Your results are what I would expect. In theory, VHF is better on distance than UHF given an equal setup. You don't have an equal setup between VHF and UHF. On UHF, a quarter wave antenna is around 6 inches and your antenna appears to be that length. On VHF, the quarter wave antenna length is around 18 inches. Your VHF is less than half that. To compensate for not being the correct length at VHF, it is compensated inside the antenna housing with some inductance to make it appear electrically to be a quarter wave. So your VHF antenna is electrically a quarter wave, but physically it is way shorter. On handhelds, the UHF is a better set up. On mobiles and base stations with good antennas, VHF is better.
Heavy leaf foliage is a "signal sink" for most any radio frequency. Where I lived, cellular reception was demonstrably worse in summer when the trees were in full leaf, compared with winter when the trees were bare. Over short distances (under 5-10 miles), UHF can work well. At longer distances, unless the radios are in perfect line of sight, VHF will win over UHF. Here is an example: where I used to work, there was a mountaintop repeater that was over 80 air miles away, but 3,000 ft. higher in elevation. The repeater used VHF as its transmit/receive frequencies, and used UHF for its line-of-sight repeater link frequencies. One could not hear the UHF repeater link for more than about 50 miles away, even with a mobile radio. The VHF frequencies were loud and clear, even on a portable radio, and a 5-watt VHF portable would generally open the repeater at 80 air miles away when there were not nearby obstructions. One could hear and open the repeater on VHF pretty reliably at 150 air miles away when using a 50 watt mobile radio when there were no nearby obstructions.
On VHF Low Band (30/40 MHz in this case), the range was from central Portugal into nearby Madrid, Spain, and that's much more than 400 km....(120W retransmiter)
Excellent field tests! Note that when using dual band ht antennas, they are almost always configured to have better results on the higher frequency. Hence if you were to be able to get a slightly better antenna for vhf then you might have a bit better signal to noise ratio on vhf. for shorter range uhf us the best, remember that we need to have low power discipline always so uhf is better for tactical comms.
While I want to agree with you, Motorola chose these antennas for their radios…. Wouldn’t you have to surmise that their engineers would be experts for their radios?
@@RANTStrategies If you swap the antennas on the Motorolas, that will help gather information on antenna performance. There's several characteristics that come into play, such as has the APX been aligned? Have the other Motorola radios been aligned? Have you checked the antennas using a VNA for performance on those frequencies? These things do matter if you can change/measure them. Your experement is an excellent side by side for sure, please keep up the good work.
Really happy with all these comparisons you're doing and the feedback you're getting! I'd love to see just how far out you can push UHF, it seems like your Jedi's really pulled ahead in this round, break out the Saber and the Jedi's for the next round!
Glad you are enjoying it Blake! Did you happen to see the “are these worth saving video”? There, we do put a Systems Saber III up against the xts 5000. ua-cam.com/video/D4WHmGl8Z28/v-deo.htmlsi=pSd4gxIf91GrYbtL
I was just wondering if you have had a chance to check these radios on an analyzer to see if in fact, they are transmitting at 5 watts... Most of the radios you are testing I have used, and I think they all were set to transmit at.5 watts since we were using them in a structured repeater system... I could be wrong but it would be nice to see if all of the radios were indeed seeing 5 watts... Like you said these are quality radios with functions most people would never need and as rugged as it gets. the price for when they were new is out of the park for most people... Good job sweating for the team...👍
😂 thanks Mark! All of these had been tuned and aligned, within the last 9 months (thank you to my radio tech friends at work) I will verify with them, but then they were getting these ready for me, i believe they basically set everything back to the factory standards of 5 watts. Appreciate the comment!
Just stumbled on your channel. Nice job with your videos. Great production quality and interesting results. Ham Radio Crash Course has done similar tests and VHF always out performed UHF. Next time consider using the HD1 on both VHF and UHF. That way you can see if it is the radio or the band.
