Absolutely Dirty Tidradio and Baofeng Handhelds Tested in a Different Way See What Jim Found!

[@Paddy_Roche]

Oh Jim, All my prayers are for you right now buddy. I love you 🙏🙏🙏

[@otterc.9337]

Thinking about you today, Jim. We love you and lift you up in prayer 🙏🙏

[@mikesradiorepair]

I have tested HT's into R&S communications test sets, through attenuators into R&S and Keysight spectrum analyzers, the same but through a directional coupler to the factory and aftermarket antennas to the SA and the same through a sample port terminated into a dummy load or multiple different antennas. My last test regime was in a homemade anechoic RF chamber and sampled with a R&S log periodic compliance test antenna and spectrum analyzer. I tested just under 7 dozen cheap Chinese and premium Japanese made HT's. Some were the same make and model but purchased at different times and different locations. In the end the results were pretty much drastically slanted one way. Chinese HT's, good luck. Some passed, some barely squeaked by and a lot failed horribly no matter the test method. Premium radios like Yaesu, Motorola, Icom, Kenwood, Alinco and Hytera all passed with flying colors. Not a single one failed in any test configuration. I have noticed one thing with cheap Chinese HT's. If it's a entry level cheap HT it's really pot luck what you are going to get. The more expensive Chinese HT's tended to be fine. Lesson to be learned here is you get what you pay for. You want the cheapest HT made that's just what you are going to get.

[@johnwest7993]

The moral of the story is that the Chinese can make iPhones, but they can't sell them for $20.

[@ham-radio]

Thanks very much. I suspected that major well known brands would be clean. My room is lined on the walls with aluminum tied to ground. There is lots of noise from my computers. But when the handheld is keyed, the background noise is not a problem. You confirmed my findings with my meager setup. I ordered those two from Tidradio and paid for the set with a discount. You would think that they would have tested the units before shipping them to me. It is a good thing that they did not. I got to see one that was clean and one that was very dirty. I learned a lot from this test of handhelds. If I want a handheld it will be from a major well known brand that I can trust. 73, Jim W6LG

[@cbarker1496]

@@ham-radio .... "If I want a handheld it will be from a major well known brand that I can trust." Absolutely correct ! 73

[@nickl3872]

Thanks Jim, nice to meet you.. God bless, get well soon!❤

[@sulphuranonymous618]

Prayers for you Mr. Jim

[@cbarker1496]

Thank you Jim for your continuous contribution to amateur radio. I've learned several things from you about line loss, connector loss, and some very useful tips. Once again, thank you for your work and dedication.

[@bassangler73]

Thanks Jim!! Praying for you!!! I think your doing an actual real world test, and these radios that are all over the place on harmonics need to be stopped from coming off the boat!

[@timgoad5750]

This is most useful information. It is obvious that there is a lot of poor quality radios out there. This is a perfect example of non existent quality control. The big problem is that the manufacturers are not held accountable.

[@mbrun965]

Jim, may I make a suggestion regarding making harmonic measurements with the TinySA Ultra. - Ensure you have 60dBm of attenuation between the radio and the SA input, sufficient that the SA does not need to add its own attenuation to bring the signal down to a level at which it can make its most accurate measurements. Attenuation suggestion is based on a 5w HT and attempting to get the actual input level of the SA down to about -25dBm or lower. - Update the firmware on the Ultra to the latest firmware so you have the most advanced harmonic measurement feature the Ultra has. - Use the Ultra’s built-in ‘Measure>Harmonics’ tool to make the measurements. Measurements will be faster, provide a cleaner & quicker read, and I believe uses optimized parameters for each harmonic range. I noted substantial difference in Ultra input levels between screen grabs you showed in the video, and also that the Ultra had already applied its maximum internal attenuation to the signal which could mean measurement results are skewed by artifacts generated internally by the SA. It would be interesting to know the differences between your original readings and the readings obtained using this modified approach. 73, KE8PLM

