First Spectrum Analyzer , new Rigol, used HP on ebay ? - Page 1
Forum section: electronics / testgear

author: danny_isr
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: February 16, 2016, 10:30:28 pm
content: I'm doing some hobby experiments with AM/FM radio and transmitters. I'm pretty sure the Rigol DSA815-TG is more then enough for that.Though am thinking in the future to work on 2.4Ghz transivers (for home automation projects). The 815 is limited to 1.5Ghz.I saw on eBay: HP 8594E 2.9 GHz, and they go for less then $1k (sometimes), but it's older and i'm not sure about their performance and reliability.I'm new to RF and don't know enough about it to understand if i need the capability to measure beyond 1.5Ghz, when working with 2.4Ghz Transmitters/receivers.SA is quite an investment after all...

author: kd5iku
author_rank: Newbie
timestamp: February 17, 2016, 12:44:52 am
content: The rigol may work for you, but it depends on what you want to see. What kind of experiments are you wanting to do? The 100hz minimum RBW of the 815 is probably too coarse for certain applications. My previous SA had a minimum RBW of 10hz and worked fine for just about anything I threw at it. (I am an amateur radio operator so it is CW and SSB for me.)Are you planning on designing from scratch the 2.4ghz trx?

author: uncle_bob
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: February 17, 2016, 01:19:48 am
content: HiThere are a couple of "divides" in the HP empire:There is the older gear with simple tubes that seem to hold intensity for a long time ( = do not wear out). After that came ever more interesting CRT's that added color. They can get pretty dim pretty fast. The newer E series stuff seems to have that issue taken care of.Next there is the rather wide range of instruments. Some stuff was made for cost sensitive markets. Other stuff was pretty high spec. Be very careful you don't bump from one to the other.Finally there is the minor issue of calibration. Some of these beasts (in fact a lot of them) are software calibrated. There's some monster machine that they get attached to and magic numbers fly into the eeprom. It works amazingly well and it is darn cheap to do. The gotcha is that once the last magic machine is gone .. no more cal.To me the "no more cal" issue is the big one. If you blow the mixer diode on the analyzer (and replace it ... easy to do) you have a perfectly good analyzer again. It no longer is calibrated and it can't be calibrated ... grrrrrr....Bob

author: TheSteve
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: February 17, 2016, 01:56:38 am
content: You can always look for a deal on an Agilent N1996A. They are a rather unique machine with lots of good stuff that can be "enabled".

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 17, 2016, 02:36:12 am
content: There are also several Advantest spectrum analysers out there which aren't expensive due to a relatively unknown name on the sticker.

author: Electro Fan
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 17, 2016, 04:05:00 am
content: There are lots of more experienced SA users in this forum but here are some thoughts from a rookie SA user.I had similar questions and spent a lot of time studying the choices - especially the Rigol and the HP 856X and 859X models. I pretty quickly determined that the HP Es made more sense than the As. Next I determined that while the 9X series looks attractive especially given their prices the 6X was/is a superior spectrum analyzer. Not that the 9X is bad - I'm sure it's good, but I think when you study the specs and get opinions from knowledgeable spectrum analyzer users and owners you will get consistent feedback regarding the stronger performance and reliability/serviceability of the E series.One of the things that I wrestled with was how much RBW was desired/needed - this was one of the things that drove me to the 6XE over the 9XE. In hindsight I didn't need the extra RBW; not that the 1Hz RBW isn't cool but when you run these models at 1Hz RBW you can take the sweep speed from 50ms to over 10 minutes. I don't often use RBW below 10kHz - but of course it depends on what you are doing.In any event, even though I "over-spec'd" on RBW I am glad I went for the HP (I wound up with a 8561E, which is the 6.5GHz model). I probably could have lived with the 2.9GHz (8560E) model but I came across a good deal on the 61. I have used it for various things ranging from a few hundred MHz with key fobs to 2.4GHz wifi to more recently some ham radio testing. All of these would have been fine with a 2.9GHz SA but I would definitely miss having the ability to work with 2.4GHz wifi (had I gone with the 8560E), and if I decide to go up to 5GHz wifi the 61 will still be good.Having said all that, I have no doubt that if you can live with the lesser bandwidth of the entry Rigol that having a brand new highly software driven SA will be an enjoyable experience + you can probably add the tracking generator; a tracking generator on the HPs will probably make your choices more scarce and/or more expensive. On the Rigol the TG doesn't add much to the cost - but it might come down to whether you have use for a tracking generator. I wanted a TG but so far I haven't missed it; on the other hand I might not know what I'm missing.One of the things that took me away from the Rigol though was the superior low noise performance specs on the HPs. To be sure, I didn't know how far down in the noise I might want to go and I still don't but I like knowing that short of a very big investment the 8561E will likely be as good as it gets. (HP made some other similarly vintage models with even better specs that are considered the mothers of great SAs but they are very big and heavy.)Before I found my SA I thought I wanted a 8560EC with the color display. I think color would be great and the lower power consumption of the LCD would be nice; plus the EC units are newer (or less old). If you can find an EC it's worth considering; in my case I couldn't find an EC at a price that made sense.So, those were some reasons in favor of the HP86XE. On the flip side these models are not real young - they are perhaps middle age if not older age and they might need some tuning or repair. After coming very close to purchasing a SA through eBay I found my SA at a local cal lab. It turns out that was a lucky and good thing; the unit had some intermittent problems in the power supply. It took me several trips to the dealer with the pretty bulky/heavy SA. The dealer was impeccable in standing behind the unit and while it took several tries the unit was fixed and it's been A-OK ever since (knock on wood). Had I needed to ship the unit back to a remote seller the shipping costs along with the bumping and banging of shipping probably would have turned the good deal into a not so good deal. Moral of the story, don't buy a used SA from anyone you aren't sure is highly trustworthy. But if you can find the model that is right for you from a solid seller the 856XE is a great piece of test equipment. If you don't find such a deal and can live with the specs of the Rigol that would probably be a good route to go too.YMMV, EF

author: Mechatrommer
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 17, 2016, 05:29:26 am
content: Quote from: danny_isr on February 16, 2016, 10:30:28 pmwhy buy less speced digital buzzword one, if analog is more capable? i'm not sure whats potential post-processing DSA815 has to offer, but i'll buy cheaper and more speced one anytime even if its analog. but one thing to watch out for used item is that you have to make its not broken OOB.

