David
I too initially questioned the quality of the RF Bridge, primarily due to the price. I did the same with the Nanovna and for the same reason. In both cases, overcoming the learning curve and careful calibration have led to results that put those concerns to rest. I use the devices for hobby work as well as in my business and I do not need 0.1 dB accuracy in either case.
Now I take the Nanovna by itself onto job sites instead of lugging the Rigol/RF Bridge/cable kit. The internal power supply alone makes field setups a snap. The Nanovna is in daily used here........ no time or need for firmware upgrades and research. It has become perhaps my most valued tool.
I would be curious to know what deficiencies you see with the RF Bridge versus the HP bridge but that is probably OT here.
Best regards,
WA8TOD
===========================================
Warren,
I think that at the time I bought the bridge more as a learning tool, and it was less than the price of a reasonable meal out. With now having the nanoVNA I see no use for the bridge. As you say, having the portability of both the nanoVNA and the FA-VA5 is the "deal-breaker", although I still use the Rigol SA/TG and the support and documentation on my DG8SAQ VNWA is second to none - this matters. For higher frequency work I have the AAI N1201SA which covers up to 2.7 GHz, so useful for QO-100.
All hobby use as I'm nominally retired.
I don't have an HP bridge - it was just a generic quality comparison term!
73,
David GM8ARV
--
SatSignal Software - Quality software for you
Web:
Email: david-taylor@...
Twitter: @gm8arv
David J Taylor