[@jimf4492]

For what it's worth, here's some data for you: I recently did this same test using my Tiny SA and Yaesu FT-60 with an aftermarket 1/4 wave whip (I need to try this with its stock rubber duck). I set the power to low (500mW). For receiving, I used the telescoping antenna that came with the Tiny SA, and it was located about 1M from the radio. The Yaesu produced a very clean signal on 2M, and only one harmonic was just barely visible - well below the requirement. I have not yet looked at 70cm, but I will and will get back to you. I also have an older Wouxon (sp?), and will try that as well. Thanks again for another interesting demo. 73! KO5V

[@ham-radio]

Very interesting. Let us all know what you find out with the Wouxon. 73, Jim

[@jimf4492]

​@@ham-radio I put the SA in to "Ultra" mode for the UHF measurements. If I am reading the FCC's specifications correctly, the harmonics from a transmitter that produces 40db below the fundamental (please correct me if I am wrong). If I properly configured the SA, and made a good measurement, the FT-60's harmonics are barely visible on both 2M and 70cm. It's tough to read, and they fluctuate a bit between measurements, but they are 50-60db down. The signal levels shown on the SA may be a bit better with the aftermarket 1/4 wave whip than with the stock rubber duck, but the spectrum looks about the same. The Wouxon KG-UV-3D with it's stock antenna, and on its low-power setting, shows a couple of harmonics on 2M, but they are >50db down. On 70cm, there are a couple, but it looks a bit cleaner than 2M. It's not bad at all. "For what it's worth..." 73, Jim

[@Sky1]

That's nice, Jim.I can throw my ID out on all repeaters at the same time.

[@briansauk6837]

Not to mention talking to military aircraft….😊

[@HawaiianRedNeck]

Thank you, Jim.

[@TheKomunyaka]

Just a few days ago, my colleague from Russia performed the same testing of hendheld output. He didn't use dummy load, but connected antenna output directly to spectrum analyzer through a voltage divider, which lowed the signal to about 68 dB. The test indicated strong harmonics on all Chinese radios and some on Motorola and zero from Yaesu. Pretty much same results as you have shown. Very good to see you on the channel, get well!

[@N4XTL]

Testing with the stock antenna makes perfect sense. That's how the end user is going to use the device in most cases. As for the variance from radio to radio, I would guess that it's mostly due to a lack of tuning/alignment of the output filters at the factory, combined with poor tolerances in the undoubtedly cheap components they use in these radios. The output filters might be fine on paper, but it's just luck of the draw as to what you will actually receive and how close the filters will be to nominal.

[@batfalcononyoutube]

Jim, wish you strength and courage. 73 SV1SLB

[@ShahidiSabri]

the derivations of noise , in an rf amplifier is actually , is in the rf circuitary design and in the rf transistors quality , which is inherence.

[@billgoodson47]

Jim, I have watched and enjoyed many of your videos. This gray beard looks forward to viewing many more of your videos. One suggestion. When you show a home made piece of test equipment, I would love to see a schematic with as much detail as you can provide. You are a class act and I enjoy watching.

[@Andy2e0ree]

Great show Jim very informative many thanks 73 I hope all goes well 🙏🙏

[@arthurziegler6021]

Good evaluation. I'll check some of mine on that manner.

[@markhawley5921]

Jim, thanks for the insight into your methods and results. I think your tests are valid but I also think only one configuration really matters - the radio tested with the antenna it came with. I think anyone would expect that configuration to be the one the factory would have (maybe should have) tested since that is the way the vast majority of buyers will operate. If that configuration doesn't test well then the radio is unusable. It's unfortunate that they are allowed to be sold as their very presence on the air compromises everyone's communications ability. It would seem to be a simple and cheap test to perform on every unit at the factory before it gets put in the box, but obviously it's not being done. Prayers for a full recovery!