author: Wuerstchenhund
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 17, 2016, 06:11:12 am
content: Have a look at Rohde & Schwarz (R&S), they make some of the best SAs on the market and can often be surprisingly cheap. You didn't say what your budget is but the R&S FSP Series might be a good alternative as although being 'just' a mid-range SA it's performance is pretty close to top end HP analyzers like the 8566, plus they are much smaller, less noisy, less power hungry and much younger (i.e. more reliable).Also have a look at the R&S FSEx and FSIQ Series which are older high end analyzers and pretty much surpass anything that HP has ever made.

author: Pinkus
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: February 17, 2016, 08:09:04 am
content: I would like to bring one subject which was not mentioned yet: used SAs on Ebay often are not OK. It ispretty easy to destroy parts of the input circuitryor other parts (e.g. mixer) and thus many are defective. This is nothing the self test can bring up and the unit seems to be fully functional, but it is not (and even the seller might not be aware of this).I purchased three SA through Ebay in the past 10 years, and all of them were defective in some way. Even if a service manual including schematics is available (usually older units only, nowadays you will not be able to get this), sometimes it is only helpful to find the defective device .... only to find out it is a unique or hybrid part available only from the manufacturer for $1000.Oh - and avoid Japanese stuff. The devices are great - but do not expectanyhelp from the manufacturer. They do not answer to your mails, they won't even send you the regular manual as a PDF and the user group is pretty small. Try to stay with Agilent or Tektronix; at least you will receive help from the user base.I learned my lesson: A SA is a test gear, I now would only buy either brand new or from somebody nearby where I can drive by and test it (or at least somebody -usually a more expensive reseller- who allows sending it back for a full refund). The risk purchasing from private auctions is way too high.

author: Theboel
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: February 17, 2016, 08:53:06 am
content: I want to share my experience about buying my first SA. an HP 8590L1. When its arrive its working but after several month I have a problem with a blow tantalum capacitor fortunately many many many HP user are more experience so after some advice from HP group I ended in replace a handful tantalum cap from all over section of my SA.2. The second problem are the power supply for my SA are not build by HP so when I have problem with power supply I must trace by myself and spend a lot of time.3. The flexibility to save and read the result of measurement is good as long as You want to work with GPIB to USB adapter (remember to check first are GPIB port installed) and searching around for program, installed it. In my experience its not like installing windows OS in to new PC.4. Usually because its ages there is a burn mark in the CRT.5. its lack of TG (tracking generator) made me. again spend alot of time for sweeper generator.thats my experience

author: Wuerstchenhund
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 17, 2016, 10:11:32 am
content: Quote from: Pinkus on February 17, 2016, 08:09:04 amI probably bought around 50 to 80 SAs in the last five years or so via ebay (including my own R&S FSP), and pretty much all but one were working absolutely fine. I'm not saying there's not a ton of overpriced broken crap on offer but with a bit of caution there are lots of genuine and fully working SAs available.Also, not all analyzers are DC intolerant, or have no overload protection on their inputs. Especially newer kit is a lot less sensible (although not necessarily immune) to misuse.QuoteI can second that, Anritsu & Co are pretty poor when it comes to support of older kit, at least in Europe and the US. They offen don't even talk to people who bought some of their older devices on ebay.QuoteTrue, but Tek's SAs have always been pretty poor even back in the good old days when they were still one of the leading T&M manufacturers, plus their support has declined a lot since they were taken over by Danaher.BTW, R&S is often pretty friendly towards hobbyists, and there's a large user base for R&S gear out there. Just saying, that there's more than HPAK & Tek out there...QuoteNo, it isn't, really. Even if you end up buying a broken device on ebay the buyer is pretty much always right. Just open a "not as described" claim and if the seller doesn't bend over backwards to satisfy you then ebay will just take the money off them and refund you.I bought test gear in excess of $100k over ebay, and had very little problems, and most of the complaints we had revolved around smaller things like missing accessories.

author: Howardlong
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 17, 2016, 12:14:07 pm
content: Quote from: danny_isr on February 16, 2016, 10:30:28 pmI know this may sound negative, but what do you expect to be using an SA for, particularly at 2.4GHz? Is this for product development, or a bit of tinkering? In that part of the spectrum, it is common to use pre-certified modules with integrated antennas. If it is for EMC precompliance, then as well as the cost of your own test gear, there is also the cost of the compliance house itself which can make the cost of an SA seem quite reasonable.If it's for home tinkering, then I'd question the real need for an expensive SA other than as a trophy item for the bench: you may well find it sits there gathering dust for months on end while you figure out what you want to use it for.If you're doing AM/FM narrowband stuff for transmit and receive, I'd seriously consider that instead of purchasing an SA, get a communications/radio test set. Some of them have SAs and even TGs as well, although those SAs are not specifically designed for EMC usage profiles, and often don't go up beyond 1GHz.Comms test sets have some very useful facets though for AM and FM, in particular signal generators and transmitter testers for measuring receiver sensitivity and transmitter power output and modulation.Some examples:Marconi 2955A/B: No SA, to 1GHz CRTHP 8920A SA/TG option 102, to 1GHz CRTHP 8920B SA/TG option 102, to 1GHz CRTHP 8924C SA/TG option 102, to 1GHz CRTHP 8935 E6380A/E6381A SA/TG + return loss (via external bridge) all standard, to 1GHz, 1.7 to 2GHz, electroluminscentAgilent E8285A SA/TG option 102, to 1GHz, 1.7 to 2GHz, electroluminscentAnritsu MT8802A SA option 7, to 3GHz, FM only, no AM, colour LCDThis is quite a useful site:http://www.amtronix.com/diff.htm

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 17, 2016, 12:19:20 pm
content: Quote from: Wuerstchenhund on February 17, 2016, 10:11:32 amThat also brings Advantest into the picture because they where taken over by R&S. Even the newer spectrum analysers from R&S still have an Advantest feel to them because of the way the UI works.

