Which NanoVNA?

[Randy222]

Who is the OEM for the LiteVNA64? 
Is it these guys?  https://www.zeenko.tech/litevna

That's the one I have.

It's a bit hard to follow which group of folks are the original designers of the tinyVNA and variants. My 64 is doing ok, and it's easy to flash new firmware as they come out.

[joeqsmith]

Who is the OEM for the LiteVNA64? 
Is it these guys?  https://www.zeenko.tech/litevna

That's the one I have.

It's a bit hard to follow which group of folks are the original designers of the tinyVNA and variants. My 64 is doing ok, and it's easy to flash new firmware as they come out.

Same.  The latest revision hardware I have from them is 3.1.  It has a slight improvement over the earlier hardware.

[Smokey]

Question....
I get that there are "clones" and "counterfeits" with lower quality hardware, but doesn't that pre-supposed that there is an "official" OEM?

It's strange that a piece of hardware so popular doesn't come from a company that proudly a strongly claims ownership.

[joeqsmith]

Mine states on the back who made it and the country is was made it.  I bought it as soon as they announced it. 

Member OWO made claims to the design and asked that I not promote it, but really I could care less.  It's a decent product IMO for the cost and I've had a lot of fun playing with it. 

[MathWizard]

Why do you want high frequencies? To learn S-Parameters concept and how different types of RF circuits behave a 50 MHz VNA is all you need. This also will MUCH simplify requirements to calibration standards and cabling.

I'm on the verge of getting some nanoVNA, I was looking at the latest, and most solid looking, nanoVNA V2 plus4.

But I'm just doing hobby RF, so just measuring parts or little circuits, and probably not much past FM radio freq's. I'm trying to come up with a list of accessories, without spending an arm and a leg.

So what's the best mini VNA for upto 1GHz ? The V2 plus 4 has nicer spec's, but if's it's a lot harder to use everytime, than a lower freq' version, then I'd go with the latter.

[Randy222]

LiteVNA 64
I have it, works good, + decent support in both community and active firmware releases.

[MathWizard]

I'm reading that the original NanoVNA that only goes to 1.5GHz or so, has the better sub-300MHz noise or ability to look at smaller BW.

Did they make an updated version of it ? Maybe with faster processing or high sample rate or something ? I hope they also have metal box versions, with good connectors.

[Randy222]

I'm reading that the original NanoVNA that only goes to 1.5GHz or so, has the better sub-300MHz noise or ability to look at smaller BW.

Did they make an updated version of it ? Maybe with faster processing or high sample rate or something ? I hope they also have metal box versions, with good connectors.

There are several versions of nanoVNA. The 1st ones I don't think get to GHz. The 2nd version (newer hardware) got into low GHz, and now the v4's ("liteVNA" and the like) now get near 6.3GHz.

I can't speak for which one is better for lower BW analysis.

[mojoe]

Considering the price, I bought both a Lite-VNA64 and a NanoVNA-H4. I guess you could say they were a xmas present to myself.

Now I need to learn how to use them, and see what the differences are between them.

[joeqsmith]

Considering the price, I bought both a Lite-VNA64 and a NanoVNA-H4. I guess you could say they were a xmas present to myself.

Now I need to learn how to use them, and see what the differences are between them.

While my experience with Dislord's firmware for the LiteVNA has been very positive, the H4, not so much.   Depending what you plan to do with it, you may want to read this post from the first page.

https://www.eevblog.com/forum/rf-microwave/which-nanovna/msg4687172/#msg4687172

[gf]

Joe, I have read your findings before. I am surprised because H and H4 claim to be improved derivatives of the original NanoVNA. I also wonder where one can still buy the original (ttrftech?) NanoVNA which you consider superior to the H? At least in the European store, I found only H and H4.

[ I don't mean V2.x, V2Plus4, Lite, etc., which are obviously different designs (switched receiver instead of 3 receivers, etc.), not directly derived from the original NanoVNA. ]

[mojoe]

While my experience with Dislord's firmware for the LiteVNA has been very positive, the H4, not so much.   Depending what you plan to do with it, you may want to read this post from the first page.

https://www.eevblog.com/forum/rf-microwave/which-nanovna/msg4687172/#msg4687172

Yes, I've read the entire thread, as well as everything else I could find on the net. I never did find a definitive listing of the good/bad points of the various versions. You have said you liked the LiteVNA, with some reservations, so I bought one of those. You said that the original NanoVNA did some things better (never saying exactly what). The H4 seems to be the closest thing to the original that I could find, so I bought one of those. The other reason for getting an H4 is that I can flash it for phase measurements. Another tool to play with.