[@3henry214]

Jim, much admiration and respect to you for soldiering on and making these informative videos, while dealing with your health challenges at the same time. Even though I'm a relative newbie to the hobby, I quickly learned through watching reviews of Chinese radios that it's a total crap shoot on what you'll be getting. I'm glad I decided to just wait and save up my money until I could afford a good Japanese Yaesu HT that never disappoints. I wonder how Tidradio screwed up and let that clean radio slip by? 😉

[@g0fvt]

Very interesting results Jim, many years ago before the influx of cheap handhelds I was extremely impressed by the spectral purity of mainstream Japanese rigs. I only bothered testing one of my modern "budget" radios and it was borderline (From memory 3rd harmonic of 2m transmit was about -43dBc), measured with a modern communications test set with an internal load good for low GHz region. I would regard that as not too unreasonable to use on it's own antenna in the rural area that I live in. Testing the radios into a real world antenna and doing field strength measurements makes a lot of sense but it presents some problems, significantly many users immediately change from the production antenna. The difference you observed between two radios boxed together is perhaps more disturbing than the absolute figures, it points to a lack of testing and no quality control. Can you imagine buying a brand new car that only did 50mph where your friend with an identical one found his did 200mph, it just doesn't happen. I should do some testing of my fleet of cheap handhelds.... 73

[@ham-radio]

Well, since I am not allowed to drive anymore, 200mph is way faster than a ride downhill in my wheelchair. I get the point though. Testing of these cheaply made handhelds needs to be done in the UK before they are sold. Not tested in a perfect load but into the supplied antenna and others. 73, Jim

[@amateurshooter6054]

Thanks Jim

[@kappeyne]

Thank you, Jim, for this fantastic video. The information you convey is at once deep, clear, and highly useful. It inspires me to test my own two Wouxun 88Gs in the same manner, not in the least because transmitting with one is giving rather different range than with the other, ceteris paribus everything else. Here's wishing you the best of the best with your present health challenges.

[@garrybarnette4454]

Thanks Jim! Praying for you as you battle your illness...'73 WA4MDP

[@ShahidiSabri]

using spectrum analyser to calculate radio signals spectral noise is quite excellent , the only problem is can we get hold of a high resolution spectrum analyser , if we can hire it , it would be quite excellent.

[@joeblow8593]

You're definitely on to something, but the big three must be tested as well. Maybe some local hams to you could lend you their HT's for a test, the more the better. God Bless and good luck.

[@Hank_W6IR]

You should have run the same tests for the Tidradio into the dummy load and showed those results side by side to your antenna use tests.

[@ham-radio]

Hank I have decided not to do that. If I were to use them it would not be into my Bird dummy load. It would be with the supplied antenna because that is what everyone will do. I tried several antenna and some were a little better than others. The units appear to be nicely made with great features. One of them I can use. The other is garbage like the Baofeng. Thanks Hank, 73, Jim

[@Hank_W6IR]

@@ham-radio Jim, I'm only saying (asking) that your test with an antenna be compared to a dummy load test. In theory the results should be the same (or close to the same). The rule states "at the transmission line" so you have to wonder what role a mismatch plays. Thanks for your efforts.

[@ShahidiSabri]

Boss , could you give more , descriptions of load matchings , of a high power HF linear amplifier to various dipole anntena of various designs , with particular attentions to connecting cable loss .

[@vladtepes481]

Interesting. I have tested HT antennas on a RigExpert Analyzer. I found it necessary to add a 1/4 wavelength counterpoise to measure antenna SWR. With the counterpoise SWR is close to 1:1. This set up is also necessary when using an HT antenna on my IC-705. Incidentally, my ICOM Id-52 has a second harmonic -50dB down from the fundamental. I tested this using a Tiny SA with its supplied antenna and transmitting from the radio held in my hand with the supplied antenna. Best of luck to you.