author: Wuerstchenhund
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 17, 2016, 12:42:15 pm
content: Quote from: Howardlong on February 17, 2016, 12:14:07 pmThat's a good tip! I would also add the R&S CMU200 and CRTU-RU to the list, which both come with a very good spectrum analyzer as standard that fully covers 10MHz to 2.7GHz. They also come with one or two RF generators, and the CMU200 can also have an optional 20 tone audio generator/analyzer. The good thing with CMU200 and CRTU-RU is that the UI is pretty simple and with normal controls you'd find on a standalone instrument while with many other comms testers you have to wade through lots of cell phone related settings to make it work. In addition, CMU200 and CRTU-RU have a single large band (many other testers have split up their bandwidth, often with gaps in between).Quote from: nctnico on February 17, 2016, 12:19:20 pmThat's not correct. R&S had previously partnered with Advantest to sell some of their gear in Europe (and Advantest sold R&S gear in Asia), but that partnership was limited to specific products only (R&S' own kit served the high end, Advantest the mid-range and entry level), and pretty much ended 2004 when R&S started to serve the mid-range and entry-level market with their own productsAdvantest is not part of R&S, never has been, it's a separate company that aside from that partnership has no relation to R&S. There's also no technological (development) partnership between R&S and Advantest, each company was and still is developing their products independently of each other.As to the UI, I can't say there's much similarity between the UI of a R&S standalone SA and an Advantest SA. The menu structure and screen layout is completely different. Some of the R&S handhelds (FSH) may share more UI similarities but if so then they are purely coincidental.And unless it's one of the Advantest SAs supported by R&S then all the listed negatives re. poor support from Asian brands applies to Advantest gear as well.

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 17, 2016, 01:29:04 pm
content: I'm currently owning my second Advantest SA. When I was at an EMC lab I had no problem operating their high-end R&S spectrum analyser. It looked different at first glance but it's basic operating procedures where exactly the same as the Advantest SAs I have used. The similarities where striking!

author: Wuerstchenhund
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 17, 2016, 03:05:32 pm
content: Quote from: nctnico on February 17, 2016, 01:29:04 pmWell, pretty much all the interfaces of older SAs are somewhat similar, even much more so than with older scopes. I'm sure it would have been similar easy for you to operate a Tek, HP or any other SA.You don't happen to remembed which models that were?

author: tautech
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 17, 2016, 07:10:10 pm
content: To add to that above, Siglent have a SA that exceeds the 815 specshttp://siglentamerica.com/pdxx.aspx?id=1546&T=2&tid=227Threadhttps://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/siglent-ssa3000x-spectrum-analyzers/

author: Wuerstchenhund
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 17, 2016, 08:07:58 pm
content: Quote from: tautech on February 17, 2016, 07:10:10 pmConsidering that there's not much user feedback for these units yet, and that Siglent is still struggling with getting its act together in regards to writing proper firmware for its 2000 Series scopes, I'd say buying one of them now is a pretty huge gamble.The Rigol DSA815 may be older but it's at least a somewhat mature and proven instrument that pretty much right now works as advertised. The new Siglent SA may or may not work as advertised now, but it's a lot of money to find out if this is another half-finished banana product.I'd wait at least until others have taken the plunge and reported back.

author: jwm_
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: February 17, 2016, 09:06:55 pm
content: There is also the agilent E7495B which is very cheap on ebay compared to similar gear that is marketed as a spectrum analyzer even though it has one built in.

author: mojoe
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: February 17, 2016, 10:56:46 pm
content: Quote from: Wuerstchenhund on February 17, 2016, 08:07:58 pmYes, I have also been waiting for someone to do a review.

author: G0HZU
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 18, 2016, 12:48:02 am
content: Quote from: danny_isr on February 16, 2016, 10:30:28 pmIf you only ever see yourself doing basic spectrum analysis where you are looking for obvious issues then you could choose almost any of the analysers listed so far. But I think many people will have a better user experience with something like the Rigol (or maybe the new Siglent if it turns out to be better than the Rigol). This is because they have a fresh modern display and modern features/connectivity and a growing community of users. The RF performance of these analysers isn't going to be that great but most users seem content with them.My requirements are more strict as I have worked in RF labs all my working life. So I have a much easier time choosing because I can't/won't tolerate anything with poor RF performance.So with something like a $2000 budget I would probably try and buy a big old HP8568B (or a scruffy example of a 22GHz 8566A/B) and then hopefully have enough change to buy an Agilent E4406A signal analyser to sit alongside it. I'm not saying you should do the same but this is probably the best bang for buck combo if you can live with the size/weight/power/noise of these big machines.The next tier down is the HP8560, HP8561 and HP8563 in A or E format. These analysers have all made it into our design labs at work and I'd be happy using any of them. But these still fetch >=$2000 typically so you probably won't have change left to also buy the E4406A.Everything below represents stuff that I would not want to use and I can say the same for my colleagues at work.HP859x (including the HP8594E) These are a poor relation of the 8560/1/3 A and E models and they have very limited log detector range, an awful display, fairly poor phase noise and limited BW options. These are/were designed for field trials rather than for serious lab use. They aren't that much cheaper (used) than the 8560/1/2/3 range so for this reason these HP859x analysers really should only be considered if they are very cheap and if you are desperate. However, they are apparently very popular with ham/hobby users.R&S FSP3/7. After Wuerstchenhund tried to convince me (on an earlier thread) that these little analysers were better than the HP8566/8 I went over to the test/ATE area where we had several FSP7 models that were sat unloved on the shelves. It's not difficult to see why these analysers are not popular. They take ages to boot up, the display is gloomy and the far out phase noise performance is really poor. The noise floor performance is poor at low frequencies and the linearity suffers badly down here too. Also the default span/RBW settings seem to be bizarre and the user interface is annoying to use. I can't recommend this analyser even though it is going to be technically superior to the Rigol and the HP859x series in many ways. I'm not sure who chose to buy them at work but I think they were mugged.If you dive even lower then you get down to the world of the RF test set. These are OK if you just want to have a casual look around but they aren't serious instruments. So that includes the CRTU, the CMW200 and also the various HP test sets listed above. To me these analysers are the equivalent of an old eastern bloc made motor car and not worth the air volume they consume on a test bench.I do find it puzzling why people on Eevblog are often hyper critical (snobby?) about scopes and DMMs yet they are happy to spend big money on mediocre (often new or nearly new) spectrum analysers. I can understand the popularity of the Rigol 815 with its modern display and modern features but I can't understand why people buy the HP859x series or the test sets.If you did buy the Rigol you could always make a simple external mixer/downconverter to let you look at 2.4GHz signals.

