开云体育

I have noticed that on my NanoVNA-H v3.4 the latest FW versions things
have looked different after a calibration than it used to.

I decided to do a comparison of some FW versions to see if that could
make things clearer.

I am no expert so maybe my tests are not performed in a good way, I
tried to search the forum to get some idea of how to verify the
performance. I came to the conclusion that the S21 noise floor was one
measurement that people seem to be comparing.

So I have attached screenshots taken after the following procedure:
After each FW change I ran "clearconfig" trying to make sure there was
no stale config data causing issues and also the default settings for
that FW is then used.

Calibration was made like this:

Pigtail connected to port 1 at all times
SMA-to-BNC-50ohm termination connected to port 2 except for through calibration

Connect "open" - calibrate for open
Connect "short" - calibrate for short
Connect "load" - calibrate for load - then calibrate for isolation
Remove female-to-female adapter that was used with pigtail
Remove the termination on port 2 and connect pigtail - calibrate for through

Then the termination/load was once more connected to port1 and port2
and the screenshot was then taken using NanoVNA saver.

The filenames describes what FW was used, for example:
nanovna-0-900-dislord-1.0.48-fw.png
This would be from DiSlord's repository - version 1.0.48


To me the most prominent difference is the change on the S21 LOGMAG
measurement that is almost a flat line on the edy555 FWs and also on
hugen-0.4.5-4 but on the rest of my tests there seems to be a higher
noise floor. But also note that there are two hugen-1.0.45 screenshots
attached and they vary quite a bit so I am not sure how reliable my
tests have been.

This was what I had noticed and what got me started doing some tests.

I have also noticed a difference on the S11 noise floor which looks
best on edy555-0.8.0 FW, and I have compiled and tested many
intermediate FWs from DiSlord's repo but I think I will expand on that
in a separate post as this is too long already.


I don't know if my very non-scientific tests are relevant or not,
maybe it does not matter much for the use of the NanoVNA and I should
not care, your opinions and thoughts are very welcome.

/Andreas - SA0ZAP

Did you press Reset or to calibrating?
When updating firmware, do you run the clearconfig 1234 command prior to recalibrating?


I have noticed that on my NanoVNA-H v3.4 the latest FW versions things
have looked different after a calibration than it used to.

I decided to do a comparison of some FW versions to see if that could
make things clearer.

I am no expert so maybe my tests are not performed in a good way, I
tried to search the forum to get some idea of how to verify the
performance. I came to the conclusion that the S21 noise floor was one
measurement that people seem to be comparing.

So I have attached screenshots taken after the following procedure:
After each FW change I ran "clearconfig" trying to make sure there was
no stale config data causing issues and also the default settings for
that FW is then used.

Calibration was made like this:

Pigtail connected to port 1 at all times
SMA-to-BNC-50ohm termination connected to port 2 except for through calibration

Connect "open" - calibrate for open
Connect "short" - calibrate for short
Connect "load" - calibrate for load - then calibrate for isolation
Remove female-to-female adapter that was used with pigtail
Remove the termination on port 2 and connect pigtail - calibrate for through

Then the termination/load was once more connected to port1 and port2
and the screenshot was then taken using NanoVNA saver.

The filenames describes what FW was used, for example:
nanovna-0-900-dislord-1.0.48-fw.png
This would be from DiSlord's repository - version 1.0.48


To me the most prominent difference is the change on the S21 LOGMAG
measurement that is almost a flat line on the edy555 FWs and also on
hugen-0.4.5-4 but on the rest of my tests there seems to be a higher
noise floor. But also note that there are two hugen-1.0.45 screenshots
attached and they vary quite a bit so I am not sure how reliable my
tests have been.

This was what I had noticed and what got me started doing some tests.

I have also noticed a difference on the S11 noise floor which looks
best on edy555-0.8.0 FW, and I have compiled and tested many
intermediate FWs from DiSlord's repo but I think I will expand on that
in a separate post as this is too long already.


I don't know if my very non-scientific tests are relevant or not,
maybe it does not matter much for the use of the NanoVNA and I should
not care, your opinions and thoughts are very welcome.

/Andreas - SA0ZAP

I updated the firmware, then I ran "clearconfig" as the next step.
Then I went through the calibration, starting with resetting the calibration as the first step (as per the regular calibration instructions).

/Andreas - SA0ZAP

you made measure on Bandwidth 4k, old firmware work on 1k by default (need set to 1k as minimum for compare)
Old firmware measure on 8mA by default (but this give not linear results on long span range) set Power to 8mA after calibration reset (in CALIBRATE->POWER)

On Sun, Mar 7, 2021 at 07:04 AM, <sunkan@...> wrote:

The filenames describes what FW was used, for example:
nanovna-0-900-dislord-1.0.48-fw.png
This would be from DiSlord's repository - version 1.0.48

Andreas,

Where did you find the repository for DiSlord 1.0.48? What are the changes from 1.0.45?

Roger

Roger,
It's in Dislord's GitHub repo. You have to build it yourself as I did last week.?
(Ignore formatting numbers):
? ? ? ?Commits on Feb 24, 2021

-
Add |Z| trace mods

-
DiSlord committed 11 days ago
- Commits on Feb 22, 2021

-
Remove redraw_requrest bitfield, now for redraw need call request_to_…

-
DiSlord committed 13 days ago
- Commits on Feb 20, 2021

-
Small UI code optimization

-
DiSlord committed 15 days ago
- Commits on Feb 14, 2021

-
Add radio button to max/min marker searchD

-
DiSlord committed?21 days ago

I'm having an issue with the time of day clock command though but have not debugged it yet. I think it's my build env. The rest of the FW works though.?
... Larry


On Sun., 7 Mar. 2021 at 12:28 p.m., Roger Need via groups.io<sailtamarack@...> wrote: On Sun, Mar? 7, 2021 at 07:04 AM, <sunkan@...> wrote:

The filenames describes what FW was used, for example:
nanovna-0-900-dislord-1.0.48-fw.png
This would be from DiSlord's repository - version 1.0.48

Andreas,

Where did you find the repository for DiSlord 1.0.48?? What are the changes from 1.0.45?