[@robertmeyer4744]

very good thinking on testing HT's . testing in different ways gives a better picture on how the HT in the real world. we talk into a antenna to a outher radio. with that a have found poor quality control on the China HT's. I have tested several UV-5R from several different people bought at different times. look at spectrum and see different results. even power difference. seems like totally different radio at times. comes down to test your own radio in the way you use it . then you know how it is doing. the Talkpod A36 is that way as well. some got clean ones. comes down do your own test or have the radio you have tested. do not go buy some one else that tested same radio. very good Jim. 2 radios in the same box not the same. 73's

[@ramdor72]

thinking of you today Jim

[@ShahidiSabri]

Boss , referring to a dipole antenna , in six arrays , directional antenna . Does the power of the six arrays , directional antenna , is 6x the power , of a single dipole antenna .

[@mike94560]

So as long as you use a dummy load for an antenna you are good. LOL

[@Joetechlincolns]

I can key up my local repeaters thru my resistive dummy load on 5 watts. 70cm band

[@threadripper979]

@@Joetechlincolns Everything is an antenna - even dummy loads, lawn chairs, rain gutters, coat hangers, etc. I seent it.

[@Etender_1863]

An absolute eye opener how bad they are.I think your approach is a fair test.I hope to use my icom hand held on a cruise. I think on Shore would be best after seeing your video.

[@nancyjasper169]

Seems to me that China is bombarding us with poorly engineered products. The FCC is partly to blame here . The general public does not really have the technical knowledge of what products we are really getting . Most people are just looking for convenience . Lots of stuff is dirty equipment nowadays, solar panels, Wi-Fi extension devices, charging stations, some washing machines ETC…List seems to go on and on with no end in site. Thank you Jim. NZ1AF Chris.

[@MikeMercuryOnCF]

I like Jims videos, he is well versed and tells it like it is. He is correct that the Bird dummy load is seen as a perfect 50 ohm load. The reason why Jim built that "box" is because he doesn't have the necessary test equipment on hand. An Anritsu spectum analyzer (or other similar mfgrs) that can accept the radios output directly costs over $10,000. None of us have these devices in our shack, as they are intended for use by manufacturers that can afford the equipment needed. Because of this he had to build something that would allow him to make spurious tests using the equipment he had on hand. His box can introduce some uniqueness. When you have a known radio that has spurious output, anything introduced into the testing process (such as an inline RF sampler/sniffer) can affect the testing outcome. Baofeng claims that their radios spurs are below the FCC allowed maximums... IF YOU USE THEIR ANTENNA. That can be true, but this is not how the FCC does it's testing. And it's the FCC they have to adhere to; by using the FCC's test method. The concrete way to determine if a transmitters spurs are greater than the FCC allowed maximums... is to mimic the FCC's testing procedure.

[@ham-radio]

Hi Mike, I did not use my box or the dummy load. I did use the supplied antenna transmiting at least 6 feet from a receiving antenna connected to the TinySA with a few feet of RG8X. So, I used the supplied antenna and others as the user would do. No dummy load and not sampler was used in the production of this movie. 73, Jim

[@MikeMercuryOnCF]

@@ham-radio . I mis-undertstood; thanks for the clarification!

[@luke8210]

I bought a baofeng. It was my intro into ham. It was a good stepping stone and that's a good thing. I think it's a decent platform to start with for any new ham. Get your feet wet without spending big bucks and have a little fun too! Thanks Jim, always appreciated your videos.

[@kingduckford]

I tried the same thing you did with my Comet antenna analyzer. What I found was that all of the cheap HT antennas weren't that great, but also, they all seemed to be tuned for GMRS/FRS and/or MURS, which seems to be their more core clientele, people who want those services with non type accepted equipment. Did you run the 2 meter band and see where they were best matched? I also had the same problem of moving the analyzer around, every time you think a twist of the wrist might help it, it always seemed to make it worse.... Still, I have a feeling that the $20 radio is more at fault than the $10 antenna.