It's like a lot of things that I have gotten into over the years. I don't really know if I need it, but I'll learn a lot as I fool around with it. And I may actually find it useful. I remember seeing an old HP VNA sitting on a shelf about 15 years ago, and wondering what I'd use it for. Since the asking price was quite high, I decided to pass. These NanoVNA variants may not be lab grade, but they are very affordable, so I can finally learn about VNA's.

Unlike many who buy a NanoVNA, measuring antennas is probably the last thing I'd use it for. I have a RigExpert unit, which is tailored for that purpose, and is very easy to use. Measuring filters, amplifiers, baluns, etc. is my immediate interest. I have a whole series of YT videos to watch for ideas.

I also bought a TinySA Ultra to fool around with. I have an HP 8920B, which has a SA/TG (among it's many functions), but I thought a TinySA would be fun to play with, and a whole lot more portable.

[joeqsmith]

Yes, I've read the entire thread, as well as everything else I could find on the net.  I never did find a definitive listing of the good/bad points of the various versions.
...
You said that the original NanoVNA did some things better (never saying exactly what).
...

All that tells me is that the data I've presented is currently beyond your understanding.   For example in this thread which you have read, I compared the dynamic range of the two.   That is a clear indicator to most on the performance difference when looking at one specific metric.

https://www.eevblog.com/forum/rf-microwave/which-nanovna/msg4703390/#msg4703390

Still in beginners terms, I don't mind repeating my stance.  For narrow band (crystal filters), < 300MHz, I would stay with the original NanoVNA.   Anything over 300MHz, the Lite.   The firmware for the NanoVNA allows you to use harmonics above 300MHz but it's not very useful.  For PDN work, the original NanoVNA out performs the Lite.  You can filter the crap out of the Lite's data but speed may be an issue.   

All of the cheap VNAs I have looked at do not provide a flat output (ignoring the harmonics) and use squarewaves.  I made the following video a while back demonstrating a potential problem when using these low cost VNAs and how it compares with my HP and Agilent VNAs.   

Again, all the data is up there for those wanting to take the time to learn about it.  I'm afraid that most people that buy them do not have any engineering background and assume that because they are so cheap, they are as simple to use as a DMM.   

[joeqsmith]

Joe, I have read your findings before. I am surprised because H and H4 claim to be improved derivatives of the original NanoVNA. I also wonder where one can still buy the original (ttrftech?) NanoVNA which you consider superior to the H? At least in the European store, I found only H and H4.

[ I don't mean V2.x, V2Plus4, Lite, etc., which are obviously different designs (switched receiver instead of 3 receivers, etc.), not directly derived from the original NanoVNA. ]

My H4 has a card reader, larger screen, sealed case....  I fully understand suggesting it is an improvement.   But, these are things I really don't have a use for as I run them from a PC.   So what I consider an improvement will be the performance, not added features.  The big problem is the firmware, for both.  I still use that old hacked up firmware in the original NanoVNA.  No one would want to use that because it doesn't have all the new features.  For me though, it is stable.  I can run the VNA collecting data overnight and it would not lock up.    I suspect that firmware Xrunner pointed out for the H4 is fairly stable but I never used it again after running that regression test on it.   For me, if the firmware hangs, gives bad data.... then I really don't care what else it can do.  But hey, that's just me.   Everyone has a different use and perspective. 

[ErnestB]

Hi Joe,
I know this is an 1 year old post, and I have read/hear somewhere that you don't support the original nanoVna (H or H4) anymore, but as I only have H4 and as a LabView programmer I was interested in your software you mentioned here. Is it possible to download it somewhere? TIA

[wasedadoc]

Hi Joe,
I know this is an 1 year old post, and I have read/hear somewhere that you don't support the original nanoVna (H or H4) anymore, but as I only have H4 and as a LabView programmer I was interested in your software you mentioned here. Is it possible to download it somewhere? TIA

Read his sig.

[ErnestB]

I could do that, only if I knew what a sig is and where to find it 😁

[wasedadoc]

I could do that, only if I knew what a sig is and where to find it 😁

"sig" is internet forum abbreviation for "signature". What people put at the bottom of letters they write. Look there.

[orzel]

I could do that, only if I knew what a sig is and where to find it 😁

dropbox link at the bottom of his posts.

