Matching Networks: Auto or Manual

[KG6MZS]

I enjoy my Palstar AT2k. I like messing with it. Fine tuning my two doublets with my MFJ-259B gives me a "feel" for my feed lines and radiating elements. Manuel tuning keeps me apprised of my antenna system's health and I can usually spot trouble as it develops.

However, I have never employed an "auto-tuner" and people who use them swear by them.

What say you? and why?

73 de Eric, KG6MZS

[PA5COR]

MFJ 993-B and MFJ 998 autotuners.
First one, large range of tuning ease of use, second one is remote tuning the Inverted L antenna from 160 - 20 meters.

I build and used tuners, nothing wrong with it, the MFJ tuners lcd screens give me a lot of info as well.
It deepends on how you use your tuner(s) feed system, antenna's and personal preferrence just like stick shifting or automatic driving.
There i only want a stick shift car...

[KD0CAC]

I like an option of " all of the above " .
I have both , and one of those is the Palstar AT2K , just upgraded from a MFJ-989C .
I use my MFJ-269 antenna analyzer to tune manual tuners , without doing some experimenting [ now that we are here , I have to compare ] I think I may get a better tune with manual & using the analyzer .
I have Yaesu FT-897D that only puts out 1 1/2 - 2 1/2 watts on HF , so it would seem that the best tuning is needed .
I'll have to look at the spec.s but I would guess that the range / either extreme of manual & auto , that the manual has a wading tuning range .
Never mind the guess , LDG show the highest tuning range is 4 -1000 Ohms for a 100 watt auto tuner or 6 - 800 Ohms for 1000 watts ,
No Comparison with the Palstar 20 - 1500 Ohm at 2000 watts .
I think the main advantage is if you contesting , less time , but that depends , at my home station , my bandwidth with this system most bands require very little tuning with manual tuner , it takes longer to turn on the analyzer than to tune .
At a club station , there system is very narrow banded and requires lots of time tuning the tuner , a Dentron , then tuning the amp a Yaesu Quadra with the same method of using a antenna analyzer .
I would like to have a antenna farm so that " no sticking tuner required " .

[KD0CAC]

Forgot to check the spec.s for the MFJ ,
993 150 watts 6 - 3200 Ohms
300 " 6 - 1600 "
998 1500 " 12 - 1600 " , now this is showing some comparative options .

[KG6MZS]

I think the main advantage is if [you're] contesting Good point! DXing too. There have been times I've seen a new one just tune up and come on and my only "little pistiol" shot at the guy is to get in there quick before the "big guns" take aim.

[KG6MZS]

I like an option of " all of the above " .


Just goes to show that polls never seem to cover all the bases.

[AG6JU]

I used to use manual tuner when I started HF, but now I use automatic tuner.
for PWR level less than 100 wts, auto is probably better choice.
it reduce one the air tune up time of between TX and ANT, when frequency is changed.

[WA4OTD]

It's real easy to forget why you need a manual tuner once you have used an auto tuner! Generally my Daiwa CNW419 has more range than my IC746 autotuner.

[N0AZZ]

Let me start by saying my antennas 2-40m are yagis and resonant for the most part my VL-1000 amp internal tuner tunes them fine. My non-trapped vertical 10-80m is resonant and also tunes with the VL-1000. I have 3 different wire antennas that do need require a tuner I have tried 5 different auto tuners and was not pleased with 4 of them 1 I kept the LDG AT-7000 to match my IC-7000. The other's 4 ranged in price from $500-$850 didn't like any of them the only one I would have is one like a friend has after using his the Palstar auto tuner but cost was a factor.

After all was said and done the tuner I now have is a manual Palstar and with a cheat sheet it is as fast or faster than a auto tuner for me and a wider tuning range.

[N0NCO]

I've used both. I regard them as tools in the toolbox. You pick the right one for the task at hand. For my current setup, an autotuner was required. To meet my design goal for my 160-20m DX antenna, I needed an efficient remote-mount tuner with a wide matching range. I'm using an SGC 230 L-network autotuner mounted at the feedpoint of my base-fed 100' inverted-L (50' vertical/50' horizontal). I operate 160-20 with great results on DX & stateside, and it has a few decent, albeit narrow, low-angle lobes on 17-10m. See my callsign page for pics.

If you want to make the best use of your power, the efficiency of a tuner is at least as important as its matching range. Check the ARRL lab's tuner tests & you'll see that efficiency can vary widely between tuner models. Also, the efficiency of a given tuner may vary widely depending upon the band - and also depending upon the real & imaginary impedance values.

[KI4CPL]

I use the Ten-Tec 238B, its an "L" network. It has worked well over the years. My HF antenna is an 80 meter dipole fed with 450 ohm ladder line going directly to the tuner.