[@Electrotech1980]

Thanks Jim. Please take care and I wish you the best. I don't own a cheap Chinese made tranceiver for the same reasons you tested for. I have the equipment to test them but refuse to give these componies money just to test their products. Thanks for doing what you do. Luc VE3AR

[@K7AGE]

HI, What would happen if you swapped batteries on the two TID radios? Do you know of someone who could listen to the second harmonic? Hope all goes well.

[@CamilleCullen-ow6qj]

I think you did a great job Jim (as usual!) I can't think of a better way to test the radios. I would NEVER buy a Chinese radio. I think they are mostly junk. I hope you feel better soon and kill that cancer. Us new folks need you!! Robert K5TPC

[@tpobrienjr]

Jim, I remember that Universal Radio had an optional service in which they thoroughly tested radios they sold. It's probably money well spent, especially for a non-tech user like a sailor. I don't know if such a service is available now.

[@MontegaB]

How old is that UV-5R you tested? I'm curious because the newer ones over the past year or so have improved filtering similar to the GT-5R radios

[@dreupen]

I have long felt that the default antenna should be a part of the testing. The antenna can act like a band pass filter in cutting down the unwanted harmonics. A dirty radio could well not be illegal but rather less efficient as power is lost out of band.

[@matsbengtsson3756]

One very good way is to use a true resistive inline 500MHz or higher attenuator 40dB or higher between radio and VNA.

[@stevenshell2774]

Thank you so much for this video. This manufacturer appears to have sent their radios for review to every KZbinr out there. Very few have your knowledge and experience to properly test them. Apparently there is a great deal of inconsistency and these products. This alone should make the buyer weary. I would think testing would only be valid utilizing you the radio in a real world configuration. So the question is, does the FCC rely on the manufacturer's data for certification or do they do their own testing? If that's the case, I have a bridge in Brooklyn that I would like to sell.

[@LeeMcc_KI5YPR]

My guess is they have horrible QA on components...caps, inductors, resistors. Some work, so the schematic is ok. Must be the parts.

[@ham-radio]

That sounds right to me. Thanks, Jim

[@DavidJohnstone-hi9kr]

Thanks Jim for another excellent video! Let’s consider how two of the top ham radio equipment testers perform tests; the FCC and the ARRL. I can’t say how the FCC does the “type accepting” of equipment. I hope the FCC has a fancy RF lab, with top of the line equipment. Perhaps somebody can comment on how the FCC performs type accepting. The ARRL published a book “Amateur Radio Transceiver Performance Testing” by Bob Allison WB1GCM which goes in to detail on how the ARRL Lab performs tests for QST product reviews. The ARRL book also shows and explains real world applications for RF test equipment.

[@EpiclyReckless]

Lol I tested the Tidradio on my Freedom R8100 service monitor and it was pushing 4 watts while the LCD showed 10 watts

[@CrazyOregonBeaver]

Don't tell me that chinese are lying. I can't imagine that. 😂😂😂

[@ham-radio]

Ya, I never said that they were a bunch of liars peddling their garbage over here. I probably should have. 73, Jim

[@jeremycole3008]

I was kinda surprised you would even power a baofeng radio up. I got one last year from my wife for fathers day, but i didnt have the heart to tell her about silent keys around here. If i were to cause interference around here, i might be kinda excited someone noticed actually. The sunday night 2 meter check ins are getting fewer people. Yes, sending 288 mhz out is bad, but here in illinois, those of us vertical oriented arent paying attention.

[@johnorrells3797]

The only way to test is the same as the FCC in that is how they arrived at the standard. I have just retired from a large test equipment manufacturing and calibration company. We used test equipment from most of the big names, Keysight (formally Agilent and HP) Rhode and Swartz and Anritsu. Most of the spectrum analysers maximum input would be 30 dBm or 1 Watt so a known calibrated attenuator or directional coupler would be required. Knowing the calibration figures ment any variations could be allowed for. You cannot expect the manufacturers radio under test to be calibrated with any antenna, you have to have a standard. In the real world I would think the transmitters of the big names have good acceptance testing. Considering the price of these Chinese radios, eg 25 pounds, they would have to reduced costs and still make a profit. Biggest cost reduction would be pay but that is rising. So checking final product is probably only done on just a few examples.

