NanoVNA-F V3 Review/Teardown, Compared to V2

In this video, I did a review an teardown of a NanoVNA-F V3, an upgraded version from the original V2. The V3 supports up to 6.3 GHz and comes with significant performance improvement. Product link: ban.ggood.vip/141P0
Banggood Anniversary Sale ban.ggood.vip/146mH
Banggood Clearance Sale ban.ggood.vip/146mG
DIY Tools & Auto and Motor ban.ggood.vip/146mF
Inspiration Woodworking Tool ban.ggood.vip/146mE
Teardown pictures:www.kerrywong.com/2023/09/01/t...
NanoVNF-F V2 review: • Review, Experiments an...
00:00 Overview
03:52 Comparison between V3 and V2
06:51 Single band whip antenna measurement
09:56 Multi-band whip antenna measurement
11:24 600-6GHz wideband MIMO antenna measurement
13:52 RC filter measurement
14:42 TDR cable length measurement
15:56 Signal generator output spectrum, compared to V2
17:44 Teardown, conclusions

[@dondonaldson1684]

Thanks Kerry, excellent presentation.

[@AlexanderBukh]

Thank you, so informative.

[@n1vca]

Brilliant review - thank you very much - it answeres every question I have had

[@WR3ND]

Great video. Thanks.

[@wiwingmargahayu6831]

your telco engineering skill is amazing Sir

[@rickfletcher4297]

Excellent review and presentation! I've placed an order for one.

[@electronics.unmessed]

Very good! Thx for sharing.

[@jankromka9584]

Thank you Kerry.👍

[@jspencerg]

I appreciate your consistently thorough reviews. I'm considering getting vna with a higher frequency range than my v2plus4. I see I should consider this model in addition to the litevna. Could you do more comparison between this and the litevna?

[@se2702]

Return loss (RL) measurements are positive (+) for passive devices. If a negative sign is indicated (-) the measurement is really reflection coefficient characterized in dB.

[@fernandorosa9850]

Excelent video!. Could you made a comparision with liteVNA 64?.

[@gonzoruiz7154]

Hello, thank you for the video which is very interesting. I have the F V3 broken and I'm looking for the schematic and I can't find it, if you know where could I find it? Thanks a lot.

[@robust5615]

do the position of antenna ..horizontal or vertical will effect its performance ?

[@pchunter168]

👍

[@Chris-hy6jy]

Hopefully they'll release a v4 with a better signal generator. A sine wave generator would be nice 😉

[@ernestb.2377]

Hi, would you know how these V2 and V3 roughly compare to H4? There are a lot lot of types, versions and producers these days...

[@mamatabb4465]

Hello! Thanks for the video, I have same unit. I’m wondering if you can make a video on how to test a coax cable? Thank you

[@amirb715]

@4:20 I dont see any BW on the screen but in all VNA's higher BW >> faster sweep. That's not surprising. That's how it should be. TO compare the sweep speed you need to make sure they have the same IF bandwidth. It is very similar to RBW in SA

[@KerryWongBlog]

I don't think adjusting bandwidth is an option on the NanoVNA-F V2 or V3 I know NanoVNA V2 Plus4 supports it, but didn't see it on -F V2 or V3. I will comb through the settings again when I get a chance, but if you find the settings please let me know.

[@craigrotay3732]

Hi Kerry! Thank you for getting the V3 so fast and producing another informative comparison. For the spectrum analysis, the output power for the V3 seemed to be set about 6dB higher than the V2 at 1GHz, and close to 10dB at 4.1. If you run the V3 at lower power, does it look a little cleaner? Or is the analyzer getting hit too hard (probably not...) Kind of surprised about the V3 spectrum, but still it's amazing for a low cost VNA.

[@KerryWongBlog]

I am a little surprised by the V3 spectrum as well. The spectrum looks similar at different power settings. It is slight better towards lower frequencies but in general the phase noise is more pronounced than V2.

[@craigrotay3732]

@KerryWongBlog Great information Kerry. Thank you. I knew you probably checked this aspect thoroughly since it's so unexpected. I suppose one good thing is that its output power seems to be a bit higher than the V2. Do you suppose there is a fix?

[@KerryWongBlog]

​@@craigrotay3732I was a little puzzled by the phase noise as the phase noise of MAX2780 is pretty low. Unfortunately, the software used in the NanoVNA-F is not open source so it would be hard to pinpoint where the issue lies.

[@joseppuig925]

Probably they didn't implement the MAX2780 correctly (loop filter component values, for instance), or they are not sending the correct configuration for its internal registers, hence, the bad phase noise.