Enjoyed both parts of this topic. Certainly good info for field ops. I wanted to add my 2 cents which goes along with many of the other comments. I had an extensive career in the field of electronics, much of which included working as a communication tech in remote locations, so I can confirm, clarify and add to the other comments posted. Regarding the rubber ducky antennas, as pointed out, while a 6 inch ducky used on a UHF portable is about a quarter wave length, when used on a VHF portable, that represents a significant mismatch on VHF. That means that more of the transmit energy gets dissipated as heat in the final RF stage and/or the foldback circuitry of the radio (if equipped) will greatly reduce the output power. The antenna would need to be between 17 to 19 inches (depending on frequency) to provide good output and receive on VHF which is why you got the "surprising" results with the field tests. Of course, as pointed out in the comments, if ease of operation/less bulk is what's more important for a particular type of operation, then UHF radios with the smaller antennas would fit the bill. Keep in mind, as frequency increases especially from UHF upward, over any given path, there will be more signal loss due to absorption by water molecules not only in vegetation but also by humidity in the air. You can especially notice this when testing between fixed stations with external dual band VHF/UHF antennas, which have by design, more gain on UHF than on VHF. In the area I live now, I have a fellow ham that lives 12 miles straight line distance from my house. In between our locations are the usual man made urban obstructions and natural sources as well. When testing using low power VHF signals, about 5 watts, we each have very usable 3 to 4 S unit receive signals. In order to get a usable UHF signal over the same path, we have to use high power, about 30 to 35 watts to get a 1 to 2 S unit receive signal strength indication. One thing that needs to be pointed out, I believe it was mentioned either in the videos or the comments, that when it comes to weak signal reception, UHF is less affected by local electrical noise etc. This does give it an advantage when operating especially in large urban areas. One more thing I wanted to touch on is this discussion that has gone on for years regarding the penetrating ability of UHF vs VHF in large urban area and buildings. When it comes to penetrating materials, I have never seen any report giving specific data, but there is a reason why radar signals for the most part use UHF+ signals for those functions; they reflect better off of materials. The other theory is that the smaller UHF signals are able to pass through small gaps in the walls etc. It sounds good but a UHF signal is still much larger than any small gap. By experience/observation, I would suggest that UHF, with its smaller wavelength, is less susceptible to the effects of signal polarization/portable antenna orientation than a VHF portable is. I have noticed that when using VHF portables in a large building, they can work ok provided all parties involved are very deliberate in how they hold their portables, especially when separated on different floors. (Holding them more horizontal than vertical between floors is better). When using UHF in the same situation, the problem with signal dropout due to the way you hold your portable is not as pronounced. With VHF portables, especially if you are using a rubber duck that is closer to a quarter wavelength, the problem with portable orientation is even more critical even though the antenna performance is better than a smaller ducky. Anyway, just some food for thought. 🙂
@@RANTStrategies Thank you. Operating radio in various situations is something every operator needs to know. Using radio in the great outdoors is something I have enjoyed from my youth. It made radio a lot more fun. Then I was fortunate to work in the field in some beautiful remote locations, walking through thick forests to get to a hill top repeater that may have been powered by solar. Sometimes I could only get to remote sites by train, aircraft or helicopter. It's a funny feeling getting dropped off on a remote hill in the middle of endless forests and watching the copter fly off after being assured by the pilot that he would be back in about 4 hours....maybe..😁
VHF likes open spaces with no obstructions, UHF works better for multiple obstructions including structures. Id like to see how well the VHF does in open spaces vs the heavily wooded area demonstrated here. Just for scientific curiosity
Another good video with expected results between the bands and the OEM ants. Have you considered a similar test with most folks entry level HTs? Beofengs, Retevis, and Tid radios? Thanks and 73.
VHF hand helds using helical antennas tend to be less effecient than a straight quater wave. Plus helicals need to be tune exactly to the freq as to get a high Q
What receiver(s) are you using? Is it possibly your UHF receiver is just more sensitive or has a higher gain antenna? I’m not trying to poke holes to tear you down; you’re doing the Lord’s work out here actually testing your gear in the real world. I’m trying to poke holes, to make sure we don’t miss something. Great work.
I think plenty of guys have hammered it home but this is more a demonstration of the compromised "dual band" antenna Motorola ships than a demonstration of the effectiveness of the different frequencies. That said UHF should do better over those short distances with obstructions and VHF should do better over longer obstruction free distances all else equal. Equal meaning as others have pointed out both having a proper 1/4 wave antenna or I suppose you could run a real stubby one on the UHF to make it as compromised as most VHF handhelds. I think yer right that most people are just going to run the stock sticks though so it's still a useful test. If you care to improve your results, personally I like signal stuff antennas tuned per the band in use as they're so flexible the extra length doesn't bother me much.
I find these comparisons to be super helpful as I live in a similar terrain environment. Densely wooded with plenty of elevation change. I think the comments below regarding upgrading the antennas are kind of missing the point. My ham radios have signal sticks and smiley antennas but my Motorolas are going to stay factory whips for use in a plate carrier and chest rig.
Very interesting! Thanks for another great video. There’s alot of comments on here concerning antennas and while a different antenna may improve performance you are probably going to sacrifice maneuverability and/or durability. These radios are engineered for use in tactical environments hence the more durable rubber ducky style compromise antennas. I guess we shouldn’t be surprised by these results. I mean, how different are trees, rocks and foliage from obstacles in an urban environment? People get too wrapped up in what the lab science tells them vs what works in the real world. I’m thinking that your marine testing will more closely match what we expect from VHF/UHF.
On a mobile setup, I used a duplexer to separate 2m and 70cm to different antennas for the same radio. Both antennas were 1/4 wave for their own bands. I was picking up a simplex conversation on 70cm the one time. I was getting good reception with the 70cm 1/4 wave antenna. When I disconnected that and connected the 2m quarter wave antenna directly, I was only picking up only the one side of the conversation, only the one operator. So it's not only just transmitting matters with antenna wavelength, but reception matters too.
Rant I like your info let’s put out some more content using after market antennas for distance testing plus how to set up neighborhood group comm emergency system?
Appreciate it Sean! It’s in the works, this week we just got behind because we were out in Ohio teaching at a SWAT conference, but we did get to interview the Safariland tactical comms rep, which ended up being awesome, so stand by for that!
Size Matters with antennas. To emit RF waves properly, a portable antenna length needs to be 1/4, 1/2 or 1 wavelength long. They are like tuning forks, they Resonate. A simple 1/4 wavelength antenna for UHF is 5 or 6 inches tall and will work okay. A VHF 1/4 wavelength antenna is 19 to 20 inches tall. Testing short antenna with a short wavelength with get good results. Testing a short antenna with a Long wavelength radio, will yield poor results. If a 2m radio is using a 6" rubber ducky, is compared to the same radio with a 20 inch whip, there is a world of difference. I'm talking about tuned antennas that have a good SWR at the operating frequency. Most 'stock' dual band rubber ducky types, have a bad SWR on one or both bands. Test them with a nanoVNA before use.
