeah, as you discovered, there's a lot more to it than just buying an antenna and hoping for the best. Testing them can be useful.
But, the name brand stuff is pretty good, at least from what I've seen.

 

[Project25_MASTR]

Trying to measure SWR with the following equipment setup
radio > coax jumper > SWR meter > hand held antenna with no ground plane
usually will not produce useful readings and won't tell you much.

Measuring the antenna directly attached to an antenna analyzer will be closer to real life used on a hand held but a crappy antenna can still have low reflected power.

The only way to accurately compare hand held antennas is by making field strength measurements.

Couldn't have said it any better.

 

[Chickenhawk56]

Good point about the ground plane issues and SWR readings. The radio and the way one holds it can affect results. This is why I was careful to attach the meter directly to the radio and the antenna directly to the meter, holding it vertically. I tried to hold it exactly the same way every time. This is also why I was not concerned so much with the actual numbers as I was with the numbers from antenna to antenna when tested back to back in identical conditions.

I bought three brand new "genuine" Nagoya 701 antennas, and they were all virtually identical. All awful.

I would love to get a decent, name-brand antenna, but the question is, how do you know which is decent? The Nagoya is highly rated, and some may consider it a name brand, but it sucked on the test bench and was a poor performer in actual field conditions against a nearly identical antenna with better SWR numbers.

 

[jonwienke]

There are a lof of fake Nagoya antennas. Are you sure you got a real one?

 

[Chickenhawk56]

I ordered it from Baofeng tech on Amazon. The packaging looked real; the printing was fine and it came with an O-ring. What more could I do to ensure it was not a fake? Or maybe ALL Nagoya antennas on Amazon are fakes?

 

[nd5y]

I ordered it from Btech on Amazon. The packaging looked real; the printing was fine and it came with an O-ring. What more could I do to ensure it was not a fake? Or maybe ALL Nagoya antennas on Amazon are fakes?

About 5 years ago I bought two NA-701s. From what I could tell by the printing, packaging and new (at that time) housing style they were "real". They both sucked. They were slightly different lengths (not sure if that was individual tuning or poor QC), not resonant in the ham bands, and had lower field strength readings than some similar antennas.

 

[K4AIM]

From my experience a 1.2 to 1.3 using an antenna is awesome when it comes to HTs. I ONLY use Diamond Antennas, because of their quality. The one Nagoya I did use one time almost blew out my Yaesu VX-6R to the point that it would shut itself down because of the SWR!

You have to understand ... with HTs you are already playing against a Loaded Deck! No matter WHAT antenna you put on the thing ... you MIGHT break even when talking about Gain. A rat tail helps, but who really wants to walk around with a 19" piece of copper wire hanging from their $400 radio?

 

[questnz]

Good start here gentleman 『latest updated』How to identify the genuine and fake antenna? -

and there is more stuff on Youtube thingo

 

[Chickenhawk56]

I compared what I got with that page carefully, and all indications were that it was "genuine."

I sometimes wonder if companies invent their OWN counterfeit issues so that:
a) they increase the perception of value, and
b) people think they are so desirable that others will go to the point of illegally copying them, and
c) they have a ready excuse for substandard products; "must be counterfeit."

I do know that there is a huge industry in companies hired to surf online forums and post fake reviews.

The only way to accurately compare hand held antennas is by making field strength measurements.

That is a good suggestion. I retested all the antennas using a field strength meter. I mounted the meter and the radio in a jig so the distance was consistent, and the results bear up with the differences in SWR readings. There was not as wide a difference as I expected, but the best 8-inch antenna (Retevis) was about 15% higher than the Nagoya, and the best antenna (Diamond) was 25% higher in signal strength than the Nagoya on commercial UHF frequencies.

 

[K4AIM]

I might also suggest another thing that I've found when using HT antennas.

For the record, I don't know exactly why or how it works, but it DOES work in my experience.

I have found that, for some unknown reason .... BNC Antennas work better with a Diamond BNCJ-SMAP connecter / coupler on all of my SMA-F radios.

I don't know how it works, or why ...

Some guys in my local club have speculated that the connector / coupler may add that extra height / length needed to get me to my local repeaters.

I live in a 'fringe' area outside of town, and the closest repeater is 8 miles away on flat ground. When I'm testing my HTs to get into the local repeaters I always get a +3 S Meter reading on other guy's rigs when I use the BNC antenna with coupler versus an identical antenna with the SMA-M connector.

For instance .... I have both the Diamond SRH77CA and RH77CA. The SRH (SMA-Male) doesn't do as well on my Yaesu and Icom HTs as the RH77CA (BNC) Antenna.

There's no theoretical justification of why it 'should' work better because I'm using a coupler ... which should dampen my signal if anything... but it does the OPPOSITE of what you'd expect.

 

[Project25_MASTR]

Good point about the ground plane issues and SWR readings. The radio and the way one holds it can affect results. This is why I was careful to attach the meter directly to the radio and the antenna directly to the meter, holding it vertically. I tried to hold it exactly the same way every time. This is also why I was not concerned so much with the actual numbers as I was with the numbers from antenna to antenna when tested back to back in identical conditions.

I bought three brand new "genuine" Nagoya 701 antennas, and they were all virtually identical. All awful.

I would love to get a decent, name-brand antenna, but the question is, how do you know which is decent? The Nagoya is highly rated, and some may consider it a name brand, but it sucked on the test bench and was a poor performer in actual field conditions against a nearly identical antenna with better SWR numbers.