[N0PGR]

A tuner has its place ,

[N0NCO]

I use the Ten-Tec 238B, its an "L" network. It has worked well over the years. My HF antenna is an 80 meter dipole fed with 450 ohm ladder line going directly to the tuner.

KI4CPL,

I bet it has! According to the ARRL's testing, that 238B is the most efficient manual desktop tuner available.

[KG6MZS]

KI4CPL,

I bet it has! According to the ARRL's testing, that 238B is the most efficient manual desktop tuner available.

For 800 bucks the thing damn well better make my coffee! :)

[K5FH]

The poll should have included a "half and half" option. Both types have their place.

I use both manual and autotuners about equally.

[N0NCO]

For 800 bucks the thing damn well better make my coffee! :)


Well....actually, the less-efficient tuners tend to make better coffee. Hotter brew cycle, 'ya know....:)

Seriously, though...when one considers the going price for a watt nowadays, an efficient tuner may pay for itself. The difference in efficiency between tuners can translate to insertion-loss differences of 3dB or more. Turn that kW station into a 500W station with an inefficient tuner, and the difference in cost between the tuners won't 'buy enough watts' to break even.

[N3OX]

The poll should have included a "half and half" option.

Yeah, mine is kind of semi-auto:

http://n3ox.net/projects/stepperswitch/

[KG6MZS]

Seriously, though...when one considers the going price for a watt nowadays, an efficient tuner may pay for itself. The difference in efficiency between tuners can translate to insertion-loss differences of 3dB or more. Turn that kW station into a 500W station with an inefficient tuner, and the difference in cost between the tuners won't 'buy enough watts' to break even.

I'm currently using a Palstar AT2K to tune two multiband doublets. I don't really know exactly how much more efficient that tuner is over the 238B, but do you really think it is $250 worth?

[KC8VWM]

My favorite matching network is eHarmony.com

Second favorite is a manually operated Palstar. Don't like autotuners very much and most don't handle QRO very well.

[N0NCO]

I'm currently using a Palstar AT2K to tune two multiband doublets. I don't really know exactly how much more efficient that tuner is over the 238B, but do you really think it is $250 worth?


KG6MZS,

I can't find any efficiency info on the AT2K, as the ARRL has not tested it. Given that it is not an L-network, it is most likely to be less-efficient in general than the Ten-Tec 238B - as a well-designed L-network is more efficient than a well-designed pi or T-network tuner of similar construction.

The efficiency of a given tuner is directly dependent upon the magnitude and phase of the load. There is no rule-of-thumb as to how this pans out. A tuner may be least efficient when matching, say, a 2:1 mismatch on a given band, yet may be very efficient when matching a 10:1 mismatch on the same band. Also, a given tuner may be very efficient when matching a given load on a given band, yet it may be quite lossy when matching a load with the same magnitude & phase on a different band. The efficiency may be quite different even at a given mismatch - depending upon whether it is above or below 50 ohms, and depending upon the reactance.

Is the 238B's efficiency over the AT2K enough to offset its increased cost in terms of dollars/watt? Maybe, maybe not. Without a load & band vs. efficiency chart, it's tough to tell - due to the load-specific nature of tuner efficiency.

[KD0CAC]

When was the last time you could have your cake & eat it too .
It would seem like almost anything else , we need multiple , to have a shack that can do most all bands .
But having that chart would be a good tool to help work out the multiple tuners needed .
I've been through a few , I will keep my Palstar AT2K [ maybe get the big ] , still waiting to fully test out my Matchbox 225 - may convince me to get the KW box , may have to build [ because the few high-power remote tuners are just too expensive ] .
I want to get another Hi-Q screwdriver because I thought that using the antenna as a remote coil could do some jobs .
Dang , where's the wining lotto ticket ?

[KG6MZS]

KG6MZS,
Is the 238B's efficiency over the AT2K enough to offset its increased cost in terms of dollars/watt? Maybe, maybe not. Without a load & band vs. efficiency chart, it's tough to tell - due to the load-specific nature of tuner efficiency.

Thanks for the reply. I don't know either :)

[K5JYD]

I use a home brew tuner for my 55 ft end fed wire, works fine on 40 and 30. Will not tune the wire very well on 80m but I am not sure any auto tuner would do a better job on 80m with the end fed.
k5jyd

[KB3LAZ]

I would have to answer "Yes". It really depends on my mood, the rig I am using, and what I feel like doing. Some rigs have dedicated antennas that do not require an antenna, others I have a manual tuner on (normally when QRO), and I use the auto tuner when I wish to make quick contacts and am running barefoot or often times QRP.