Agreed 💯 % the point of this is, one would have to imagine a company such as Motorola would realize this as well and we wanted to test the antenna the engineers at the company are pairing to each radio.
@@RANTStrategies Nobody Wants a 20" antenna on top of their small handheld radio. But, if you don't want a lossy signal, a 1/4 wavelength rules. It's not the engineers that says to sell shorty antennas, it's the Marketing guys. They love the low-profile 3" nub antennas. "-8 dBi 'gain' is fine"! (Just 3 dB of loss cuts RF in half) Back in the old days, many hams had two antenna for their 2M walkies. A small rubber ducky for short range indoor events and a 20" for outdoors events, like Hill-Topping or camping etc. When you needed ranges unattainable with miniature antennas. Those Nubs on 2M aren't really antennas, they are Marketing Devices. Some have very high SWR that heat up the RF amp in your radio, maybe even make it smoke.
The reason UHF performed better is because it's easier to make an efficient antenna on an HT at UHF frequencies. Had you had two mobile or base units, VHF would have performed better.
Looking forward to the marine testing. I work in a desert environment and feel like that'll be a pretty decent approximation of what it's like for us. Still very disappointing seeing how poorly VHF performed compared to UHF
Hey Tommy, absolutely, the line of sight distance we will get, will certainly be closer to that of a desert environment, it will be interesting to see how the water affects the signal though. Glad you liked it!
How about this ….. do the same tests with an actaully antenna tuned for vhf and then switch it to the rubber ducky . I have a suspicion that uhf is doing better on the stock antennas because they are tuned closer to uhf than vhf . I have done similar tests and realized it was all about the antenna.
Thanks for these videos. Longer antennas, generally speaking, assist with reception. When it comes to transmitting they actually change the pattern of radiation. When an antenna is no gain, aka isotropic, the signal radiates equally in all directions. When an antenna has gain, the power of the transmission starts to become more focused perpendicular to the antenna. There is enough change in power level and direction, that it can effect communications when there is an elevation difference between the antennas. Again, VERY broadly speaking. If you're cool with posting links in your comments, I can share a link to a page that'll break this down very simply.
@@RANTStrategies I've had it happen before, there should be a place on your dashboard where comments you need to review and approve are at. If it's not there, I can try again.
@@RANTStrategies Last attempt. If a Google search is performed for this exact phrase mpantenna omnidirectional antenna radiation pattern The top result should be the link I was attempting to post.
Be carefull if you are using the radio in a RF contested (conflict) or challenging (RF saturated like in a hill top with several tramsmiters in several frequencies) the aparently "better perfomance" can block the front end endurance and you can reach your correspondant but unable to receive him...
What kind of receiver and antenna are you using for the tests? Cause a 1/4 wave 2m antenna will not receive 70cm with the same strength as a 1/4 wave 70cm antenna. At least from what I've found.
If you want some more range, try the following antennas: TWAYRDIO Dual Band Telescopic Antenna or the very best I know: ABBREE Foldable CS Tactical Antenna with 42.5 inch / 107 cm but this one requires special care during movement because of its weight. There are several length of this antennas buyable, some are easier to use, this is the biggest one with the best range. The smaller ones are still better than any original antanna. I know all this stuff because I am a ham radio operator. You really can expand the range of your radios with the correct antenna but it's important to check the right connector before ordering such antennas (SMA, SMF, BNC, whatever). As lower your frequency, as more distance you can reach.This is the most important rule to remember.
Hey! Yes, welcome to the channel! I am a ham as well (general class license) and you are definitely correct on the antennas, but for our purposes, we are looking to avoid anything excessively long or telescopic (just do to the lack of ruggedness). We are going to do some antenna comparisons here in the fire for sure!
@@RANTStrategies That's great -) So you know very well what you are doing. I have A-License in my country, this is "Amateur Extra Class" or similar in your country I assume.
Motorola tends to sale a VHF or a UHF option for each model. I’d like to see you switch the HD1 (Dual Band) to UHF and get better performance at .75 and 1 mile.
You have way too many variables in this test. I call "Invalid". For a VHF vs UHF test you only need one dual-band radio (assuming high quality design so both bands are equally efficient) or two single-band radios by the same manufacturer (same series or about the same design vintage). For Ham HTs, I'd be looking for an Alinco, Icom, Kenwood, or Yaesu. You need to make sure you pick a model that is not plagued by harmonics or other dodgy design characteristics. QST magazine has technical tests of HTs and their library is available online. The next step would be to get a range of antennas in addition to what came with the radio -- identical models that are available in both SMA male and SMA females connectors: "Standard" or OEM configuration, long (17"-19"), stubbies, steel tape, etc. Most likely you'll come across dual-band antennas, but that's the world that most of us live in. There are some legit manufacturers of single band HT antennas (I used to buy those by the dozen). For added enlightenment, get a couple (male and female) small mag-mount antennas, such as the Diamond MR73S, MR75S, or MR77S series (main difference is the type of COAX and maximum power). Slapping a small mag-mount on your car's roof makes a difference, mobile or parked. You should consider setting up a "range" of test locations that are easy to get to and that you can find again. That way you can map out the terrain, land use, land cover, possible interference sources, etc. This allows repeatability -- such as 1 one-mile urban RF path, and a one-mile woodland RF path (take into consideration the seasons). This allows additional equipment setups, do-overs, etc. Finally, did I ever hear a station identification or call-sign?