The problem with your test, you have elevated the feed point of the antenna, isolating it from it's ground plane/LC network. You are going to get all sorts of wonky results as because of that.

mmckenna, that's a great idea you had there. I actually looked up at a TK-380 that's been sitting on my desk for several years when you said that. Looks like I have a weekend project.

 

[K5MPH]

Trying to measure SWR with the following equipment setup
radio > coax jumper > SWR meter > hand held antenna with no ground plane
usually will not produce useful readings and won't tell you much.

Measuring the antenna directly attached to an antenna analyzer will be closer to real life used on a hand held but a crappy antenna can still have low reflected power.

The only way to accurately compare hand held antennas is by making field strength measurements.

I agree,the best way to test these kind of antennas is with a antenna analyzer and not a swr meter.....

 

[Chickenhawk56]

LOL! Well, I already have a frequency reader with a field strength meter and an SWR meter. I am not about to spend $400 on an antenna analyzer to test $12 antennas. As for the testing procedure, it is not perfect BUT it is the same for all the antennas. My point was not to split hairs on how I tested them; my point was that some highly-regarded and well-reviewed antennas - when tested back-to-back - were not just BAD but were SO BAD they were potentially harmful to the radio. And this was a "genuine" product, brand new from a reputable retailer. I am not concerned about the testing procedure or how I have my antenna mounted. Every antenna I tested was in the exact same conditions. I just wanted to get a decent dual-band antenna short enough I can carry on my belt for 12-hours straight and without SWR numbers that are through the roof.

I understand that all handheld antennas are a compromise of some kind, and even the way I wear it on my belt will affect its performance. I understand the compromises. The digital SWR meter may not be the best test, but I am not analyzing antennas in a lab, nor am I concerned about how accurate the numbers actually are. I AM concerned when a highly-rated antenna exceeds 8 or 9 SWR when a really good antenna (Diamond) stays under 1.03 in the exact same test conditions.

Quite frankly, this is making me question the validity of user reviews. Obviously, many people buy them without testing SWR or anything else, and that is fair. But this whole "counterfeit" thing has me greatly concerned. Why would anyone want to counterfeit a $12 antenna? It just seems to me to be a convenient way for a company to shave a few dollars off manufacturing costs, make their product seem highly desirable and provide a convenient excuse for why it doesn't perform up to spec when actually tested on the bench. I am not saying this is what Nagoya does ... but look at the amount of people on this, and other threads, who just dismiss the bad SWR numbers as "maybe its counterfeit."

 

[SpugEddy]

Personally I think the OP's original test holds water.
Several here have pointed out all of the flaws of his
test, but....
Although it may not be the "optimum" way of antenna
testing, he did put all antennas on an even playing
field. While his SWR readings may not be exactly what
they would read, being attached directly to the radio, it would
be enough for a comparison. Since all antenna were connected
to the same piece of coax and positioned the same they would
all read a "proportionate" (I think that's the right word) SWR.
All antennas were put on a level playing field, so yes, technically
inaccurate, but still a comparison nonetheless.

if a ground plane is so important here I would try the same
test using a "tiger tail"

 

[nd5y]

Quite frankly, this is making me question the validity of user reviews.

User reviews are mostly useless.

 

[jonwienke]

That is a good suggestion. I retested all the antennas using a field strength meter. I mounted the meter and the radio in a jig so the distance was consistent, and the results bear up with the differences in SWR readings. There was not as wide a difference as I expected, but the best 8-inch antenna (Retevis) was about 15% higher than the Nagoya, and the best antenna (Diamond) was 25% higher in signal strength than the Nagoya on commercial UHF frequencies.

There's your problem. The 701 is tuned for ham band, not commercial uhf. They make a separate 701C model for commercial and gmrs frequencies.

 

[kayn1n32008]

You need to use some sort of jig to simulate a portable. A friend of mine and I did this with 6 or 7 antennas Jerry from CSI sent me. Compared them using an Anritsu network analyzer. Any thing less than 3 or 4:1 is doing good for a portable antenna.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[NC1]

I have noticed the same issue with almost all my HT antennas: SWR is way crazy for the band I would like to use it for.
I had bought a Surecom SA-250 Antenna Analyzer and proceeded to "fix" these antennas. Almost all of them were too long and could easily cut them down to reach my target frequency. First I took the plastic tip off the end of the antenna, then cut a small piece off. I was sure to put the little tip back on before testing because it does make or break the tuning.
I could see I was moving the sweet spot for lowest SWR toward my target frequency every time I repeated the shortening process. I have now have 2 Baofeng 888's with UHF antennas cut for a 1.2:1 SWR on 447.000MHz, right around where I transmit. Of course they could have been shortened more to be resonant on the GMRS band for receive. Now all my antennas are tuned for specific bands and work excellent regardless of the way it arrived or who manufactured it.
These antennas were attached directly to the analyzer, so it gave good readings as if it were attached to the HT itself. Also (and just as important), I did this out in an open yard away from any RF sources (which your house is full of) and any metal or nearby structures. Basically I was in an open field using a wood picnic table.
Just a strong word of caution with these antenna analyzers - avoid any static buildup on either the antenna or yourself because it will instantly turn your expensive analyzer into an expensive paperweight. These things are EXTREMELY sensitive to any static discharge going through it. So, don't walk on your carpet this winter and zap it by picking it up and having the antenna perform the discharge through your analyzer.