Those would be the best one, three with 10cm and three with 15cm, but this case project is bs and You have to put all cables in shitty way, i hate this .
I don’t think the bottleneck right now will be pigtails and higher dBi antennas.
We don’t even have a proper stable driver yet
If you really want top performance you should probably wait for BE19000, with 14 antennas.
But again, I doubt it will matter much unless you have dozens of concurrent users.
So I tried those antennas by Antsym (5.8 GHz, single band, allegedly 8 dB) combined with RG178 pigtails. My Tx speed (from the router to the client) has stayed roughly the same at 2.05 Gpbs on the 6 GHz band 320 MHz and 1.56 on 5 GHz 160 MHz. However the Rx speed went up from 920–930 Mbps to 1.05–1.12 Gbps on both bands. All tested with the stock BPI image in close proximity. Not a dramatic improvement by any means, but an improvement nonetheless.
Pigtail length of 10 and 15 cm was barely enough for the official metal case. I’d suggest 20 and 25 cm ones for easier routing.
This chat was established for someone who wanted to know how long the pigtails should be.
The problem is, you mostly buy the pigtails and antennas together with the BE14 board.
That’s why it’s good to think about it beforehand (If you even care about). First time “right” …
For me, it’s not about the bottleneck. And yes, BE19 is better.
What changed my mind about “one antenna for all” is this post by Dale:
Betonmischer tested it in close range:
It depends on your use case what is enough for you!
This is NOT the chat for BE14 or BE19 wifi module.
It was an aside reply to a comment posted here as I hadn’t heard anything about the BE19 until the person mentioned it so was curious. It’s as tangentially related to this topic as your comment “Sounds interesting … why do you want do build an x86_64 system? I thought x84 is dying. ” was in the thread you directed me to for the Wifi 7 Module design. That’s kind of how discussions work.
Yes, I’m curious too, just like you . And I make mistakes because of it .
But I also realize the importance of staying on topic.
It’s not meant to be evil!
The common chats about (BE14) BE19 release date are closed.
The people are waiting and are impatient for any information about it.
I wanted to put out the fire before the house burns . If you interested in it, start a new topic
I didn’t want this chat to be closed because of too many different topics…
My board is missing those SMDs too. It’s common practice for electronics manufacturers to cut out superfluous components going from a prototype to a release product. Nothing to worry about.
I have asked ALFA Network on their official website if this new WiFi 7 antenna really exists and if Rockland is an authorized distributor and they answered me this:
I think these pigtails with right angle RP-SMA connector and RG178 cable would be better for BPI-R4 and BPI-R3 than the regular ones, maybe the length of the cables should be 20 cm for BPI-R4 and 25 cm for BPI-R3:
About the tri-band antennas mentioned above, I don’t know, someone has to buy the antennas and test them in the real world, maybe @VA1DER can find out by looking at the datasheets.
Maybe you can buy three ARS-NT5B dual band antennas for the 2.4 GHz and 5 GHz bands and three tri-band antennas mentioned in the next post for the 6/7 GHz band.
And if you want the best antennas for all bands (2.4 GHz, 5 GHz and 6/7 GHz) then buy 6 good tri-band antennas, although it will be more expensive.
The first two have good data sheets. The third has a very weak one.
Antenna 1 and 2 look to have similar characteristics. Antenna 2’s data sheet is more comprehensive and includes data on the ground plane in two orientations. For our purposes, the closest match is “On 9x15 ground plane bent”. Antenna 2 appears to be a little superior to 1 for 2.4GHz efficiency with ground plane. It’s hard to compare them at 5 and 6 GHz because antenna 2 splits their data into different board orientations, and antenna 1 doesn’t. That said, I suspect antenna 1’s orientation is 15x9, or at least it looks that way in the diagram, and if that’s the case then antenna 2 appears to have somewhat better efficiency at 5 and 6 GHz also.
Antenna 3 only publishes VSWR data and it appears to be free-space measurements only, so it’s really hard to compare.
When someone goes to all the work to create proper data sheets free-space and ground-plane VSWR/Return Loss/efficiency charts and proper 3d radiation patterns, that bumps the price up.