Need to find some Saber and HT1000 batteries. Motorola is of no use, all obsolete. Even for the MX series radios they are REAL HARD TO FIND. THESE are used to power the earlier Keyloaders.
As bad as it is for the radio….. it’s the real world that we live and work in and it’s done multiple times a day…. Thank goodness for radio techs, they are life savers! 🍻
@@RANTStrategies If somebody who worked for me -- or was issued one of my radios -- gave me that explanation, we'd have a teaching moment. Years back I worked now and then with a state communications officer. He'd seen folks grab their radios by the antennae "multiple times a day" and decided to do some testing. He found a significant percentage of the antennas (mostly Motorola and GE) were internally damaged and not performing to spec. These were radios used by first responders, so it was a life/safety issue.
It’s unavoidable in a lot of situations due to gear placement and expediency. I don’t doubt after years of abuse there is damage….. when I was a New York City firefighter we were apparently damaging the intervals of radios just by snapping the button closed on the radio strap…. Once again, i always appreciate our radio techs and what they do.
I'm not at all surprised by these results, UHF is better for dense built up areas - so it stands to reason it will work well in bushland, VHF is more for open (or mostly) flat-ish terrain, think of it this way, the wavelength at VHF around 160Mhz is around 1.8 metres, picture that continuously somersaulting through walls and bushes, they cant do it - only part of signals get through windows and wall framing making that signal weaker, same for forestry... now wavelength at UHF for 480Mhz is about 60cm, picture that somersaulting, most HH's use 1/4 wavelength, so picture again 45cm V 15cm ..and now you know why in built up and dense areas UHF wins. However - in open terrain VHF will win, and when you do your marine test, you'll see that... It's also why marine uses vhf internationally :)
The apx radios sound like crap compared to the older moto radio. UHF is a good all around band. 800 mhz will also surprise you on its performance. Google the tiger tail for ht radios and try one on your vhf radios and see if that helps your range.
Hey Dale, yes, definitely familiar with the tiger tails….. that may be worth giving a shot, the issue is, all of this testing is based around utilization for the tactical environment and any extra anything hanging off of you would be a negative…. But if it done, could be a viable option.
I don't understand why people can't properly pronounce the name AILUNCE...(. A- LUNCE ). you and others keep pronouncing it ( A - LEE - ANCE... it's not spelled ALEEUNCE. IT IS SPELLED. AILUNCE...and when transmitting , if you put the radio mic right up to your lips it can cause mic clipping which can cause bad transmission... proper way is about 5 inches away at a slight angle, no need to over pressure the mic
I don't believe on your test....VHF is Better than UHF in wood areas....i make the test years ago....whit the same model radios one Vhf the other Uhf....on 2w and 5w....yes UHF is bather in building's than VHF but not in the wood's.....make a real test this time...and show the Watts, antennas and the real distance....in a flat area full of wood's....not in a low and high wood's areas.....low vhf radios 30mhz are better in wood areas ( i have make some test whit CB radios 27mhz and they work in the wood's back in the 70's & 80's )....it is a matter of your signal vhf or uhf, watts, Am, Fm, ect and antennas......if you don't agree...make your own test...and see what is best for you.....and keep it simple....
Keep in mind that the ANTENNA also plays a large part. A quarter wave antenna for vhf is about 19 inches long, while uhf is closer to 6 inches. And the counterpoise must be similar. I believe a UHF antenna on a portable radio is much more efficient compared to vhf due to practical size limitations. Therefore, other factors being equal, the radiated power (erp) is probably more for uhf due to antenna efficiency. A vehicle setup is a completely different scenario.
Your results are what I would expect. In theory, VHF is better on distance than UHF given an equal setup. You don't have an equal setup between VHF and UHF. On UHF, a quarter wave antenna is around 6 inches and your antenna appears to be that length. On VHF, the quarter wave antenna length is around 18 inches. Your VHF is less than half that. To compensate for not being the correct length at VHF, it is compensated inside the antenna housing with some inductance to make it appear electrically to be a quarter wave. So your VHF antenna is electrically a quarter wave, but physically it is way shorter. On handhelds, the UHF is a better set up. On mobiles and base stations with good antennas, VHF is better.
Wow, yes, thank you, that is completely correct and an excellent point.
Heavy leaf foliage is a "signal sink" for most any radio frequency. Where I lived, cellular reception was demonstrably worse in summer when the trees were in full leaf, compared with winter when the trees were bare. Over short distances (under 5-10 miles), UHF can work well. At longer distances, unless the radios are in perfect line of sight, VHF will win over UHF. Here is an example: where I used to work, there was a mountaintop repeater that was over 80 air miles away, but 3,000 ft. higher in elevation. The repeater used VHF as its transmit/receive frequencies, and used UHF for its line-of-sight repeater link frequencies. One could not hear the UHF repeater link for more than about 50 miles away, even with a mobile radio. The VHF frequencies were loud and clear, even on a portable radio, and a 5-watt VHF portable would generally open the repeater at 80 air miles away when there were not nearby obstructions. One could hear and open the repeater on VHF pretty reliably at 150 air miles away when using a 50 watt mobile radio when there were no nearby obstructions.
On VHF Low Band (30/40 MHz in this case), the range was from central Portugal into nearby Madrid, Spain, and that's much more than 400 km....(120W retransmiter)
Excellent field tests! Note that when using dual band ht antennas, they are almost always configured to have better results on the higher frequency. Hence if you were to be able to get a slightly better antenna for vhf then you might have a bit better signal to noise ratio on vhf.
for shorter range uhf us the best, remember that we need to have low power discipline always so uhf is better for tactical comms.