author: G0HZU
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 18, 2016, 01:50:23 am
content: Maybe I should also say that I often use the cheap combo of the HP8566B and the E4406A here at home. I think I paid about £520 for the E4406A and, about 5 years ago, I paid £1000 for the HP8566B as an ex rental machine. At the time this was a very low price indeed.These are both big and noisy machines and the 8566B weighs nearly 50kg so this combo is best suited to someone with lots of space and a sturdy workbench and a willingness to put up with lots of fan noise.I think you will probably be very happy with the Rigol 815. But I can't recommend the HP8594E. Maybe you could try and find a cheap HP8560A/E that goes to 2.9GHz. The 8560A/E is a decent analyser in terms of its RF performance although the CRT version of this analyser will look very dated next to the Rigol and it won't have the modern connectivity of the Rigol either.

author: uncle_bob
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: February 18, 2016, 02:02:06 am
content: HiOk, here's one feature we have not yet beat on very much: The tracking generator option. For a variety of reasons these get confused with network analyzers. Just for the record, a network analyzer measures the signal applied to the device as well as the signal going through the device. A tracking generator applies a signal and measures only the output. Yes it's a subtle point, but it does impact accuracy.For most of us, peaking up a filter with a tracking generator works pretty well. It's a handy thing to have for high level stuff. The more fancy things you try to do with one, the more you start wishing for a real network analyzer. It is a pyramid. Most of what you do with a spectrum analyzer does not use a tracking generator. The tracking generator is fine for a lot of sweep stuff. The network analyzer gets pulled out less often than the tracking generator.Yes, I'm quite sure there is at least one person on the thread who uses a network analyzer 24 hours a day / 7 days a week and who never uses a spectrum analyzer. What I'm talking about is normal home use in a home lab. In the same lab, the scope gets used a lot more than the spectrum analyzer. The DVM gets used more than the scope. The noise figure meter may not get used a lot at all. The 3048A could sit back there for a long time ...Bob

author: G0HZU
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 18, 2016, 02:23:47 am
content: Some spectrum analysers can operate in a kind of VNA mode although this type of VNA combo analyser is quite rare. My big old Advantest 4172 spectrum analyser has the factory tracking gen and impedance measuring options fitted so it can mimic a VNA when used with an external bridge. It can measure the filter passband response and also the filter impedance.HP brought out the HP4396A in the early 1990s that was closer to a real spectrum/VNA combo and these old analysers are still popular today in A and B format. They still fetch decent money today even though they only cover up to 1800MHz.

author: Bud
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 18, 2016, 02:50:36 am
content: I have a HP 8594E , it is a good piece of equipment and I can recommend it. There is nothing wrong with the display.Putting rigol and HP in one line is even not a bad joke, it is utter nonsense.

author: uncle_bob
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: February 18, 2016, 03:08:26 am
content: HiBe very careful of DC on the input to the 8594E .... The diode is not hard or expensive to replace when you goof. Re-calibrating the unit after the replacement is the issue.Bob

author: Wuerstchenhund
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 18, 2016, 06:42:58 am
content: Quote from: G0HZU on February 18, 2016, 12:48:02 amSounds like you have the older generation FSPs then. Like with many R&S gear you have to careful with what model you have exactly. In regards to the FSP, there are two variants: the older one (1064.4495.xx) and the later one (1164.4391.xx). The old version runs Windows NT, has a very slow processor (usually FMR5/6, i.e. some AMD K6 or intel Pentium3 Celeron w. 256MB RAM), and it runs WindowsNT 4. Boot times of these older FSPs are indeed dreadful with the slow standard EIDE hard drive, as is the UI.The newer generation has an improved RF section, a much faster processor (FMR7 with Pentium-M and 1/1.5GB RAM, although a few early models were sold with FMR6+ with P3 900MHz), and it runs WindowsXP Embedded. The FSP7 models with FMR7 come with a SATA hard drive and boot noticeably faster (approx 40s), plus they can easily be retrofitted with a bog standard SATA SSD which reduces boot times to less than 30s.I'd generally stay away from the older 1064.4495.xx variants unless its really cheap and you can live with its limitations. They are still better than the Rigol DSA800 Series, though. Like, a lot better.Not sure why you say the display is "gloomy", it's a bog standard industrial VGA TFT display made by Toshiba that's in use in a dozen or so other instruments from various manufacturers. It's not a CRT. Maybe the backlights on your units are worn out.You also have to check the firmware level, as there were various improvements in later versions. In my experience, equipment that is sitting in some corner often tends to not get updated, so that's something to pay attention to.As to the FSP not being popular, well there seem to be really an awful lot around of them. In fact, back then the FSP was one of the best selling R&S SAs, and R&S does sell quite a lot of spectrum analyzers. Show me anything from Agilent (or anyone else) back then (2004-2006) in the same price bracket that offered a better performance and went up to 40Ghz. Anything.Another bonus of these R&S analyzers is that they can emulate a lot of the old HP instruments, i.e. the 8566/8568/8594 etc.They also offer some interesting options, like External Generator Control (option B10 on the FSP) which essentially allows to use an external RF generator to be used as Tracking Generator. This works not only with R&S generators but also with many HP and Agilent generators like the E44xx Series (although the R&S generators are faster due to their dedicated interface while the other generators connect via GPIB).QuoteThe simple reason people buy them is that not everyone needs high-end top-notch RF performance, for which you pay one way or the other (i.e. with lots of money for something modern, or for less money having to live with some 30yrs old huge, noisy and power hungry monster with CRT which due to its age alone is likely to die on you any day, where no new spares are available and where many defects pretty much equal a total loss). You can very often get enough relevant information from a device with less than top-end performance, and as a bonus you often get a much more modern instrument that takes less room and comes with conveniences like LAN or even just the ability to store screen shots and data directly to a USB drive. Believe it or not, these things can often be even more important than the best ever RF performance.I also disagree that people here are snobbish re. DVMs or scopes, in fact the majority of threads in this forum revolve around cheap beginner's scopes (mostly Rigols) and the various bugs the Chinese B-brand scopes come with as standard. And it's pretty clear that a beginner doesn't need a 30+Ghz high-end scope, for most even the scruffy Rigol DS1054z does perfectly fine. The same is true for an SA. I seriously hope you don't want to suggest that some starter who wants to learn more about RF should buy an antique HP 856x boat anchor plus an (long unsupported) E4406A (which is only really useful with the Agilent 89600A software, a $10k+ piece that can't even be bought anymore and unless you happen to own a license you pretty much have to crack it for using it for more than 30days which isn't just a grey area, it's borderline illegal). You seriously suggest that is the path a beginner should go?It's also somewhat funny that you bash pretty much anything that you don't consider equal to your old 856x boat anchors, but still say the Rigol DSA800 is OK, a device with aside from DANL performs worse than the SA in comms testers like the CMU200/CRTU (which also have a larger bandwidth), plus it suffered from a number of annoying bugs, and it really sees no light even against the old FSP variant. It's only attractive because it's really cheap.I understand that you a RF guy by heart, and it's pretty clear that you have very high expectations from your test gear and a certain fondness for HP gear. But you're also often pretty blind to other people's requirements, and the dismissal of anything which isn't top-notch RF gear is a bit silly, really. There's a reason why the SA market not only offers high end instruments, and a lot of useful work is done every day in labs around the world with mid-range and even entry-level devices. You should really take the blinkers off from time to time.