[@FjHenderson]

Interesting tests. I see so many testing these cheaper in price radios and getting similar results that you git. But why doesn't everyone testing these test icoms, yaesu, Kenwood, Motorola, radios to see if there dirty?

[@mikesradiorepair]

Probably because they are not. I have tested more premium manufacturer HT's than I can remember and the one thing I do remember is they all met/exceeded the emissions standards.

[@oh2aue]

Jim, seems you are measuring the 3rd harmonic as marked as 2nd, starting at 5:33 (and 6:32). Anyway, awful, but cheap.Thanks for the informative video, hope ham friends get the message. Best wishes, Michael

[@ham-radio]

Thanks for that! I may have made a mistake. I will check it out. 73, Jim

[@ham-radio]

It looks correct to me. 73, Jim

[@oh2aue]

​@@ham-radio OK, the horisontal freqency scaling is a bit unclear, so perhaps I am not getting it right - I was just looking at the spacing, which changes at 5:44. Also took me a while to realize there are not 10 full graticule divisions horizontally ;-)

[@kb6dxn]

Test with out of the box using the supplied antenna..

[@tracyrreed]

So just how much of your transmit power is going out on harmonics and not on the primary frequency? As I understand it, we care about this because: 1. You are polluting other frequencies raising the noise floor over there hurting anyone else using that frequency 2. A big chunk of your transmit power is not going into productive RF on the intended frequency and is instead going into harmonics on other frequencies. Is that right? I'm still very much a student of these things but I say you test with the antenna that came in the box. I've learned that everything affects everything with RF so testing in the actual useful configuration is important.

[@KeepEvery1Guessing]

I'm not surprised that the load affects the filter performance. I presume that the filter is between the final and the antenna port, i.e.; it is not buffered to isolate it from the load (would require linear buffer at the output power level, so we're not going to see them spring for that). The filter design may not be bad, but they are probably manufactured with wide tolerance components, and not individually trimmed.. It would be interesting (though expensive and destructive) to have some young technician, with good eyes and very steady hands, de-solder the RF components of your two TIDs, and measure each exactly, including the parasitic capacitance, gain, and transfer curve of the final transistor (or pair?), to see if we can spot what makes thee difference between a good one and a bad one. We might figure out how to tweak the filters on the bad ones to make them good, but if you have to hire someone to do it (as opposed to it being a fun hobby project), it will obliterate any price advantage these radios have over, say, a Motorola. An interesting question if whether FCC rules only require the specified levels of suppression into a proper load. I suspect that you can make any radio fail the suppression level requirements bu driving it through a resonance at the harmonic, with good rejection at the fundamental (like that one antenna you mentioned). It is probably not making the harmonic stronger, but reducing the fundamental makes the ratio between them smaller. 73, Bill - KE1G

[@ham-radio]

I agree with all that you wrote. I think some good brands like Icom and Yaesu have a lower priced handheld that is likely very clean. I especially agree that real world testing be done here and not there. The cert came from China. I suspect that lab testing there has no value and should not be used by the FCC. I hope someone at the FCC will do the same tests that I did. Well, they will have really good equipment. 73, Jim W6LG

[@kumasu]

So what is the fix? Technically, how challenging is it for manufacturers to correct this obvious problem?

[@ham-radio]

I have no fix for the garbage that comes out of some handheld when connected to the supplied antenna. 73, Jim

[@Ressy66]

baofeng uv82 - the only baofeng model to pass every test on every unit I've tested, as Jim, Ape, and others have shown, the uv5 range, well I've never seen one that's passed yet. I had an idea tidradio released an update which was clean units, over the initial release which was pure filth as Jim shows, maybe the 2 packs are one of each ? :) who knows... I dont have any of them and never seen them over here.