Absolutely, great point
Using the right antenna makes a big difference. I assure you the experts are not wrong
While I want to agree with you, Motorola chose these antennas for their radios…. Wouldn’t you have to surmise that their engineers would be experts for their radios?
Factory antennas are a compromise in many ways. They may advertise them as being dual band, but they often work better on one band than the other
If the antenna in question is more efficient on vhf then uhf it may skew whatever results you're looking at
@@RANTStrategies If you swap the antennas on the Motorolas, that will help gather information on antenna performance. There's several characteristics that come into play, such as has the APX been aligned? Have the other Motorola radios been aligned? Have you checked the antennas using a VNA for performance on those frequencies? These things do matter if you can change/measure them. Your experement is an excellent side by side for sure, please keep up the good work.
@@adamschmidt9appreciate it Adam! All of the radios have been tuned and aligned within the last 9 months with the most recent one being the APX
Great videos on comms. Love seeing the real world testing results.
Really happy with all these comparisons you're doing and the feedback you're getting! I'd love to see just how far out you can push UHF, it seems like your Jedi's really pulled ahead in this round, break out the Saber and the Jedi's for the next round!
Glad you are enjoying it Blake! Did you happen to see the “are these worth saving video”? There, we do put a Systems Saber III up against the xts 5000. ua-cam.com/video/D4WHmGl8Z28/v-deo.htmlsi=pSd4gxIf91GrYbtL
Solid work. This is the kind of real world testing I like seeing. Keep up the good work.
Thank you! Welcome to the channel
I was just wondering if you have had a chance to check these radios on an analyzer to see if in fact, they are transmitting at 5 watts... Most of the radios you are testing I have used, and I think they all were set to transmit at.5 watts since we were using them in a structured repeater system... I could be wrong but it would be nice to see if all of the radios were indeed seeing 5 watts... Like you said these are quality radios with functions most people would never need and as rugged as it gets. the price for when they were new is out of the park for most people...
Good job sweating for the team...👍
😂 thanks Mark! All of these had been tuned and aligned, within the last 9 months (thank you to my radio tech friends at work) I will verify with them, but then they were getting these ready for me, i believe they basically set everything back to the factory standards of 5 watts. Appreciate the comment!
Wow...this video is a real eye-opener. Thank you!!!
Right?!?!?! We thought the same thing!
Great test!
Just stumbled on your channel. Nice job with your videos. Great production quality and interesting results. Ham Radio Crash Course has done similar tests and VHF always out performed UHF. Next time consider using the HD1 on both VHF and UHF. That way you can see if it is the radio or the band.
Absolutely, will do and welcome to the channel!
Enjoyed both parts of this topic. Certainly good info for field ops. I wanted to add my 2 cents
which goes along with many of the other comments.
I had an extensive career in the field of electronics, much of which included working as a communication tech in remote locations, so I can confirm, clarify and add to the other comments
posted.
Regarding the rubber ducky antennas, as pointed out, while a 6 inch ducky used on a UHF portable
is about a quarter wave length, when used on a VHF portable, that represents a significant mismatch on VHF. That means that more of the transmit energy gets dissipated as heat in the final RF stage and/or the foldback circuitry of the radio (if equipped) will greatly reduce the output power. The antenna would need to be between 17 to 19 inches (depending on frequency) to provide good output and receive on VHF which is why you got the "surprising" results with the field tests. Of course, as pointed out in the comments, if ease of operation/less bulk is what's more important for a particular type of operation, then UHF radios with the smaller antennas would fit the bill.
Keep in mind, as frequency increases especially from UHF upward, over any given path, there will be more signal loss due to absorption by water molecules not only in vegetation but also by humidity in the air. You can especially notice this when testing between fixed stations with external dual band VHF/UHF antennas, which have by design, more gain on UHF than on VHF.
In the area I live now, I have a fellow ham that lives 12 miles straight line distance from my house. In between our locations are the usual man made urban obstructions and natural sources as well. When testing using low power VHF signals, about 5 watts, we each have very usable 3 to 4 S unit receive signals. In order to get a usable UHF signal over the same path, we have to use high power, about 30 to 35 watts to get a 1 to 2 S unit receive signal strength indication. One thing that needs to be pointed out, I believe it was mentioned either in the videos or the comments, that when it comes to weak signal reception, UHF is less affected by local electrical noise etc. This does give it an advantage when operating especially in large urban areas.
One more thing I wanted to touch on is this discussion that has gone on for years regarding the penetrating ability of UHF vs VHF in large urban area and buildings. When it comes to penetrating materials, I have never seen any report giving specific data, but there is a reason why radar signals for the most part use UHF+ signals for those functions; they reflect better off of materials.
The other theory is that the smaller UHF signals are able to pass through small gaps in the walls etc. It sounds good but a UHF signal is still much larger than any small gap.
By experience/observation, I would suggest that UHF, with its smaller wavelength, is less susceptible to the effects of signal polarization/portable antenna orientation than a VHF portable is. I have noticed that when using VHF portables in a large building, they can work ok provided all parties involved are very deliberate in how they hold their portables, especially when separated on different floors. (Holding them more horizontal than vertical between floors is better).