author: Howardlong
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 18, 2016, 09:19:44 am
content: Quote from: Wuerstchenhund on February 17, 2016, 12:42:15 pmIndeed, and there are often a plethora of options to be aware of.Anyone interested in using test sets like these must check their coverage prior to purchase. Those that I mentioned previously I know are all general coverage. I don't have any experience with the R&S models and a quick look didn't immediately reveal to me how useful they are as a general purpose instrument. Certainly I've had an HP unit some years ago that was pretty much little more than an ornament outside of cellular use. Even the SA only swept a few MHz at a time.Having said that, the Anritsu MT8802A I have gets ten times more use than the Rigol DSA815-TG, but then I do use it predominantly for production testing whereas the Rigol is mostly for R&D.

author: Wuerstchenhund
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 18, 2016, 09:39:06 am
content: Quote from: Howardlong on February 18, 2016, 09:19:44 amThere are various discussions on this forum which explore the capabilities of these units. The UI is pretty much divided into general purpose modes (i.e. cell phone testing, Bluetooth testing etc) and a Basic Mode where all the device's subsystems can be used independently as general purpose instruments. The SA has normal controls that are typical of an SA (Start/Stop/Span, RBW, RefLvl, sensitivity, averaging, trigger etc) with automatic and manual modes for RBW and RefLvl. The RF generators have standard controls (i.e. frequency, output power, modulation), too. You'd find the same on pretty much any standalone SA and RF gen.QuoteThat's true for a lot of newer kit as well unfortunately. For example, the HP/Agilent/Keysight (was/is sold under all thre names) '8960 Series 10' (aka E5515) has gaps in its frequency coverage, comes with a primitive spectrum monitor only and to make it work the user has to fight the cell phone related settings. On top of that comes an onerous UI, complex software licensing and a lot of interchangeability issues with software and hardware/board revisions.The only devices I'm aware of that can actually be used in place of a standalone SA are some of the newer Anritsu comms testers, the Agilent E7495A/B and the R&S CMU200/CRTU-RU/CMW.QuoteNot surprising. One of the CMU200s and a E7495B I had is used by a EMC lab to do precompliance checks, another one is now serving in a startup that works on IoT stuff.

author: G0HZU
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 18, 2016, 05:00:45 pm
content: QuoteThe ones at work run Win XP embedded and they take just over 2 minutes to boot up.QuoteThe hours on the units at work were anywhere from 7700 to 25000(!) hours and I think these would have been purchased for offsite production testing as a cost measure to avoid tying up the decent analysers at work. So I suspect that someone bought them (used) as a job lot. All of them have gloomy displays, even the one with 7700 hours' runtime. Anyway, the main issue with them is the mediocre RF performance of the downconverter section. This doesn't mean that they are 'bad' or awful analysers, I'd rather have the FSP than an HP859x model but then I would rather not have either of them TBH.QuoteI think the Rigol is (was?) a unique option that suits beginners because it has the combination of being low cost and new (with a warranty), it has a decent display, fairly reasonable RF performance, a tracking generator option, and modern connectivity and lots of modern built in features. There is also a growing community of users. So whilst it isn't a top performer in terms of its RF converter, it does offer the above features to offset this.However, I would still buy an HP8568B 'and' an E4406A for the same price as the Rigol but not everybody will want to live with the size/power/weight and fan noise issues of these old analysers.

author: danny_isr
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: February 18, 2016, 05:07:38 pm
content: thanks for all this information !Part of the issue i have is my lake of knowledge. My background is digital design, and Radio/RF is a new hobby for me.Beyond wanting to work on FM/AM/Filters maybe some Ham the main reason of buying SA iseducationalfor me. And i will probably know better what will be most useful for me after owning one.I tend to think, for a "novice RF" like me a modern UI like the Rigol 815 will be probably easier. For sure i am in no need for hi-end equipment.though i did want the 2.4Ghz for future home automation transivers. I am not sure at this point if i will build those from scratch or use off the shelf modules.Though i thought it will be useful for debug purposes to see the signal.My budget is in the range of the Rigol.With that said, i will keep an eye on HP on Ebay. Though i get the impression from this thread that it's a hit or miss kind of thing. And then the calibrationissue (?).

author: G0HZU
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 18, 2016, 05:10:45 pm
content: Quote from: Bud on February 18, 2016, 02:50:36 amI've only used a few of the HP859x series analysers but all of the ones I used had only a claimed 70dB log detector range and only 60dB of this was spec'd adequately. I think many of them only have RBW down to 1kHz and you need to fit options to get below this RBW. The phase noise performance isn't very good, the display is cramped and only shows 80dB range (of which only 70dB is claimed as valid as a log display in the specs) These aren't high performance analysers. They are mainly aimed at field service work where the various (optional) measurement personalities can be used by a field technician and the results stored in the card slot for use back at base. The HP8560A/E is a much better instrument even though it looks very similar. There isn't that much difference in price today when you buy them used.I'd happily use the HP8560A/E but I wouldn't want to use the HP859x series unless I was desperate and there was no alternative. That's how far apart these similar looking analysers are in my opinion

author: danny_isr
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: February 18, 2016, 05:14:26 pm
content: Quote from: G0HZU on February 18, 2016, 05:00:45 pmDo you really think i can find those two for $1500 ?

