If you are going to be working almost entirely in UHF and above, then it might be worth while to change to N. Otherwise don't worry about it. In HF bands it won't make a bit of a difference.
N connections are more waterproof and provide better signal pass through, especially above 30mhz. However, if you have to use an adapter to go from pl259 to N, you lose whatever benifit the N connection would have given you, except being waterproof right at the cable. Infact, you get double the connection loss by using adapters. Dialect gel and sealing tape can make any connection waterproof. If it's a new installation and you will be buying all new equipment, then go ahead and use N connections. It's ok to use a mixture of connectors as well. For example you can use N connections from the antenna all the way to the shack, and then terminate with a pl259 at the first device. If you are retrofitting old equipment, and or cable, it's probably not worth the trouble of changing over. 🤷🏻♂️ Personally, i do use a bunch of N and BNC connections in my installations.
At HF, it does not matter and your Ford vs Chevy analogy works, Above 2M it breaks down (just like PL-259) and you are better off with N. If you are combining multiple microwave signals into a combiner then you want to use a 7/16 DIN as it is more resistant to harmonics and inter modulation. Each connector type has its place and purpose, it is up to the user to determine which is best for their own use case. I have standardized on N type connectors and heliax and LMR-400 cable. Mostly because I can get left over heliax for free from work.
I use N and BNC for VHF/UHF. I use PL259 and BNC for HF because of its ubiquity. It was a 5 minute job to change the 2m 70cm SO239 to N on my IC-7100, no soldering required. In broadcast I saw a mix of SO239, N and BNC with AM but no SO239 for FM. 450 and 950 RPU and STL were exclusively N. Of course the high power stuff was all bolt-on flanges.
Ok, So If i'm setting up a new home system, with all the lighting system parts. I'm buying a lot of coax and putting on "ends" should i use "N" connectors for everything and the put on a 259 for the radio?
Yes, the N connector is a better connector. It's used almost exclusively in professional radio equipment, that includes test equipment, antennas, duplexers, etc (along with BNC and SMA connectors). The UHF/PL-259 is only used on Amateur equipment at this time. If you're starting from scratch, standardize on N at the beginning.
I agree with your general summation in the video. And yes, the "N-connector crowd" is pretty fanatical! However, I would say that the two equate more like a Chevy "PL-259", and a Ferrari "Type N"... While they both will easily and happily go 55mph, the Ferrari will be more at home at 155+mph, and easily do it! LOL. At HF frequencies, PL-s are just fine, IMHO. Additionally, literally every "adapter" you use in the system will also introduce [some] loss into the signal path... so using N cable connectors, and then an adapter [at each end] back to PL-259, you really gain nothing, and may in fact be worse than just using the PL's to start with (although, as you state, only a minuscule amount!). Anyway, nice vid' Dave. Thanks! 73, ~Alan
I agree that for HAM purposes either N or PL-259 connectors work just fine. When you start working with VERY small signals, like in an MRI scanner, you need the better performance of the N connectors.
So many times I see a change on my Field Strength Meter when I touch or wiggle a connector. How can that be? Can I wrap Aluminum Foil around it? Thanks from Gregg AG7MW.
@@TheRetiredtech I guess that the concentric wire isn't thick enough so that the RF can pass through from the inner surface to the outer surface and out.
I prefer N-type outside because of the enhanced weatherproofing. Inside - whatever is there already. My main bug bear with PL259, especially on the RG58 size connectors, is the braid soldering connection to the connector body... never seem to be able to make a reliable connection and the coax ends up spinning in the connector. The clamp/captive types are far superior.
My biggest gripe with PL259s is the uncertainty of the shield connection, they do need checking from time to time, I must admit that I use N for 2m and above.
I use N-connector for everything because I do not want to have multiple types and I want to have cables that can be used both for UHF/VHF and HF. Might not make a difference for HF but for the fact that multiple connectors complicates the installation. I have trouble following the argument that one connector is easier to source than the other. No hardware store around here has either and the online shops have all types. I would probably not bother to change an old installation but for new, go all N-connector because there is no reason not to.
Dave's answer is perfect. Is an N connector technically better? Yes. Does it make a noticeable difference for MOST amateur radio applications? Probably not.
can someone tell me if a type N connector will fit the same jack as the pl-259? Im getting an alinco dr-735T and the antenna im getting has an option of which connection to choose. I can't seem to find the info im looking for about which connector to use. The antenna is a N9tax slim jim if that matters.