[joeqsmith]

Hi Joe,
I know this is an 1 year old post, and I have read/hear somewhere that you don't support the original nanoVna (H or H4) anymore, but as I only have H4 and as a LabView programmer I was interested in your software you mentioned here. Is it possible to download it somewhere? TIA

Sounds like you are interested in the source code which I have never released.   As mentioned, the executable can be downloaded from the dropbox link in my signature.  The main thread is here:

https://www.eevblog.com/forum/rf-microwave/nanovna-custom-software/

[ErnestB]

Ok, thanks, no problem if you don't release the source code. I understand. I will try to find and play around with the exe to see if it works with my H4.
I have tried the nanoVna Saver, but after selecting more then the (default) 101 points it crashes every time. There is an another nanoVna App which works better.
What I am trying to do is to find a way and setup whereby I can use the small nanoVna that is fixed behind some panel and has a more sturdy N or Bnc connectors, so it doesn't fly around the bench the whole time.
I have made a temporary fixture, whith nanoVna, tinySa ultra and RSP1A behind a panel, and use the Pc for the control.

[joeqsmith]

Ok, thanks, no problem if you don't release the source code. I understand. I will try to find and play around with the exe to see if it works with my H4.
I have tried the nanoVna Saver, but after selecting more then the (default) 101 points it crashes every time. There is an another nanoVna App which works better.
What I am trying to do is to find a way and setup whereby I can use the small nanoVna that is fixed behind some panel and has a more sturdy N or Bnc connectors, so it doesn't fly around the bench the whole time.
I have made a temporary fixture, whith nanoVna, tinySa ultra and RSP1A behind a panel, and use the Pc for the control.

My guess that the problems you are having when trying to use more than 101 data points with Saver is common.  Asking the groups for help, or just doing some searched on how to solve it would be one option.  IMO, if you can't get Saver to work with all of the resources available, chances are slim you would ever get my software working.   

If you took the time to read this thread, you are aware of the problems I ran into with the H4's firmware and where to get the version that actually passed my regression tests.   I still have the H4, although I have not used it.  If you do run into problems, I may be able to help. 

[ErnestB]

Thanks for offering the help. I have recently updated the FW to DisLord ver.1.2.20 My unit is not quite old and has the MS5351 chip, so I don't know if we have same units and what are the differences. Except I needed to lower the threshold to 295MHz (was 300 000 100Hz) due to some spurious signals, the unit works very well and stable. The software nanoVNA App ver. 1.1.208 by OneOfEleven works stable and looks fine. I have downloaded your exe, but on this machine I need to install the right RunTimeEngine first to start. As I am planning to install the LV Comunity edition on this machine anyway, I will wait for this test on that and go from there. No warries, it is not so urgent and just for the sake of comparison of the available PC software anyway. I might even write my own version from scratch. But before that I was planning to write something to interface my Tek 2712 through GPIB. If the day would have 48 hours, hahah...

[joeqsmith]

Having the community version of Labview will do nothing for you as far as running my software.   Worse, I dare say LabView is IMO pretty much a dead end now and it isn't a platform I would recommend anyone waste time with.   If you plan to create software for it, I suggest you grab one of the open sourced programs and   start from there. 

I have posted the version of H4 I have in this thread so you have all of that info.  As far as using it above the 300MHz, the performance is so poor, it is not something I would consider.   This is where the LiteVNA 64 comes in.   Usable to about 6GHz.   Want to run it up higher, you may need to make some sort of extender like the one shown in my waveguide experiments:

https://www.eevblog.com/forum/rf-microwave/experimenting-with-waveguides-using-the-litevna/msg5075119/#msg5075119

[ErnestB]

I know LabView is an exotic one. I work with LV for more then 2 decades now. So having that experience is for me a jump start of course. I know some C/C++ but used only for embedded systems. I have learned some Python but don't have working experience with. I don't really have any real programming aspirations, so for me it is just to get the job done for these small projects and have fun. I am glad NI released this community license. Working with is for a long time now I know what it can and can't do. I have read your disappointment in their license policy and all the commotion. I am not to judge who is right and who is wrong and I don't have any affiliations with NI. It is by chance that I work with their software and hardware for so long at the same company. We have successfully and done many many projects with LV. The capabilities of LV are huge, but there are also probably the limitations, as with every platform. One also need to know how to exploit the full potential. They have different education levels, up to LabView architect. For me personal I work with LabView, among dozen of another platforms. We are too versatile in projects to stick to one. For years it was the nr one choice to do a project in, as all of us knew how to program in LV and could work together or review each other's work, or take over. Nowadays we are smaller in numbers and the policy is not so rigid. We choose what we think is most convenient for specific project, but we have 2 licenses for the team. I don't know why I writing all of this, as nobody asked for, haha. I suppose just to ventilate my opinion. And if LV dead is, I think people say that already very long now but they are still here. So I don't know. For me it works, but I understand that for new people it look some strange maybe. But for me, I just start to build...