When using UHF in the same situation, the problem with signal dropout due to the way you hold your portable is not as pronounced. With VHF portables, especially if you are using a rubber duck that is closer to a quarter wavelength, the problem with portable orientation is even more critical even though the antenna performance is better than a smaller ducky.
Anyway, just some food for thought.
🙂
Hey Brian, that was awesome…… seriously, thank you for sharing all that. Very cool!
@@RANTStrategies Thank you. Operating radio in various situations is something every operator needs to know.
Using radio in the great outdoors is something I have enjoyed from my youth.
It made radio a lot more fun.
Then I was fortunate to work in the field in some beautiful remote locations, walking through thick forests to get to a hill top repeater that may have been powered by solar. Sometimes I could only get to remote sites by train, aircraft or helicopter. It's a funny feeling getting dropped off on a remote hill in the middle of endless forests and watching the copter fly off after being assured by the pilot that he would be back in about 4 hours....maybe..😁
I enjoy the real world testing thank you.
VHF likes open spaces with no obstructions, UHF works better for multiple obstructions including structures. Id like to see how well the VHF does in open spaces vs the heavily wooded area demonstrated here. Just for scientific curiosity
100% we’re going to be taking this show on the water to test that exact thing!
@@RANTStrategies On the water in an aluminum boat is pretty good prop.
Another good video with expected results between the bands and the OEM ants. Have you considered a similar test with most folks entry level HTs? Beofengs, Retevis, and Tid radios? Thanks and 73.
73s Bill! Thank you and welcome to the channel! We have a bunch of stuff in the works and the entry level ht’s are on the list!
If I would have bet money on the outcome, I would have lost. Nice job and thanks for the test and the video.
You and me both. Glad you enjoyed!
VHF hand helds using helical antennas tend to be less effecient than a straight quater wave. Plus helicals need to be tune exactly to the freq as to get a high Q
What receiver(s) are you using?
Is it possibly your UHF receiver is just more sensitive or has a higher gain antenna?
I’m not trying to poke holes to tear you down; you’re doing the Lord’s work out here actually testing your gear in the real world. I’m trying to poke holes, to make sure we don’t miss something.
Great work.
I think plenty of guys have hammered it home but this is more a demonstration of the compromised "dual band" antenna Motorola ships than a demonstration of the effectiveness of the different frequencies. That said UHF should do better over those short distances with obstructions and VHF should do better over longer obstruction free distances all else equal. Equal meaning as others have pointed out both having a proper 1/4 wave antenna or I suppose you could run a real stubby one on the UHF to make it as compromised as most VHF handhelds. I think yer right that most people are just going to run the stock sticks though so it's still a useful test. If you care to improve your results, personally I like signal stuff antennas tuned per the band in use as they're so flexible the extra length doesn't bother me much.
Thank you for the real world test. Been have the Uhf v Vhf "discussion" with vhf diehards, my position has always bee horses for courses
No doubt about that!!!! Glad you enjoyed!
I find these comparisons to be super helpful as I live in a similar terrain environment. Densely wooded with plenty of elevation change. I think the comments below regarding upgrading the antennas are kind of missing the point. My ham radios have signal sticks and smiley antennas but my Motorolas are going to stay factory whips for use in a plate carrier and chest rig.
You have grasped exactly what we are going for here with the testing! Welcome to the channel! More to come for sure!
@@RANTStrategies I'm loving your channel and look forward to more comms and tactical content!
I’d like to see you get a pair of low band ht1250s and see how they compare to vhf high and uhf
Very interesting! Thanks for another great video. There’s alot of comments on here concerning antennas and while a different antenna may improve performance you are probably going to sacrifice maneuverability and/or durability. These radios are engineered for use in tactical environments hence the more durable rubber ducky style compromise antennas. I guess we shouldn’t be surprised by these results. I mean, how different are trees, rocks and foliage from obstacles in an urban environment? People get too wrapped up in what the lab science tells them vs what works in the real world. I’m thinking that your marine testing will more closely match what we expect from VHF/UHF.
You got exactly what we were going for! Appreciate the watch and comment, glad you found it useful!
On a mobile setup, I used a duplexer to separate 2m and 70cm to different antennas for the same radio.
Both antennas were 1/4 wave for their own bands.
I was picking up a simplex conversation on 70cm the one time. I was getting good reception with the 70cm 1/4 wave antenna.
When I disconnected that and connected the 2m quarter wave antenna directly, I was only picking up only the one side of the conversation, only the one operator.
So it's not only just transmitting matters with antenna wavelength, but reception matters too.
No amount of theory can top field testing.
Rant I like your info let’s put out some more content using after market antennas for distance testing plus how to set up neighborhood group comm emergency system?
Appreciate it Sean! It’s in the works, this week we just got behind because we were out in Ohio teaching at a SWAT conference, but we did get to interview the Safariland tactical comms rep, which ended up being awesome, so stand by for that!
Size Matters with antennas. To emit RF waves properly, a portable antenna length needs to be 1/4, 1/2 or 1 wavelength long. They are like tuning forks, they Resonate.
A simple 1/4 wavelength antenna for UHF is 5 or 6 inches tall and will work okay.
A VHF 1/4 wavelength antenna is 19 to 20 inches tall.
Testing short antenna with a short wavelength with get good results.
Testing a short antenna with a Long wavelength radio, will yield poor results.
If a 2m radio is using a 6" rubber ducky, is compared to the same radio with a 20 inch whip, there is a world of difference.
I'm talking about tuned antennas that have a good SWR at the operating frequency.
