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.
Why would you need tri-band antenna’s?
The BPI-R4 uses 3 dual-band antenna connections for the combined 2.4/5 GHz band and 3 single band antenna connections for the 6 Ghz band.
I would invest in 3 good dual-band 2.4/5 GHz antenna’s and 3 good single band 6 GHz antenna’s.
Yeah ok, I’m convinced on buying 6 of antenna 2, as the antennas that comes with the wifi card are horrible, the barely work on the 2nd floor of my house
The dip in return loss falls outside the 2.4GHz frequency range on the board orientation that best matches the R4, which is unfortunate. It may be a little poorer performing at 2.4GHz. I like how closely the efficiency curves match between straight and bent (bent tends to be worse), but they don’t publish those curves broken down by board orientation. All the board orientation breakdowns are just return loss at 2.4GHz. So it’s really hard to compare. What I see looks good, and if those efficiency numbers pan out it’s a good antenna. But it’s hard to know how it will perform on an R4 bent.
As far as I know, and I may be wrong, both tri-band dipole antennas from Taoglas are good, but the “gain” of the older antenna is 3 dBi on most bands and the “gain” of the newer antenna is 5 dBi on most bands; the one with higher gain ratings will give you a little extra range, but you pay more for it.
Cool thanks, the stock ones are horrible I can’t even get a signal upstairs in my house and if I do it’s running at 5mbps lol, compared to my router provided by isp that can do 300mbos in my weakest room