author: G0HZU
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 18, 2016, 05:27:47 pm
content: Quote from: danny_isr on February 18, 2016, 05:14:26 pmYes*, if you are patient, but you run the risk of buying a faulty/knackered one (especially in the case of the HP8568B). So this option is very risky.* Note that I think the Rigol pricing is different here in the UK and I assumed it cost around £1300. Here in the UK the E4406 has been selling for between £350 - £600 on ebay. I've seen HP8568B analysers selling for between £500 and £1500 and most seem to be just under £1000.But I still think you would be better off with the Rigol if you are new to RF. What are you going to do if you buy any of the (used) analysers mentioned on this thread and the analyser goes faulty within a week or two?

author: danny_isr
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: February 18, 2016, 05:37:02 pm
content: i agree, i still have a learning curve here. i may be even in situations that i won't know that the equipment i'm using is not functioning correctlyThat can be a frustrating experience for a beginner.I'm thinking to buy the 815 with the tracking generator option. I believe there is an eevblog discount.I just wanted to know if the Rigol is descent SA. Sounds like it is.

author: TheSteve
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: February 18, 2016, 05:41:54 pm
content: Quote from: danny_isr on February 18, 2016, 05:37:02 pmGlad to hear you want the TG option - don't consider buying it without it! You can't add it later and the 815 is rather boring without it.

author: danny_isr
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: February 18, 2016, 05:46:03 pm
content: yes i learn it during this little research. god bless the internet !

author: youbecha
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: February 18, 2016, 06:02:34 pm
content: I was reading through this, I am also a amateur radio operator, delving into digital transmissions...and occasionally I need access to some kind of SA to check spurious transmissions etc...This was the first place I have heard of the Agilent E4406A VSA.It seems to me, since checking transmitters would be my purpose...this is what I should get.Can (in simple terms) someone explain what the difference between a SA and a Vector signal analyzer? Can you use the VSA as an SA? What are it's limitations?Thanks.

author: Wuerstchenhund
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 18, 2016, 06:17:15 pm
content: Quote from: G0HZU on February 18, 2016, 05:27:47 pmSend it back? As a buyer you're pretty much always right. If an item fails within two weeks ebay will pretty much side with the buyer, and if the seller does not turn over backwards to satisfy the buyer then ebay will just take the money and refund it.Not just because of that a lot of kit is actually sold with some warranty, plus depending on what country you are ebay might (through a 3rd party provider) offer additional warranty for a few.I also guess you never had to deal with Rigol's support, where a broken item can very well be gone for weeks or in some cases more than two months before it's returned, hopefully in working condition (which isn't a given!). You won't get the same level of support as you get with the reputable brands. Not even close.In addition, as a beginner I'd generally worry more about the various bugs that come with B-brand kit, and it can be very frustrating if you have to wonder if what you see on the screen is because of something in your UUT or just another firmware bug. Would you expect a beginner to be able to make that distinction? Especially for a complex topic like RF?I wouldn't.

author: G0HZU
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 18, 2016, 06:28:26 pm
content: QuoteBut it might fail after one month or 3 months. It might have an intermittent fault. A newbie owner might not be able to recognise the fault?QuoteGive me a few hours with a CRTU or CMU200 and I'm sure I would find some holes in its performance. It wouldn't take long to find leakage/isolation issues wrt its hideous front end matrix and that's before I even look for significant spurious terms in its RF converter. I only needed a few hours with Tek's RSA306 analyser to find some real design howlers. Bugs so bad they should be ashamed of their whole quality control process. I can easily show you 'confusing' issues with an Agilent E4406A and it only took me a few minutes to find bugs and issues with Agilent's flagship PXA analyser a few years ago. All modern test gear is going to have bugs and holes. Just read through a few bug reports bundled in the firmware update history.

author: Howardlong
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 18, 2016, 06:38:07 pm
content: Quote from: danny_isr on February 18, 2016, 05:07:38 pmI am fairly sure from your desicription that it'll spend 99.9% of its life gathering dust after an intial hour or so of switching on.QuoteWhat is it you're expecting to see? Realistically from what you've said I'd say it's pretty unlikely you'll be developing any kind of new modulation scheme or PA where you might want to look at channel usage or spectral regrowth for example. More likely it would be a device that already has all of that stuff built in, adhering to existing standards.QuoteAll of the test sets mentioned can be purchased 2nd hand for well under the price of a Rigol, and, for example, the Anritsu goes to 3GHz. They all have signal generators and transmitter testers, invaluable for developing RF. In fact I'd say an RF signal generator is going to be more useful than an SA. The 9835 even has integrated TG for sweeping filters and software for checking out return loss and even distance to fault. Having used the Rigol I'm not sure that the UI is any easier than a 15 yo test set in my experience.What do you think the Rigol offers you that, say, an Anritsu MT8802A (w/opt 7) or 9835 won't?

author: danny_isr
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: February 18, 2016, 06:46:31 pm
content: Quote from: Howardlong on February 18, 2016, 06:38:07 pmSo you don't think for building/tuning AM/FM radio SA will be useful ? Or for educational purposes of RF in general ?not sure i follow ...

author: danny_isr
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: February 18, 2016, 06:48:12 pm
content: Quote from: Howardlong on February 18, 2016, 06:38:07 pmI do not know, that is why i posted a question here....

author: wkb
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 18, 2016, 06:54:11 pm
content: Quote from: Howardlong on February 18, 2016, 06:38:07 pmActually that percentage is not unlike that of the average car.