I would argue it's not an apples to apples comparison. There IS a performance difference, especially in UHF and above. I have a number of VHF and UHF antenna systems. Moving the entire system for those antennas to all N type improved the SWRs by a good margin. It might not be as noticeable in HF frequencies, but there same effect is there to a lesser degree. I wish I had started with all N type connectors to begin with, because having a mix is a pain sometimes.
Won't matter. UHF connectors work just fine up to 500MHz (basically HF/UHF/VHF). In my company we make antennas for 2/2.5/6.5/7/13GHz, so yeah, we always use N connectors for external connections. For connections in the feed and LNA, it's all SMA. As far as weather resistance, the N is better, but you can seal up a UHF connector very good with mastic tape.
This is going to sound really dumb, but why are PL259 connectors still referred to as "UHF connectors", when N connectors are more often used for UHF and higher frequencies? I am glad you discussed the history of the PL259 and how it originally was called UHF connector. I can't figure out why it's still done. Thanks Dave and 73. //K6OGR
Because the definition changed. How high VHF and UHF are shifted at some point. Also, they were used with UHF TV antennas when coax was used, and before F was common.
The problem is, since most Ham or other two way transceivers tend to come in 239's, it just means that for most of us we have to add an adapter to our shack end of the coax if we get an N connector there. So, for many rigs, an N connector on that end is of no value. The other problem is, many antenna come with 239's, and sometimes we keep the same feedline for different antennas feeding to the same shack or setup. Like my VHF/UHF antenna setup on my roof, which I run LMR 600 for 50 feet, and need every inch of it. When I upgraded to a spiffy new G7 2 meter antenna, and kept the same feedline, I ran into the trouble of having 259's on my big coax, but the new antenna is N type. Am I going to hack off my coax end and replace it with N for all its small advantages? OR, will I just add an adapter to my 259 and hook it up and lose all the advantages of the N connector and just add expense and time? In the end, I just elected to add an adapter and keep the stock 259, just in case I decided or had to put up my old cheaper antenna in its stead. The N on the antenna currently does me no good, and it would be a pain to change it over.... for what real advantage? N is better. But in the real world of hooking up mobile rigs, changing out rigs, changing coax, reusing old coax, having so many 239's in common use with so much gear and other coax, laziness and sometimes field expedience leans towards keeping the 259 and skipping what little the N has to offer some of us.
I have used both and have found no significant difference.. I bought a wifi dish for the receiving GOES weather satellite data. It came with N-connector works great!!!
It used to be, years ago, that some dual band mobile rigs would come with 2 antenna connectors, one SO239 for the 2 meter antenna and an N connector for 440. I suppose in the end, manufacturers didn’t think it made much difference.
Why not use both? My HF rig is fitted with PL/SO and my VHF/UHF rig (and antenna) is fitted with an N-type. One could argue that when using a switch on HF, one is better off with an N-type to have a little compensation with the losses inside the switch. Greetings from the Netherlands, de PD0PSX.
It sure isn't a Ford verses Chevy deal at all A simple look at the specs will show there is no real comparison. That said the pl259 is fine for most amateur work.
The takeaway from this is "most people won't notice a difference". Now the hard part is getting people to learn how to think again and figure out what their needs are. LOL
Not so complicated, Dave. "KISS". If you want, or will need, to be interoperable with others, you use a PL259 because that's the US standard. If you want the best performance, you use TypeN. If you want both of these, then you use TypeN and buy a whole lot of adapters, since you'll need one for any radio you buy in the US, any cable you borrow, and bear in mind each adapter creates another impedance bump and point of failure. All the rest is an exercise in calculating how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. (Topologists insist that is 16, by the way.)
the sole reason I use N connectors in my shack is that they are waterproof, "Technically better" and impedance doesn't matter to me near as much as waterproof.