Most 'stock' dual band rubber ducky types, have a bad SWR on one or both bands.
Test them with a nanoVNA before use.
Agreed 💯 % the point of this is, one would have to imagine a company such as Motorola would realize this as well and we wanted to test the antenna the engineers at the company are pairing to each radio.
@@RANTStrategies Nobody Wants a 20" antenna on top of their small handheld radio. But, if you don't want a lossy signal, a 1/4 wavelength rules. It's not the engineers that says to sell shorty antennas, it's the Marketing guys. They love the low-profile 3" nub antennas. "-8 dBi 'gain' is fine"!
(Just 3 dB of loss cuts RF in half)
Back in the old days, many hams had two antenna for their 2M walkies. A small rubber ducky for short range indoor events and a 20" for outdoors events, like Hill-Topping or camping etc. When you needed ranges unattainable with miniature antennas.
Those Nubs on 2M aren't really antennas, they are Marketing Devices. Some have very high SWR that heat up the RF amp in your radio, maybe even make it smoke.
The reason UHF performed better is because it's easier to make an efficient antenna on an HT at UHF frequencies. Had you had two mobile or base units, VHF would have performed better.
Looking forward to the marine testing. I work in a desert environment and feel like that'll be a pretty decent approximation of what it's like for us. Still very disappointing seeing how poorly VHF performed compared to UHF
Hey Tommy, absolutely, the line of sight distance we will get, will certainly be closer to that of a desert environment, it will be interesting to see how the water affects the signal though. Glad you liked it!
How about this ….. do the same tests with an actaully antenna tuned for vhf and then switch it to the rubber ducky . I have a suspicion that uhf is doing better on the stock antennas because they are tuned closer to uhf than vhf . I have done similar tests and realized it was all about the antenna.
Hey! That’s actually not a bad idea at all….. We will definitely make that happen!
What chest radio rig is that? I’d love to find one that slim. Thanks in advance. Great video bro. KJ5EHK
Hey Djm, it’s a “rescue technologies”chest rig
I don't see where the actual frequency and band (GMRS etc) are stated.
Was the apx at 5 watts on vhf or 6 watts on vhf?
Lou Bega called. He wants his 5-count beat back.
😊
Ladies and gentleman….. this is mambo number 5
Jungle antennas are important.. ncscout has a lot of great information. The guerrilla guide to the bofang radio is critical.
Around here in suburbs, 70cm UHF works better than 2m VHF generally with handhelds.
Thanks for these videos.
Longer antennas, generally speaking, assist with reception. When it comes to transmitting they actually change the pattern of radiation.
When an antenna is no gain, aka isotropic, the signal radiates equally in all directions. When an antenna has gain, the power of the transmission starts to become more focused perpendicular to the antenna. There is enough change in power level and direction, that it can effect communications when there is an elevation difference between the antennas. Again, VERY broadly speaking.
If you're cool with posting links in your comments, I can share a link to a page that'll break this down very simply.
THANKS FOR THE INFO AND PLEASE POST IT! The goal of this channel is for complete information sharing, so by all means! Thank you
@@RANTStrategies I made the comment with link, but it looks like it got filtered.
@@viewatyourownrisk well thats crazy.... not on our end.. thanks youtube..... sigh
@@RANTStrategies I've had it happen before, there should be a place on your dashboard where comments you need to review and approve are at.
If it's not there, I can try again.
@@RANTStrategies Last attempt. If a Google search is performed for this exact phrase
mpantenna omnidirectional antenna radiation pattern
The top result should be the link I was attempting to post.
Be carefull if you are using the radio in a RF contested (conflict) or challenging (RF saturated like in a hill top with several tramsmiters in several frequencies) the aparently "better perfomance" can block the front end endurance and you can reach your correspondant but unable to receive him...
What kind of receiver and antenna are you using for the tests?
Cause a 1/4 wave 2m antenna will not receive 70cm with the same strength as a 1/4 wave 70cm antenna.
At least from what I've found.
If you want some more range, try the following antennas: TWAYRDIO Dual Band Telescopic Antenna or the very best I know: ABBREE Foldable CS Tactical Antenna with 42.5 inch / 107 cm but this one requires special care during movement because of its weight. There are several length of this antennas buyable, some are easier to use, this is the biggest one with the best range. The smaller ones are still better than any original antanna. I know all this stuff because I am a ham radio operator. You really can expand the range of your radios with the correct antenna but it's important to check the right connector before ordering such antennas (SMA, SMF, BNC, whatever). As lower your frequency, as more distance you can reach.This is the most important rule to remember.
Hey! Yes, welcome to the channel! I am a ham as well (general class license) and you are definitely correct on the antennas, but for our purposes, we are looking to avoid anything excessively long or telescopic (just do to the lack of ruggedness). We are going to do some antenna comparisons here in the fire for sure!
@@RANTStrategies That's great -) So you know very well what you are doing. I have A-License in my country, this is "Amateur Extra Class" or similar in your country I assume.
@@xitec75 very cool! Hey this channel is all about information sharing, so please continue to share! It’s certainly appreciated on this end!
@@RANTStrategies You are great, I have written a comment to the anytone in the previous video if you are interested.
@@xitec75 checking it now
Would like to see p25 VHF/UHF testing instead of analog
Did you happen to watch the XPR / XTS video? We did a little of that there but it was limited to the UHF band
@@RANTStrategies yeah I watched it 2 or 3 times. Really enjoyed it.
