> Subject: Re: [time-nuts] Spec An for phase noise measurements
>
>
> On Jan 23, 2008 4:26 PM, John Miles <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Are you using a noise marker that yields dBc/Hz values? The FFT window
> > function has its own required noise-response correction
On Jan 23, 2008 4:26 PM, John Miles <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Are you using a noise marker that yields dBc/Hz values? The FFT window
> function has its own required noise-response correction value, so if you're
> just looking at a marker and doing the log10(RBW) subtraction yourself, that
> cou
> Sure, send me the GPIB .PDF, either via Didier's site, ftp.ko4bb.com, user
> manuals, password manuals) or via my GMail account at [EMAIL PROTECTED] It
> looks like a great spectrum analyzer considering the prices they seem to
> fetch on eBay. Should be a nice upgrade from the 8596E, all right.
f Matt Ettus
> Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 4:08 PM
> To: Discussion of precise time and frequency measurement
> Subject: Re: [time-nuts] Spec An for phase noise measurements
>
>
> > I am seeing the following performance when measuring the built in 30
> > MHz reference:
> I decided to get a new spectrum analyzer rather than an 11729 at this
> time. I bought an Advantest R3267 to replace the HP 8596E. It seems
> to have phase noise performance in the same neighborhood as the
> 8560-series, for about half the price. In case I ever need anything
> better, I can ge
> I am seeing the following performance when measuring the built in 30
> MHz reference:
> 100 Hz -81dBc
> 1 kHz-108 to -110
> 10 kHz -117
> 100 kHz -125
> 1 MHz-131
>
> All of those are 3-8dB better than the spec, except for at 1 MHz where
> the spec is -135. The measu
On Jan 21, 2008 11:44 AM, John Miles <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I am considering getting a new spectrum analyzer so I can make better
> > phase noise measurements than with my 8596E. I've looked at the 8566B
> > and the 8562 and 8563 since I need coverage to at least 6 GHz. The
> > 8566 is hu
> It is quite surprising that the 859xE series is spec'd about
> 10-15 db worse on phase noise than the comparable 856xE instruments. I
> wonder if this difference exists in the performance
Yes, and I just documented it. See my earlier post with the .GIF
attachment.
> or just marketing
David I. Emery wrote:
> It is quite surprising that the 859xE series is spec'd about
> 10-15 db worse on phase noise than the comparable 856xE instruments. I
> wonder if this difference exists in the performance or just marketing
> domains and what the actual differences are in the implemen
On Mon, Jan 21, 2008 at 05:31:14PM -0500, David I. Emery wrote:
> Spectrum analyzer front ends often either have a blocking
> capacitor (to protect the mixer from DC) or don't.The kind that
> don't usually start to roll off pretty significantly below 10 KHz, and
> are typically spec'd onl
frequency measurement
Subject: Re: [time-nuts] Spec An for phase noise measurements
David I. Emery wrote:
> Spectrum analyzer front ends often either have a blocking
> capacitor (to protect the mixer from DC) or don't.The kind that
> don't usually start to roll off p
> But would I be too simple minded to suggest that maybe some form
> of A/D PC/workstation input device with high dynamic range and decent
> sample rate (certainly available in high end audio stuff to 192 KHz)
> would be the logical vehicle for close in measurement in a quadrature
> locked P
David I. Emery wrote:
> Spectrum analyzer front ends often either have a blocking
> capacitor (to protect the mixer from DC) or don't.The kind that
> don't usually start to roll off pretty significantly below 10 KHz, and
> are typically spec'd only to 9 KHz. I suppose if one wants to li
On Mon, Jan 21, 2008 at 01:18:15PM -0800, Matt Ettus wrote:
> On Jan 21, 2008 12:41 PM, John Miles <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > John,
> > >
> > > I'm a little confused as to what you are suggesting. An 8662A is
> > > about $1500, and the 11729C is about $3k. What would I get for $25?