author: Wuerstchenhund
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 18, 2016, 06:56:28 pm
content: Quote from: youbecha on February 18, 2016, 06:02:34 pmAre you sure?QuoteIn simple terms, a standard SA (called a "swept SA") is basically a superhet receiver that is swept across the frequency band to build up the spectrum. A VSA on the other side takes a sample of the input signal and uses FFT to dissolve the individual frequency components (no sweeping).A swept SA is relative simple, but because it sweeps over the frequency band it's not great for pulsed signals. FFT doesn't sweep and is more suitable for pulsed signals, however it's pretty processor intensive.Many newer SAs combine both (sweeping the front end, and replacing the analog detector with an ADC and use FFT to get the video signal).The E4406A is a swept VSA with a bandwidth of up to 4GHz, i.e. it sweeps over the frequency span and uses FFT to build up the spectrum. However, it suffers from various limitations. One is that the largest frequency span the unit can deal with is 10MHz (100MHz with the HSDPA software option) which very much limits it's use. There's a software to stictch together multiple 10Mhz sweeps to get a larger span but that is very slow and nothing more than a crutch.It's worth remembering that HP built this thing as a tester for cell phone transmitters. That means it's built-in software is very cell phone centric (there's also a WLAN option for old 802.11a/b/g WiFi testing), and while it can be great for other stuff if you know what you're doing it's only really useful with the 89600A VSA software which runs on a separate Windows PC. As I said in an earlier post that is a $15k+ piece of software that is no longer sold (the newer 89600B version no longer supports the old E4406A), and while you can still download the software from Keysight and run it in a 30(?) day trial mode you'd essentially have to pirate it to use it for longer periods. Plus there are some things to consider when shopping for a VSA (i.e. 12bit vs 14bit digitizer depending on the unit's serial number and country of manufacture, size of the flash RAM, or finding the rare I/Q input option if you want it).I have a E4406A, I don't have the software (but I might get a chance to get a genuine license if I'm lucky!) but for what I do the E4406A is nice. It's a great buy for RF nuts.But for a beginner, no I would not recommend it. You're much better off with a proper SA.BTW, a very good starting point to learn about SAs is the book "Fundamentals of Spectrum Analysis" by C. Rauscher, which can be downloaded here:http://qtwork.tudelft.nl/~schouten/linkload/spectrumanalysis-rs.pdf

author: Wuerstchenhund
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 18, 2016, 07:19:53 pm
content: Quote from: G0HZU on February 18, 2016, 06:28:26 pmMaybe not, but many devices like the CMU200/CRTU have pretty thorough diagnostics routines, which test everything from the PSU down to the RF matrix. They also protocol intermittent problems. And you get real service manuals with diagnostic trees and schematics for them.Good luck narrowing down intermittent issues on a Rigol. Or getting a proper service manual for it. Or for that matter, even a proper calibration manual.QuoteI'm not talking about RF performance issues, I'm talking about firmware bugs.QuoteWell, it's Tektronix, I'm not sure what you expect. It's pretty much the same with their scopes.QuoteI can't say I've seen such issues with any big brand SA:https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/rigol-dsa815-tg-10-mhz-issue/orhttps://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/rigol-dsa815-tg-video-ave-bug/msg855901/#msg855901I'm not saying that other gear is bug-free, certainly not. But there's quite a difference between the bugs I see on big brand kit and what gets reported for B-brand gear like Rigol. and to make matters worse, with the B-brands you never know if a bug gets even fixed. Hell, you don't even know how long the piece of equipment will even be supported by its manufacturer.

author: TheSteve
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: February 18, 2016, 07:23:30 pm
content: I think you guys need to remember that for someone new to spectrum analyzers there is a massive amount of info to learn if you expect to know the ins and outs of the various models, features, capabilities etc. It is also a lot tougher for someone new to spectrum analyzers to successfully purchase a used one and really feel confident it is operating properly. In situations like this I think it is pretty hard to not recommend the Rigol DSA815-TG. It is easy to get, fairly priced(brand new with warranty) and a pretty decent user base(here anyway).I'm not a huge Rigol fan but I am quite comfortable recommending it for the requirements listed by the OP and I think he would be quite happy with it.

author: G0HZU
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 18, 2016, 07:59:31 pm
content: Quote from: TheSteve on February 18, 2016, 07:23:30 pmI agree

author: chris_leyson
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 18, 2016, 08:11:27 pm
content: It's always a difficult question, do I buy new or second hand. If I had the money I would go for the Rigol DSA815-TG, at least it's got a tracking gen built in. Go check out The Signal Path, Shahriar did a teardown of a DSA875-TG.http://thesignalpath.com/blogs/2015/11/19/rigol-dsa875-tg-9khz-7-5ghz-spectrum-analyzer-tracking-generator-review-teardown-experiments/I love his videosAnyway, if you are learning the art of RF, the Rigol DSA815-TG will get you started, and it will probably have a good resale value in a few years time if you want to move on. You can carry it with one hand as well !!. Learn with the Rigol, and then once you have an intuitive understanding and appreciation for what's going on then maybe go look at some of the classic stuff like HPs 8568B.For 2.4GHz you've always got the option of up/down converters, Mini Circuits make some really nice stuff, mixers, couplers etc, you can pick them up cheap on ebay when people have a clear out.

author: G0HZU
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 18, 2016, 08:12:22 pm
content: Here's a list of firmware bugs/fixes for Agilent's old flagship spectrum analyser, the wonderful Agilent PSA. We have quite a few of these at work and these analysers cost a lot of money. The PSA is still my favourite spectrum analyser to use at work. But search for how many firmware 'crash' bugs there are on this page and this covers about an 8 year timeframe. Note also the early bugs that gave amplitude and peaking errors and issues with intermittent alignment failures after bootuphttp://www.keysight.com/main/software.jspx?cc=GB&lc=eng&nid=-32514.1150234.02&id=1000000938:epsg:sud&pageMode=PV

author: KJDS
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 18, 2016, 08:19:55 pm
content: I've never used the Rigol, but I'll comment on a lot of the others.If all you want to do is to have a look at output power and check that the modulation is looking reasonable, then an E4406A offers great value for money. There were hundreds dumped on the second hand wholesale market a few years ago and I still have a few left, but they're all 12 bit. It's easy enough to check a few frequencies where harmonics and other predicted spurious are, but not much use for wideband work.The HP859X are also common on the second hand market. These rarely come up with the TG option, but the full service manual (apart from the PSU) is available and they are fairly easy to work on.The HP856X are far better instruments in terms of RF performance, but are also rarer and higher cost. I keep a 22GHz 8563A on my bench for serious workAnritsu make some good products, I also keep an MS8604A transmitter tester on my bench for 8.5GHz coverage and this has the added advantage of a built in 10W attenuator, so far less care is needed in everyday use than most spec anasAlso mentioned on this thread has been the Marconi 2955 radio test set. It's a great bit of kit to have lying around, a basic sig gen, frequency counter, mod meter, power meter and simple audio analysis all in one box and they are readily available second hand though do fetch good prices. The 2945, which is smaller, lighter, lower power and has a spectrum analyzer is far better instrument but even though tens of thousands have been sold new, they are very rare second hand.I don't mind the R&S stuff but I've not used them often enough to comment in depth

author: Howardlong
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 18, 2016, 08:41:24 pm
content: Quote from: danny_isr on February 18, 2016, 06:46:31 pmNo, for building and AM/FM radio, a signal generator and SINAD meter would be far more useful. What I have been suggesting is a test set with signal generator, SINAD meter, transmitter tester AND a spectrum analyser, some with TG too.