Except type N connectors aren't really "waterproof". The type N connector is more water resistant than a PL-259. Having said that, any coax connection can be made "waterproof" with proper use of mastic tape, "coax seal", and the like. Also having said that, I would recommend Type N connectors over PL-259 connectors at UFH and above. There is no argument that the type N connector is superior to the ancient PL-259, but, below UHF, does it really make much difference......no it does not. 73 de WB4DW
Hahahaha, no. PL-259 vs. N would be more like Trabant vs. Mercedes. And N connectors are easier, not harder, to install then PL-259’s (it isn’t even close, in fact). That said, for frequencies below 300 MHz, I would not spend money replacing existing PL-259’s with N’s.
To some dedicated Ford guys and gals, Chevys are junk, and vice versa. But that fails to explain how so many examples of that "junk" manage to work so well for so many years for so many people. Similarly, if N-connectors are really so much better, then why do all our radios, tuners, etc., still come with SO-239 sockets? The only N-connector in my entire collection of stuff is built into my RigExpert analyzer, which was made in Ukraine and ships (into the US) with an SO-239 adapter.
![Seungmin "그렇게, 천천히, 우리(As we are)" | [Stray Kids : SKZ-PLAYER]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/kAzmhLHePqU/mqdefault.jpg)
![Felix "Unfair" | [Stray Kids : SKZ-PLAYER]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Oswujxm2Ag0/mqdefault.jpg)
If you are going to be working almost entirely in UHF and above, then it might be worth while to change to N. Otherwise don't worry about it. In HF bands it won't make a bit of a difference.
I believe the n connectors are more waterproof than a PL259
If moisture is an issue with antenna cable ,wouldn't the water proof N connector make more sense ?
I’m studying right now to get licensed in ham radio and this video is EXACTLY what I was looking for! Thank you so much for making it!!!!
I've always used N type connectors for 432MHz and above. For HF including up 2m, PL259 connectors work fine.
Dave, I've often wondered, why the blue hurricane lamp on the shelves behind you on your videos? Thanks for the shared knowledge!
Obviously: In case of hurricane!
N connections are more waterproof and provide better signal pass through, especially above 30mhz. However, if you have to use an adapter to go from pl259 to N, you lose whatever benifit the N connection would have given you, except being waterproof right at the cable. Infact, you get double the connection loss by using adapters. Dialect gel and sealing tape can make any connection waterproof.
If it's a new installation and you will be buying all new equipment, then go ahead and use N connections. It's ok to use a mixture of connectors as well. For example you can use N connections from the antenna all the way to the shack, and then terminate with a pl259 at the first device.
If you are retrofitting old equipment, and or cable, it's probably not worth the trouble of changing over. 🤷🏻♂️
Personally, i do use a bunch of N and BNC connections in my installations.
At HF, it does not matter and your Ford vs Chevy analogy works, Above 2M it breaks down (just like PL-259) and you are better off with N. If you are combining multiple microwave signals into a combiner then you want to use a 7/16 DIN as it is more resistant to harmonics and inter modulation. Each connector type has its place and purpose, it is up to the user to determine which is best for their own use case.
I have standardized on N type connectors and heliax and LMR-400 cable. Mostly because I can get left over heliax for free from work.
I use N and BNC for VHF/UHF. I use PL259 and BNC for HF because of its ubiquity. It was a 5 minute job to change the 2m 70cm SO239 to N on my IC-7100, no soldering required. In broadcast I saw a mix of SO239, N and BNC with AM but no SO239 for FM. 450 and 950 RPU and STL were exclusively N. Of course the high power stuff was all bolt-on flanges.
Thanks for giveaway opportunity, Dave. One of your Patrons - N3JW
Ok, So If i'm setting up a new home system, with all the lighting system parts. I'm buying a lot of coax and putting on "ends" should i use "N" connectors for everything and the put on a 259 for the radio?
Yes, the N connector is a better connector. It's used almost exclusively in professional radio equipment, that includes test equipment, antennas, duplexers, etc (along with BNC and SMA connectors). The UHF/PL-259 is only used on Amateur equipment at this time.
If you're starting from scratch, standardize on N at the beginning.
I agree with your general summation in the video. And yes, the "N-connector crowd" is pretty fanatical!
However, I would say that the two equate more like a Chevy "PL-259", and a Ferrari "Type N"... While they both will easily and happily go 55mph, the Ferrari will be more at home at 155+mph, and easily do it! LOL. At HF frequencies, PL-s are just fine, IMHO.