[@ernieschatz3783]

I wonder why the signal quality of the SigGen took such a step backwards.

[@snakezdewiggle6084]

The reflective display will drive you insane. , ;)

[@gino.avanzini]

great video! How does it compare with the liteVNA?

[@KerryWongBlog]

It's a lot faster for sure. I haven't done any deeper analysis yet but the noise floor of V3 is lower especially in higher frequency ranges.

[@gino.avanzini]

@@KerryWongBlog thank you!

[@fushizhang6864]

Does the interface allow the lowest freq from 9khz?

[@KerryWongBlog]

No, the V3 starts from 1 MHz.

[@worroSfOretsevraH]

I'm wondering for how long will the center pin last of those connectors with all the screwing-unscrewing done.

[@madmax2069]

Yeah, SMAs are pretty fragile, you would have though they would have used a more robust connector.

[@vincei4252]

I just checked quality TE female SMA on DigKey and they list 500 cycles. Some are much, much worse i.e. fewer cycles. Better to have some sacrificial cables attached I suppose. I never understand instrumentation that could be used heavily having SMA connectors TBH.

[@madmax2069]

@@vincei4252 I'm more partial to using a solid adapter instead of an adapter cable that way you still keep the plugging and unplugging cycles to a minimum on the connector on the unit. With a solid adapter you don't have to worry about the cable being just another point of failure, but there again the cable can also keep forces from directly effecting the connector on the unit.

[@Gengh13]

It is pretty easy to replace when they fail.

[@madmax2069]

@@Gengh13 to some it's easy, to some they see using chewing gum to stick two spoons together as hard.

[@felixquehl]

Could you do a video about the firmware?

[@Chris-hy6jy]

Have you seen the SV4401A or SV6301A? Not sure if these are just a larger screen version of the nanovna or whether they have better performance. Would be good to see a review by you!

[@KerryWongBlog]

Good timing! I just got an SV6301A and will review it shortly.

[@Chris-hy6jy]

@@KerryWongBlog oh fantastic! Thanks 😂

[@argasasrgetthe9032]

You mentioned at 3:08 there was a firmware update available for the V2 to increase its frequency range to 4.4ghz. Is that an official update anyone can get? And is it even any good at lets say 3.5ghz? Nice review Love your Video's!

[@anlpereira]

I'm dreaming with just a V2 version to measure PCB antenna of my ESP32 projects. 🙃

[@user-lo8gq3pr6e]

So if its built-in signal generator has harmonics at -35dB from the signal, then this means the accuracy of network measurements below -35dB cannot be trusted. This would affect all S-measurements.

[@uploadJ]

Not if they do a hetereodyne conversion before detection. A simple broadband detector diode of course "sees all". But a detector diode is a scalar analyzer, not a vector (phase information) analyzer.

[@marekchmura-hanik5152]

@@uploadJ That is true. The erors start at ca -30 dB and reach -17 dB at -60 dB. Some improvement in 0.5.5 firmware but still at least 10 db error.

[@uni-byte]

Wow!!! that SA is noisy! Nice review.

[@marekchmura-hanik5152]

It is. I wonder if the high noise floor impacts calibration. Resulting in false readouts with errors of ca 15 dB at -60 db S21 readout in my piece.

[@Aimsport-video]

“Better spec’d and more capable components” that deliver inferior signal quality. Hmmmm.

[@user-lo8gq3pr6e]

Yeah, big concerns with the accuracy of measurements because of a noisy incident signal gen.

[@marekchmura-hanik5152]

@@user-lo8gq3pr6e The accuracy i worse than in F "V1". 60 dB attenuator displayed as 43 dB. With new 0.5.5 firmware bit better - as 50dB.

[@JuulCPH]

You really shouldn't be promoting products like this. This is using the NanoVNA name but they almost certainly do not have permission from ttrftech who developed and marketed the original NanoVNA. Even worse (in my opinion) the firmware source code seems to not be available even though it seems very likely that it is based on the original NanoVNA firrmware by ttrftech which is licensed under the GPLv3. So not just a trademark violation but a GPL license violation as well. Copying and improving open designs is good but pretending to be the original creator by using the same name and then not sharing back the improvements made to the open source firmware is not just unethical. It's illegal. You're promoting what is almost certainly an illegal product.

[@robust5615]

it is open source or no ?

[@eggmangoogle3146]

​@robust5615 if you think that makes it legal to violate copyright or trademark, you don't know how open source works.

[@robust5615]

@@eggmangoogle3146 open source or no..Answer this ..not put your word into my mouth ...

[@louisho2522]

EEVblog Hi lol