Please vote:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SMA_connector
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hirose_U.FL
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MMCX

My dilemma is between SMA and U.Fl. Below are my thoughts.

SMA:
+ threaded, so cannot just be pulled off by cable movement or vibrations
+ consumer grade antennas+cables availble off the shelf.
+ slightly thicker coax possible on pigtails
- new pigtails
- big connector, might be a problem with card placement on existing routerboards.

U.Fl
+ existing pigtails
+ mechanically tried and tested in MT (better the devil you know )
- easy to break
- easy to get disconnected
- thin coax only

MMCX
+ slightly larger cable than U.Fl possible...
- ... but not as thick as SMA
- new pigtails, new trials, new everything

why not U.Fl for ant-a, and SMA for ant-b?... unless you plan to finally introduce antenna diversity, that is

I say SMA as the less losses the better(bigger plug). It is also screw-on so more securely fixed. Might be a problem for those tight-fit installations though.

As thick as SMA would have to be I think it is too big for a mini-pci card.

u.fl is much smaller, perhaps too small for someone with fat fingers, I'm always worried about bending something when installing a u.fl pigtail.

MMCX to me is a great solution for a mini-pci card, it's a well fitting connector, you can hear the click when it snaps in fully and it will swivel 360 degrees.

We currently use both u.fl and MMCX, we've had a few u.fl pigtails come loose but never the MMCX. A solution similar to what andreacoppini suggested would be to put both the u.fl and MMCX instead of the u.fl and SMA. The SR5's from Ubiquiti already do this.

I'd like to see MMCX connectors sticking right out the top of the card like the Ubiquiti SR71 cards are.

-Gerard

Hi,

we've no problems with U.FL. So why change.
Most cards use it and our CPE-antennas have integrated Pigtails with U.FL.

Of course if you can increase signal-quality noticable with other Connectors/Pigtails
it's the way to go.

We've more problems with Ethernetconnectors...

Stefan

I like MMCX

+1 for MMCX.

I prefer SMA for loss reasons and because the anntenas I can get here are SMA.

So for me:

1 x Ufl for posterities sake and 1 x SMA.

For next card (orr topic)

I would like between xr2 and r52h

so

power of R52h
Robust or xr2
connectores of xr2
Price between r52h and xr2
Slim like r52h
Really really good sensitivity (so it would hang on at -92

Anything but u.fl. We had so many issues with u.fl from installers, tower crews to testers. We replaced so many pigtails!!

MMCX seem to be better fit for the small form factor of the card but if you ask me, if I don't have to climb the 600-foot tower to change out the pigtail, I will surely vote for SMA. SMA FTW!!

We actually stop buying wireless boards from MT because of the U.FL issues. We bought from a maker that uses the same chipset but different connector type (!u.fl ) So, if you start making boards that use SMA or even MMCX, we will start buying from MT again.

rgd,
San.

Definately MMCX

It is small enough to fit on the mini-pci cards but much more secure than u-fl and is already commonly used by other vendors.

You can also solder the plug to the socket with a dab of solder to make it completely secure (this is what Proxim do on their 5054-R products)

MMCX + U.Fl combination is best for versatility.

But much more important: unless you plan to introduce diversity, please get rid of the weakest part, the diversity switch (small 12-pin square chip between A and B antenna connectors).
One connector is enough for 99% cases.

I don't want to know who much attentuation we have got with the u.fl plug. We saw phenomens if we turn the u.fl plug the signal increases up to 4 db. The was happen with different u.fl pigtails.

I would to see mmcx.

Now let's be practical. Most, maybe all, embedded antenna+enclosures available on the market (including Mikrotik's own RIC range) use the U.Fl connector for the antenna. I can see the advantage of an SMA connector since it's screw-on and bigger, but what are the real, practical advantages of MMCX over U.Fl?

With MMCX, besides the mounting posts of RBs now we will also have to deal with stocking various pigtails or even having to cut & re-solder a RIC's antenna connector, when it's much easier to crimp an SMA connector if we really have to change them.

Finally, for all those who still insist on MMCX who would not want to reterminate into an SMA, there are loads of SMA Male > MMCX female adapters out on the market already....