Additionally, literally every "adapter" you use in the system will also introduce [some] loss into the signal path... so using N cable connectors, and then an adapter [at each end] back to PL-259, you really gain nothing, and may in fact be worse than just using the PL's to start with (although, as you state, only a minuscule amount!).
Anyway, nice vid' Dave. Thanks!
73,
~Alan
I agree that for HAM purposes either N or PL-259 connectors work just fine. When you start working with VERY small signals, like in an MRI scanner, you need the better performance of the N connectors.
So many times I see a change on my Field Strength Meter when I touch or wiggle a connector. How can that be? Can I wrap Aluminum Foil around it? Thanks from Gregg AG7MW.
It means you have RF on your shield.
@@TheRetiredtech I guess that the concentric wire isn't thick enough so that the RF can pass through from the inner surface to the outer surface and out.
I prefer N-type outside because of the enhanced weatherproofing. Inside - whatever is there already. My main bug bear with PL259, especially on the RG58 size connectors, is the braid soldering connection to the connector body... never seem to be able to make a reliable connection and the coax ends up spinning in the connector. The clamp/captive types are far superior.
My biggest gripe with PL259s is the uncertainty of the shield connection, they do need checking from time to time, I must admit that I use N for 2m and above.
I use N-connector for everything because I do not want to have multiple types and I want to have cables that can be used both for UHF/VHF and HF. Might not make a difference for HF but for the fact that multiple connectors complicates the installation.
I have trouble following the argument that one connector is easier to source than the other. No hardware store around here has either and the online shops have all types.
I would probably not bother to change an old installation but for new, go all N-connector because there is no reason not to.
Dave's answer is perfect. Is an N connector technically better? Yes. Does it make a noticeable difference for MOST amateur radio applications? Probably not.
Love the beginning.....OK here we go...
can someone tell me if a type N connector will fit the same jack as the pl-259? Im getting an alinco dr-735T and the antenna im getting has an option of which connection to choose. I can't seem to find the info im looking for about which connector to use. The antenna is a N9tax slim jim if that matters.
I would argue it's not an apples to apples comparison. There IS a performance difference, especially in UHF and above. I have a number of VHF and UHF antenna systems. Moving the entire system for those antennas to all N type improved the SWRs by a good margin. It might not be as noticeable in HF frequencies, but there same effect is there to a lesser degree. I wish I had started with all N type connectors to begin with, because having a mix is a pain sometimes.
Won't matter. UHF connectors work just fine up to 500MHz (basically HF/UHF/VHF). In my company we make antennas for 2/2.5/6.5/7/13GHz, so yeah, we always use N connectors for external connections. For connections in the feed and LNA, it's all SMA. As far as weather resistance, the N is better, but you can seal up a UHF connector very good with mastic tape.
This is going to sound really dumb, but why are PL259 connectors still referred to as "UHF connectors", when N connectors are more often used for UHF and higher frequencies? I am glad you discussed the history of the PL259 and how it originally was called UHF connector. I can't figure out why it's still done. Thanks Dave and 73. //K6OGR
Because the definition changed. How high VHF and UHF are shifted at some point. Also, they were used with UHF TV antennas when coax was used, and before F was common.
@@matthewkriebel7342 Right, it shifted, so my question as to why it's still referred to as UHF stands.
More like Rolls-Royce vers Yugo.
The problem is, since most Ham or other two way transceivers tend to come in 239's, it just means that for most of us we have to add an adapter to our shack end of the coax if we get an N connector there. So, for many rigs, an N connector on that end is of no value.
The other problem is, many antenna come with 239's, and sometimes we keep the same feedline for different antennas feeding to the same shack or setup. Like my VHF/UHF antenna setup on my roof, which I run LMR 600 for 50 feet, and need every inch of it. When I upgraded to a spiffy new G7 2 meter antenna, and kept the same feedline, I ran into the trouble of having 259's on my big coax, but the new antenna is N type. Am I going to hack off my coax end and replace it with N for all its small advantages?
OR, will I just add an adapter to my 259 and hook it up and lose all the advantages of the N connector and just add expense and time? In the end, I just elected to add an adapter and keep the stock 259, just in case I decided or had to put up my old cheaper antenna in its stead. The N on the antenna currently does me no good, and it would be a pain to change it over.... for what real advantage?