[@ham-radio]

Testing into a dummy load is not a good test. I purchased the Tidradios from them a few weeks ago. 73, Jim

[@DK5ONV]

The Baofengs are not allowed in my Country for excately these Reasons. No HAM Radio Shop does have them on their Shelfs

[@gregorysloat4258]

I don’t know why you would test only with the antenna the HT came with. The first thing you do when you buy a Glock handgun is replace the plastic sights with a good set of steel sights (if yours didn’t already come with good sights, which some do). Likewise, with an HT, the first thing you do is replace the antenna that came with it because you can assume it isn’t optimal, and you know there are better aftermarket antennas available.

[@ham-radio]

I held up a handful of various antennas. Some well-known brands were part of the testing. So when you said that I only tested with the supplied antennas, you clearly did not watch the video. A dirty Baofeng did not get magically better with another antenna. 73, Jim

[@rogerlafrance6355]

Unless multiband radios have a way of switchin harmonic filters, things are iffy. Running low power reduces 2F0 a lot as too much class C increases harmonics and intermod. A simple fix is a quarter wave stub. FCC tests are always done into a dummy load with calibrated sampler and with a notch or highpass filter for reading below -60 Db. Digital TV requires -120 Db 2F0! There are application notes on how to run these tests from Tektronix and others.

[@ham-radio]

I don't agree with a lot of that. Setting that aside, most will buy the Baofeng and use the antenna that came in the box. So what I showed in the video will be what happens. Lots of harmonic will spew from some handhelds. Thanks for offering some advice. 73, Jim

[@briansauk6837]

I have no doubt those samples you have are dirty; my own extensive testing on a uv-5r was a fail. Weirdly, the harmonics were ok, but there were terrible spurs a couple hundred kHz from the fundamental. One caution with the tiny sa: you may need some extra input attenuation to keep the fundamental from swamping its front end

[@ham-radio]

The peak signal was close to zero dB. So overloading did not happen. 73, Jim

[@raymondmartin6737]

Very interesting, I know testing my many HT s into an analyzer shows their faults. The Tid HTs seem to have poor quality control May you could have 2 sets of the Tid HTs and keep the best of them.?😊

[@AlanBrooklynNY]

Jim, first of all good health to you! You were right on with your tests. I did almost the same tests with Tidradio H-3, a Radioddity GC-5, two BaoFeng (whatever) and two Wouxun KG-UVD1P. Many antennas. Used a COMMIT CAA500MARKII for antennas. Tiny Spectrum Analyzer Ultra. (Sorry to say my REAL walkie-talkies Kenwood and ICOM are older than dirt. Your results are consistent with mine. So maybe next week (or sometime soon) I am going to TEST my ICOM 5-watt desk-top-talkie (IC-7-5) using the same procedures, same HT antennas, same Tiny Spectrum Analyzer Ultra and see what it is all about. CLEAN? DIRTY? Antennas make a difference? Alan, NY2G here in BROOKLYN New York!

[@johnman1286]

I use a 30db high power attenuater that I tested to be an almost perfect 50 Ohms all the way to 3Ghz and connected it directly into a Keysight spectrum analyzer. The worst was a Talkpod A36 where the second harmonic was only down by 6db when operated on VHF frequency but UHF was below the noise so was fine. Any of the other Chinese radio's were all down about 40 to 45db so not that great and in particular the Quansheng UVK5 2nd -42db on VHF and for UHF 2nd harmonic -42db and third was only -36db at 1.33Ghz. They must not have any good filtering after the final amplifier. I have a Yeasu F65 and even though the harmonics test good and are below the noise floor, the mic gain is about 15db too low to where I only get 3 by 9 signal reports and can barely hear my own voice on a scanner. I'm still looking for a decent dual band analog handheld.