Roger

On Sun, Mar 7, 2021 at 09:44 AM, Larry Rothman wrote:

Roger,
It's in Dislord's GitHub repo. You have to build it yourself as I did last
week.?

Larry,

Thanks. I don't know how to compile this code and there is a bit of a learning curve so I will wait for the next release. I am happy with 1.0.45

Roger

Actually I believe that I did measure with bandwith 1k, or at least I measured with whatever was the default for the FW as I used "clearconfig" when switching between FWs.
For some reason NanoVNASaver (0.3.8) seems to change the bandwidth so that is why it is shown that way in the screenshots.
I did check the screen on the NanoVNA before connecting with NanoVNASaver to store the screenshot and the screenshot did not change much from before connecting with NanoVNASaver.

I was wondering about the bandwidth and also the power settings, actually the reason I did take two screenshots for the hugen 1.0.45 FW was to verify that I had 1k bandwidth before connecting with NanoVNASaver.

I can perform any tests again if needed.
DiSlord, I will test the 1.0.45, and 1.0.48 from your GIT repo and make sure to select 1k bandwidth and power to 8mA and see what results I get.

Also, I want to be clear on the point that I don't know if the results I got is worse than the ones on the older firmware, I have just noticed that they look quite different.
At first I actually thought I had a contact issue as the traces looked so different from the older firmwares so that is why I started to look into this.

I have attached 4 pictures to this post.
Two of them are running 0.8.0 edy555 FW and two of them are when running DiSlord 1.0.45 FW.
I made sure to toggle between 4k and 1k BW on the 1.0.45 FW (as 1k still is what it starts with after a "clearconfig") and I also set power to 8mA after pressing reset for the calibration.

Two show the screen as it is shown immediately after pressing "done" doing the calibration procedure I described previously.
The other two show the screen after disconnecting the "through" and reconnecting 50ohm terminations on both ports (to be compared with the previously attached screenshots).
I did not use NanoVNASaver to grab screenshots to avoid the confusion around 4k BW as it is now clear I am using the default 1k BW.

Here one of the other things I was wondering about is shown, the S11 is no longer a smooth line after the calibration procedure has been performed.

/Andreas - SA0ZAP

Hmm strange, i get 0.8 Edy firmware, and my last

My last show some or better result on my device (but need more check, i compare devices in some modes on 48k ADC. but use 192k ADC in firmware


On screenshots left edy555 0.8 right my

CH0 dynamic range on my more better (connected load show less value, CH1 noise foor little bigger, i try research (possible need littlt reduce gain for AIC)

0.8 edy i re-write measure code, and not big change at this moment (i try revert all, but not get better results)

PS try check more at next week

Also can you compare not connected to USB device.
On USB connect, then battery charge noise level up.

But i check again both, and not see big difference on my device

I did check with/without USB connected at some time previously and the difference was small.
I re-checked now on 1.0.45 and to me it looks not much different than I may get between two separate calibration attempts.

I thought I had one more thing that I noticed that was different, but it turns out now when I looked at it again that it was only the default position of the marker that had changed.
After a "clearconfig" it is now on 270.035MHz instead of 50kHz as it was before. This is of course not a problem, I was just confused by it when looking for differences between firmwares.

DiSlord, let me know if I can do anything to help and thanks for all the excellent work you put into this project.

/Andreas - SA0ZAP

I think found problem (it exist on H version only)
Try last loaded firmware version v1.0.50

/g/nanovna-users/files/Dislord%27s%20Nanovna%20-H%20Firmware

Thanks for the update. I appreciate the effort.

Looking at the notes you have a fix in the H4 version "-For H4 now allow 7 save slots H - fix tupo on average (now noise floor more better)" Do you recommend upgrading my H4 version from 1.0.45?

Mike N2MS

This is how it looks on my device now using the 1.0.50 firmware (performing same calibration procedure as described above).

I think it looks better, but the 0.8.0 firmware still seems to perform the best on my device.
I don't know if this test is the best way to verify the performance of an individual device?

Thanks for all your work on improving the firmware.

/Andreas - SA0ZAP

On Sun, Mar 21, 2021 at 11:12 PM, <sunkan@...> wrote:

This is how it looks on my device now using the 1.0.50 firmware (performing
same calibration procedure as described above).

I think it looks better, but the 0.8.0 firmware still seems to perform the
best on my device.
I don't know if this test is the best way to verify the performance of an
individual device?

Thanks for all your work on improving the firmware.

/Andreas - SA0ZAP

After reset calibration, select 8mA output (CALIBRATE->POWER->8mA) and after made calibration (this mode used in 0.8). This also reduce noise on measure.

Looking at the notes you have a fix in the H4 version "-For H4 now allow 7 save slots H - fix tupo on average (now noise floor more better)" Do you recommend upgrading my H4 version from 1.0.45?

1.0.50 version fix some bugs after 1.0.45 (hang on load from empty slot in some cases)

On Mon, Mar 22, 2021 at 10:01 AM, DiSlord wrote:

After reset calibration, select 8mA output (CALIBRATE->POWER->8mA) and after
made calibration (this mode used in 0.8). This also reduce noise on measure.

I can't really see any difference on my device when leaving this set to auto or when setting it to 8mA as you describe.

/Andreas - SA0ZAP