N is better. But in the real world of hooking up mobile rigs, changing out rigs, changing coax, reusing old coax, having so many 239's in common use with so much gear and other coax, laziness and sometimes field expedience leans towards keeping the 259 and skipping what little the N has to offer some of us.
I have used both and have found no significant difference.. I bought a wifi dish for the receiving GOES weather satellite data. It came with N-connector works great!!!
It used to be, years ago, that some dual band mobile rigs would come with 2 antenna connectors, one SO239 for the 2 meter antenna and an N connector for 440. I suppose in the end, manufacturers didn’t think it made much difference.
They still do! Yaesu Ft-991A is a prime example...
Why not use both? My HF rig is fitted with PL/SO and my VHF/UHF rig (and antenna) is fitted with an N-type. One could argue that when using a switch on HF, one is better off with an N-type to have a little compensation with the losses inside the switch.
Greetings from the Netherlands, de PD0PSX.
Why isn't everything just N and be done with it?
You are asking the people that can not be bothered to switch to the meter SI system :-)
It sure isn't a Ford verses Chevy deal at all
A simple look at the specs will show there is no real comparison. That said the pl259 is fine for most amateur work.
thanks
N. everything in my lab (RF) is N (and limited BNC).. only PL259 is on my Ham gear. ETA: Should give an nod to GR (General Radio) connectors ;)
The takeaway from this is "most people won't notice a difference". Now the hard part is getting people to learn how to think again and figure out what their needs are. LOL
Cessna vs Piper
Lear vs Bombardier
Not so complicated, Dave. "KISS".
If you want, or will need, to be interoperable with others, you use a PL259 because that's the US standard.
If you want the best performance, you use TypeN.
If you want both of these, then you use TypeN and buy a whole lot of adapters, since you'll need one for any radio you buy in the US, any cable you borrow, and bear in mind each adapter creates another impedance bump and point of failure.
All the rest is an exercise in calculating how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. (Topologists insist that is 16, by the way.)
Love the give aways. see you next time
VNA, and TDR test results show that N connectors are better. Plus, N connectors seal better.
Dave, said LMR400 would save him money over RG213. Really???? Also he was asking about using the 259s uhf frequencies. He should use Ns with uhf
Instead of the hassle with N connectors I would just go with the best possible CoAx you can afford.
the sole reason I use N connectors in my shack is that they are waterproof, "Technically better" and impedance doesn't matter to me near as much as waterproof.
Except type N connectors aren't really "waterproof". The type N connector is more water resistant than a PL-259. Having said that, any coax connection can be made "waterproof" with proper use of mastic tape, "coax seal", and the like. Also having said that, I would recommend Type N connectors over PL-259 connectors at UFH and above. There is no argument that the type N connector is superior to the ancient PL-259, but, below UHF, does it really make much difference......no it does not. 73 de WB4DW
simple answer
pl259 - inside use - not wx proof
type n - outside use - wx proof
Technically better is the best kind of better.
You'll need to buy a second hand ford though just to tow your new Chevy around though.
Better get a Dodge Cummins to tow both the Ford and the Chevrolet.
They're all too big and inefficient to serve as my daily driver.
Neither, use BNC ;)
Hahahaha, no. PL-259 vs. N would be more like Trabant vs. Mercedes. And N connectors are easier, not harder, to install then PL-259’s (it isn’t even close, in fact). That said, for frequencies below 300 MHz, I would not spend money replacing existing PL-259’s with N’s.
PL259 plugs getting hot,when i have my trx 20 minutes on air with 500Watts.Everything changed to N connectors,and they stay cool.Freq is 100mHz.
To some dedicated Ford guys and gals, Chevys are junk, and vice versa. But that fails to explain how so many examples of that "junk" manage to work so well for so many years for so many people.
Similarly, if N-connectors are really so much better, then why do all our radios, tuners, etc., still come with SO-239 sockets? The only N-connector in my entire collection of stuff is built into my RigExpert analyzer, which was made in Ukraine and ships (into the US) with an SO-239 adapter.
Thanks, Dave.
The only N connector
I have is on my mfj 269 and it came with an adapter. N0QFT
In my opinion its not worth the trouble
The only place I use N is 900MHz and above
Typical OCD's overthinking and obsessing about unimportant things instead of important things.