> >
At 04:57 PM 1/21/2008, you wrote:
> > 3562's or 3563's are not expensive.
>
>Yep... I went over to a local fellow's house the other day to buy a 3561A he
>had for sale, and he talked me into taking his 3562A as well. Both were
>cheap to acquire, and they're both good analyzers, but neither of them
John Miles wrote:
> snip ---
>
> It's true that the HP 8590s are among the noisiest spectrum analyzers out
> there, but the difference between the phase-noise floors of an 8596E and an
> 8560E is only about 20-25 dB. The difference in cost is several thousand
> dollars. If you invest in
> 3562's or 3563's are not expensive.
Yep... I went over to a local fellow's house the other day to buy a 3561A he
had for sale, and he talked me into taking his 3562A as well. Both were
cheap to acquire, and they're both good analyzers, but neither of them are
interesting by current performance
3562's or 3563's are not expensive.
John
At 04:18 PM 1/21/2008, you wrote:
>On Jan 21, 2008 12:41 PM, John Miles <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > John,
> > >
> > > I'm a little confused as to what you are suggesting. An 8662A is
> > > about $1500, and the 11729C is about $3k. What would I
> > Take an hour and look through this HP app note (large file, but
> only about
> > 50 pages):
> > http://www.thegleam.com/ke5fx/gpib/5952-8286E.pdf
> >
> > It is not all that specific to the 11729B/C despite making frequent
> > references to it.
>
> Makes sense now. One problem -- the 8596E onl
On Jan 21, 2008 12:41 PM, John Miles <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > John,
> >
> > I'm a little confused as to what you are suggesting. An 8662A is
> > about $1500, and the 11729C is about $3k. What would I get for $25?
>
> The parts needed to implement Wenzel's app note:
> http://www.wenzel.com
> > As a more-concrete answer to your question, since you mentioned
> a need for
> > coverage into the 6-GHz region, an 11729B/C and 8662A would
> actually be a
> > good choice. Together they'll still be much cheaper than the 8561E I'd
> > recommend otherwise. Figure $2500 at most for the 8662A
> John,
>
> I'm a little confused as to what you are suggesting. An 8662A is
> about $1500, and the 11729C is about $3k. What would I get for $25?
The parts needed to implement Wenzel's app note:
http://www.wenzel.com/documents/measuringphasenoise.htm
> I don't know exactly what is involved wi
On Jan 21, 2008 12:09 PM, John Miles <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Still, you should keep what you already have, and add a quadrature PLL and
> > LNA to it.
>
> As a more-concrete answer to your question, since you mentioned a need for
> coverage into the 6-GHz region, an 11729B/C and 8662A woul
t; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: [time-nuts] Spec An for phase noise measurements
> To: "Discussion of precise time and frequency measurement"
>
> Message-ID:
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
> I am consid
On Jan 21, 2008 11:44 AM, John Miles <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> After working with a quadrature PLL/LNA, I feel very strongly that anyone
> who's serious about PN measurement should go this route. I wasted a lot of
> time myself, sitting around wishing I could afford a quieter spectrum
> analyze
> Still, you should keep what you already have, and add a quadrature PLL and
> LNA to it.
As a more-concrete answer to your question, since you mentioned a need for
coverage into the 6-GHz region, an 11729B/C and 8662A would actually be a
good choice. Together they'll still be much cheaper than
> I am considering getting a new spectrum analyzer so I can make better
> phase noise measurements than with my 8596E. I've looked at the 8566B
> and the 8562 and 8563 since I need coverage to at least 6 GHz. The
> 8566 is huge and ancient, though, so I think I'm leaning away from
> that one. An
I am considering getting a new spectrum analyzer so I can make better
phase noise measurements than with my 8596E. I've looked at the 8566B
and the 8562 and 8563 since I need coverage to at least 6 GHz. The
8566 is huge and ancient, though, so I think I'm leaning away from
that one. Anybody have
28 matches
Mail list logo