I still believe U.Fl + SMA connectors (as antenna A and antenna B) is the way to go. This way we can still keep using pigtails and enclosures already deployed and have an upgrade path to a good, solid, screwable connector...

MMCX as they are much more robust and allow a higher grade pigtail to be used inside the case.

With u.fl we have heaps of problems. Our manufacturers have taken to using hot glue to hold the pigtails in place, which means if a card goes (damn those R52H) we have to replace the pigtail too.

I am not concerned with paying $10 extra for a better connector.

ufl + mmcx.

I've only had one ufl failure so far, and it was before I knew how fragile they were. MMCX is pretty tough.

After some consideration, I feel confident:
MMCX
- and only one connector is enough!

You will have U.Fl cards available from multiple sources, there remains choice for replacements etc

But we need something reliable for tower installations etc. Without this diversity switch chip which is so easily fried!

SMA seems bulky and expensive for miniPCI. Mechanically this will create problems when the low-loss too-fat SMA pigtail will stress the miniPCI slot.

SMA seems bulky and expensive for miniPCI. Mechanically this will create problems when the low-loss too-fat SMA pigtail will stress the miniPCI slot.

I don't agree. Next-gen cards will probably be (should be?) mPCI-Express, which have two holes for screws near the antenna connectors. I believe this is by specification (not sure). That would reduce the stress on the slot connector.

As for the expense, I'd rather spend $10 more for a reliable connector which won't come off with a few vibrations.

Thats why I like the MMCX. Solid, but not so tough that I think some of my tower climbers might break the card.

Both will be tough to fit in smaller cases. That is why I'd like to keep ufl as well.

With u.fl we have heaps of problems. Our manufacturers have taken to using hot glue to hold the pigtails in place

Why exactly is this done? Is this because "tower climbers" must work on the enclosures in the air and they damage the u.FL connector when opening it? And how come do pigtails need to be replaced as evident from the replies?

Great discussion, I'm new to the scene and have not worked on notebooks, so u.FL is quite new to me still.

Ufl connectors were designed for use where space is premium, as in a Laptop. In an outdoor environment where space is not so critical and ease of maintenance is most important, the MMCX or SMA is best. I have had NO problems with the MMCX and vote for it and NO diversity switch.

Ufl connectors sucks.

MMCX is best

ufl + rp-sma

sma cant swivel 360 degrees,UFL is way too fragile for 99.9% of users,mmcx has less signal loss,and most importantly very durable.With all these
facts the answer is clearly obvious

sma cant swivel 360 degrees,UFL is way too fragile for 99.9% of users,mmcx has less signal loss,and most importantly very durable.With all these
facts the answer is clearly obvious

I can't wait to start seeing all those forum posts complaining about the 'sudden' change of connector (not everyone reads the forums), that they have to throw away all their pigtails and buy new ones, or even complete enclosures...

In the real world, practicality beats scientific statistics any day.... why do you think MS Windows is still the dominant platform?

Its simply just a transition...
as for microsoft windows...it has no users,only hostages

1+ MMCX I would have said SMA, but clearance Clarence....

I was in doubt between MMCX and SMA, but finally I gave my vote to SMA. I don`t miss the 360 degree rotation possibility, and SMA can be screwed and therefore gives the best connection. Cables are more robust and more secure.
So, anything but NOT ufl. I had so many problems with pigtails!!! The installation of u.fl pigtail is a nightmare. I always fear of breaking or bending something...

If it has to be only one connector, I'd love to see RP-SMA but as many people have pointed out, that seems to be a rather large connector for this size of equipment. To hell with UFL, I'd be water boarded than ever see another UFL connector. It's a real bite when you hang a radio 400 ft in the air in September and go to fire it up in January only to find out the connector broke on the way up the tower back when it actually was warm. Now you get to climb 400 ft in 20F weather.

The easiest thing to to would be to include all three connectors, UFL, MMCX and RP-SMA. Talk about a dynamite card, no application would out of the question with such a configuration. The diehard fans of each connector type could use their favorite and I'd sure be happy to pay the extra 5 USD to see that flexability. If you think that would be impossible, just make 3 different part numbers. Two would be fine with me because I'd be fine with never seeing another UFL, but that's just me.