[@ham-radio]

Okay, now do a real world test with an antenna and let me know the results. This is important to all of us. 73, Jim

[@ronboe6325]

Seems to me, the only test that makes sense is to test what comes in the box. Naturally one can modify any radio with a nicer antenna (and many do) but the tester has no idea which antenna, if any, will be substituted; the only constant - what is in the box. I.e. you race with what you came with.

[@Joetechlincolns]

Jim, I'm sorry you are having to endure with Cancer and Chemo. Hope the docs aren't leading you on at all, I'm sure you'll know if enough is enough. Take care

[@grantechsweng5268]

try testing HT Antennas :o) I have one that meets spec 100%, One type that 50% pass and another type 100% fail.

[@kenchilton]

It matches my experience with them. I have several brands of these cheap HTs. I have taken them apart to try to tune them, but they are touchy. I worked for a Chinese company and I learned something very useful. It is called the Chinese IQ test. Vendors make poor products but try to make them appealing in some way, such as copying a brand. Of course, they are low price, too. If you buy them, they laugh, because you failed the IQ test. If the buyer had half a brain, he would know this cheap crap has to be a scam. So, you get junk and they get your money - so who was smarter? I kid you not; this is really how they look at this.

[@DonzLockz]

I think that all Chinese radio's are a 50/50 gamble.🎲🎲

[@johnwest7993]

I think 2 'identical' model Chinese HT's are not identical. Their filter components are of questionable quality and their manufacturing is slipshod. I have several cheap Chinese 'loner' HT's and I check each one through an attenuator into my Anritsu SA every few months before it gets used. Those radios are cheap for a reason, cheap components, sloppy construction, no testing of any sort beyond, 'does it hear and does it talk'? One can't even characterize a radio this week and expect it to spec the same next week. There are simply so many things that separate a $20 HT from a $180 HT that the list is near infinite. These cheapos have to be checked regularly and never counted on.

[@russboden5792]

exactly..these are cheap garbage

[@radiotowers1159]

pay for what you get by the looks

[@pen25]

they should be tested real world. meters and all are nice when you go straight into them. but a service monitor that uses an antenna and you operating the radio the way you normally would is going to tell you everything you need to know.

[@TM15R]

With all due respect, when you're spending $28.00 of a triband ht, your results should not come as a major shock. Quality control is all but non existent. One can only wonder what final inspection, if any looks like.

[@K6TAT]

👋

[@bill-2018]

Don't buy cheap radios. I suppose they could be improved by adding an external harmonic filter. Maybe the output stage is not properly tuned for 2m? G4GHB.

[@StrixTechnica]

My tuppence: two problems with using antennas for characterising a transceiver outside of an anechoic chamber in this way are reproducibility (as you noted, depends on how the antenna is held, plus variability between samples of a given antenna make/model) and the impossibility of _guaranteeing_ that there is nothing in the environment that can't be responsible for nonlinear action that produces harmonics from the radio's RF output. Okay, so the latter is a bit of a nit-pick. Reproducibility is the main issue. And yet your point that real antenna loads - which are the only ones that matter in any practical sense - can bring out ugliness that might not appear into a dummy load. Perhaps the answer is some reasonably reproducible (but representative) pads that introduce some controlled reactive component in the way that a dodgy antenna might... I'm sorry to hear of your ill health, and hope that biopsy went okay with no more discomfort than absolutely necessary. Be well soon, S.

[@bobrunge7594]

One good one out of 4 isn’t a very good average. Most people will just buy this and use it out of the box not even knowing what you brought to light. Thanks Jim Bob Runge W1LSZ

[@glenmartin2437]

Thanks for your videos! Take care and have a great week anyway. N0QFT

[@hipal2271]

I guess I’m an odd ball ham. I don’t own a Baofeng. KG5RIZ