Motorola tends to sale a VHF or a UHF option for each model. I’d like to see you switch the HD1 (Dual Band) to UHF and get better performance at .75 and 1 mile.
What wattage are you transmitting at?
5 watts
You have way too many variables in this test. I call "Invalid".
For a VHF vs UHF test you only need one dual-band radio (assuming high quality design so both bands are equally efficient) or two single-band radios by the same manufacturer (same series or about the same design vintage). For Ham HTs, I'd be looking for an Alinco, Icom, Kenwood, or Yaesu. You need to make sure you pick a model that is not plagued by harmonics or other dodgy design characteristics. QST magazine has technical tests of HTs and their library is available online.
The next step would be to get a range of antennas in addition to what came with the radio -- identical models that are available in both SMA male and SMA females connectors: "Standard" or OEM configuration, long (17"-19"), stubbies, steel tape, etc. Most likely you'll come across dual-band antennas, but that's the world that most of us live in. There are some legit manufacturers of single band HT antennas (I used to buy those by the dozen). For added enlightenment, get a couple (male and female) small mag-mount antennas, such as the Diamond MR73S, MR75S, or MR77S series (main difference is the type of COAX and maximum power). Slapping a small mag-mount on your car's roof makes a difference, mobile or parked.
You should consider setting up a "range" of test locations that are easy to get to and that you can find again. That way you can map out the terrain, land use, land cover, possible interference sources, etc. This allows repeatability -- such as 1 one-mile urban RF path, and a one-mile woodland RF path (take into consideration the seasons). This allows additional equipment setups, do-overs, etc.
Finally, did I ever hear a station identification or call-sign?
Hey great comment and good info! Thank you for that. No you did not hear a call sign it station ID.
Sweeeet
Need to find some Saber and HT1000 batteries. Motorola is of no use, all obsolete. Even for the MX series radios they are REAL HARD TO FIND. THESE are used to power the earlier Keyloaders.
Uhhh...Never pull your HT out of a pocket or holster by its antenna.
As bad as it is for the radio….. it’s the real world that we live and work in and it’s done multiple times a day…. Thank goodness for radio techs, they are life savers! 🍻
@@RANTStrategies If somebody who worked for me -- or was issued one of my radios -- gave me that explanation, we'd have a teaching moment. Years back I worked now and then with a state communications officer. He'd seen folks grab their radios by the antennae "multiple times a day" and decided to do some testing. He found a significant percentage of the antennas (mostly Motorola and GE) were internally damaged and not performing to spec. These were radios used by first responders, so it was a life/safety issue.
It’s unavoidable in a lot of situations due to gear placement and expediency. I don’t doubt after years of abuse there is damage….. when I was a New York City firefighter we were apparently damaging the intervals of radios just by snapping the button closed on the radio strap…. Once again, i always appreciate our radio techs and what they do.
I'm not at all surprised by these results, UHF is better for dense built up areas - so it stands to reason it will work well in bushland, VHF is more for open (or mostly) flat-ish terrain, think of it this way, the wavelength at VHF around 160Mhz is around 1.8 metres, picture that continuously somersaulting through walls and bushes, they cant do it - only part of signals get through windows and wall framing making that signal weaker, same for forestry... now wavelength at UHF for 480Mhz is about 60cm, picture that somersaulting, most HH's use 1/4 wavelength, so picture again 45cm V 15cm ..and now you know why in built up and dense areas UHF wins. However - in open terrain VHF will win, and when you do your marine test, you'll see that... It's also why marine uses vhf internationally :)
One would think, I’m with you….. looking forward to doing it
The apx radios sound like crap compared to the older moto radio. UHF is a good all around band. 800 mhz will also surprise you on its performance. Google the tiger tail for ht radios and try one on your vhf radios and see if that helps your range.
Hey Dale, yes, definitely familiar with the tiger tails….. that may be worth giving a shot, the issue is, all of this testing is based around utilization for the tactical environment and any extra anything hanging off of you would be a negative…. But if it done, could be a viable option.
no, thank you
I don't understand why people can't properly pronounce the name AILUNCE...(. A- LUNCE ). you and others keep pronouncing it ( A - LEE - ANCE... it's not spelled ALEEUNCE. IT IS SPELLED. AILUNCE...and when transmitting , if you put the radio mic right up to your lips it can cause mic clipping which can cause bad transmission... proper way is about 5 inches away at a slight angle, no need to over pressure the mic
I don't believe on your test....VHF is Better than UHF in wood areas....i make the test years ago....whit the same model radios one Vhf the other Uhf....on 2w and 5w....yes UHF is bather in building's than VHF but not in the wood's.....make a real test this time...and show the Watts, antennas and the real distance....in a flat area full of wood's....not in a low and high wood's areas.....low vhf radios 30mhz are better in wood areas ( i have make some test whit CB radios 27mhz and they work in the wood's back in the 70's & 80's )....it is a matter of your signal vhf or uhf, watts, Am, Fm, ect and antennas......if you don't agree...make your own test...and see what is best for you.....and keep it simple....
Keep in mind that the ANTENNA also plays a large part. A quarter wave antenna for vhf is about 19 inches long, while uhf is closer to 6 inches. And the counterpoise must be similar. I believe a UHF antenna on a portable radio is much more efficient compared to vhf due to practical size limitations. Therefore, other factors being equal, the radiated power (erp) is probably more for uhf due to antenna efficiency. A vehicle setup is a completely different scenario.