Oh, and how about an option kit for a heatsink? Put some screw holes in the card and sell a heatsink option for those of us in extreme heat areas. It's not like we don't have all the room in the world inside most of the outdoor enclosures anyway, it'd be great to actually be able to get the heat away from the electronics though and maybe they'd survive a little better.

I also have to say MMCX. SMA is a very nice connector. But as some have already pointed out it might take up a bit too much space. Also, I can see a possible problem when cramming a couple of SMA cables in an enclosure might put too much stress/torque on the fragile mpci cards.

Eric

I think a built in pigtail (short with a little flex) ending in a rsma female connector. That way pigtail would be soldered to the card and could connect straight to the antenna cable.

Hi, I think rp-sma is better because you may use longest pigtail or shortest pigtail, its up to you, plus if the card has high powered, ufl or mmcx will make lots of heat.
So if you choose rp-sma
We'll have able to use less loss.
I don't think using rp-sma will make you to replace.

I vote for mmcx, but I bet the next gen cards will not have diversity switch because they will be mimo.

SMA would be the ultimate in carrier class reliability (threaded connector, heavier cable), but MT would need to space their MiniPCI slots further apart to support it, I think.

I would love to see SMA cards, but I think that realistically MMCX is probably the more logical choice when you consider various topics such as material cost, routerboard engineering, and availability of compatible products.

mmcx all the way

mmcx the best option

I am going to have to qoute Nickb here adding only that you remove the diversity switch as well.....

SMA would be the ultimate in carrier class reliability (threaded connector, heavier cable), but MT would need to space their MiniPCI slots further apart to support it.

I would love to see SMA cards, but I think that realistically MMCX is probably the more logical choice when you consider various topics such as material cost, routerboard engineering, and availability of compatible products.

and i prefer MMCX connector.

Ubiquiti has this down pretty good with the SR & XR series cards , true enough, mmcx is a more stable connection. But to stay backwards compatible ufl is more often the rule than not...so just follow the ubiquiti lead...both!

MMCX for me

MMCX for me

mmcx-NO diversity switch
way too much mountain/tower climbing due to u.fl connectors

for me,definately MMCX...

+1 MMCX

U.fl was designed small to fit laptops, i don't think we have the same space constraints those do.

I like the security in the MMCX Connector.

mmcx NO switch !
I have replaced tooo many ufl pigtails !
More room for 3 mpci card RB !

Take back the 12 R52 boards that are bad that I have or replace with something good !
Earl
uphi.net

None of the above. Rather MCX. Bigger then MMCX and smaller then SMA.

Matt

I would say MMCX for tower climbers sake, but Me, I wonder, has anyone here tried using what a lot of wireless CPE manufacturers use, c/h glue to glue the ufl connectors on the board?

yes, many people have used hot glue for the uFl, seems to work fine

Psst ... by the way, you should shortly await a new product, based on the poll results here

Ooooh! Teaser photo please Normis

maybe something with more power like XR5 but a little cheaper

nope this won't happen

but take a look at the ub5 from ubiquiti and you know where the way is going with the new mt-card

Hopefully it is like the UB-5 but with MMCX !!

Check http://anteny24.pl/pl/details.html?id=346 for a pic and specs of the UB-5

very nice, thanks Normis!

Looking forward to the R55H

not quite ok teaser over

I fully agree with andreacoppini (post regarding difference with connectors)

I think antA: ufl and antB:SMA would be a great solution.

Ubiquity cards are already much larger than normal cards so miniPCI placement would have to be rethinked on future RouterBoards ANYWAY, why not plan ahead by going the SMA route too?

The biggest problem I can see with SMA/LMR195 is when the board is places in a thin CPE/enclosure. The LMR195 cable may not be able to bend enough. I reckon this could be overcome with 90 degree SMA bend connectors

Just my 2c

I fully agree with andreacoppini (post regarding difference with connectors)

I think antA: ufl and antB:SMA would be a great solution.

thanks for the support but looks like our cries for compatibility haven't been heard! R5H is out and has an MMCX connector. What's worse, it only has a single MMCX connector, so I am presuming the diversity switch is gone in the hardware. While this is good for the many victims of R52H cards failing, it shatters all hope of true diversity support in MikroTik ROS.

Maybe in 11n.. *twiddles thumbs*..