author: cncjerry
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: February 18, 2016, 08:53:43 pm
content: My first SA was an Advantest R3131a with TG. Nice analyzer, good to 3Ghz, portable, quiet, etc. I wouldn't buy an SA without a TG but having written that, a cheap noise generator will also suffice if your SA has a way to subtract A-B, etc to normalize the curve. With a noise generator it is also helpful to have peak detection or some kind of infinite persistence.Thinking my battery is about ready to go in the Advantest, I recently bought an HP 8568B locally off Craigs List with the 85685 RF preselector and TG. It was too good of a deal, has lots of buttons, knobs, etc, very customizable, GPIB programming that can automate all kinds of tests, etc. This SA stack makes the Advantest look like a toy but it is loud, very loud. I was looking at a low pass filter last night and the HP has much more resolution than the Advantest.Both of these SAs were in perfect condition and cost around 1/2 the Rigol ($750 for the Advantest, $850 for the HP stack, maybe a little more for the TG I added). The Rigol has had a ton of bug reports so make sure they don't impact your expected use-cases. The one in particular that put it out of the running for me (prior to picking up the HP) was the 10Mhz issue with the TG. That would drive me crazy.As someone else mentioned you need to watch your power input and DC levels. I use an external HP switchable attenuator, HP 33321-60045, costs less than $25 off eBay. I made a simple Arduino control box for it. In addition to the SA you will need all kinds of adapters, cables, reflection bridges, power splitter/combiners, directional couplers, etc. to be able to do productive work. I would allocated about $150 for the kit of parts, which is cheap, because a good reflection bridge would cost way more than that amount.Back to bugs on the Rigol, yes, all of the lab-grade analyzers have bugs. The difference in them is that HP, Agilent, Tek, etc fixed them all over time. I haven't looked lately, but some of the bugs on the Rigol have been around quite a while and the last I read was that the 10Mhz TG bug wasn't going to be corrected though they might have fixed it in later models.Lastly, if my HP monster breaks, I have the capability to fix it. The other night I powered on my HP 4815a Impedance meter, for example, and the amplitude meter was way off. It took me 5 minutes to pull a card from a parts unit I have to get it working again. I checked a few components and found the problem right away.Jerry

author: chris_leyson
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 18, 2016, 08:54:09 pm
content: Just for the record I use a 7L12, cost me $200 and the RF section is still reasonably well calibrated, she was well looked after by a retired CATV engineer. The RF and IF sections are good, shame about the rest of the crap that takes up useful "RF space". Grrr.

author: TheSteve
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: February 18, 2016, 09:06:09 pm
content: Quote from: Howardlong on February 18, 2016, 08:41:24 pmIf that is really what he is looking for then I'd recommend an HP 8920B or 8921A. They would need to have the proper options though. And again he would be dealing with older hardware.

author: woodchips
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: February 19, 2016, 04:52:24 pm
content: This is an interesting thread, along with the one talking about Advantest SAs.Sold all my SA, other than a couple of 7L14s that arrived in a pile of Tek 7000 stuff, years ago, never thought I would need to look at RF again but everything seems to be radio now. Did wonder if getting something to look at transmitted signals from mobile phones, WiFi and all the rest would be useful. Thing is, how do you find out if the weather transmitter is transmitting without one?This will be a 99.9% unused analyser, so not going to spend lots on it, but what? Did fancy an 8566 and bought the manuals from Manuals Plus before they closed, cost far more for shipping than the four large folders did! Reading the threads and what gets me is everyone, at some point, talks about software, calibration or even just operating the analyser. Yes, it is useful for doing analysis but I can't really see if it is really that important, if you want to process the spectrum then upload to a computer? So going through the various models, really only from Tek and HP, can't stand Anritsu and never used any others, and I end up at a HP 8555A. I already have a 7L14 but looks like more than 1.8GHz is wanted, besides it has just gone pop and looks a nightmare to fix. I had the 141 based analysers years ago doing EMC testing, and others, and found them to be easy to drive and reliable. Also had an 8568A which was a real struggle to repair.Question. If time isn't that important, just what benefits do the newer software based instruments have being that they can become unrepairable pretty quickly? The 141 is simple, don't blow the RF stuff up and it can always be repaired. Have to point out that my bench has four 7000 mainframes on it!

author: chris_leyson
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 19, 2016, 06:40:54 pm
content: Woodchips just reminded me, HP8558 in a 182 or 853 mainframe and an HP8444A for the tracking gen. Nice

author: trojanrabbit
author_rank: Newbie
timestamp: February 23, 2016, 01:31:32 pm
content: I have access to the Rigol (with the TG) here at work, and for what it is, it's fine. You have to be careful when using the TG and understand its limitations. You only have a 0dBm to -20dBm range to work with and it's fairly intolerant of mismatch. But even with its limitations, the TG is a must have. The analyzer itself gets its share of use for bench sniffing when we don't want to tie up the EMC Chamber. I mutter obscenities under my breath every time I look at the front panel of the R&S ESPI-3 I use as the daily driver here and see a hole cover where the TG output should be. Not upgradeable of course./first post

author: Wuerstchenhund
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 23, 2016, 02:56:02 pm
content: Quote from: trojanrabbit on February 23, 2016, 01:31:32 pmOf course it's upgradeable. The ESPI is basically a FSP, and the TG (option FSP-B9) is pretty much a simple plug-in module that can be retrofitted to existing instruments.However, considering that the TG only covers up to 3GHz, the more attractive (and a lot cheaper) option is to retrofit the External Generator Control option (FSP-B10) which allows to use an external RF generator (doesn't have to be R&S, others like the Agilent ESG Series is also supported) as TG.

author: danny_isr
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: February 23, 2016, 04:29:51 pm
content: So i went a head and ordered the 815-tg, should be shipped in 2 days. Will post few pics and my first impression.Question, what "must have" connectors/attenuators/Antenna i need ? and a good place to buy from ?thanks Dan

author: trojanrabbit
author_rank: Newbie
timestamp: February 23, 2016, 04:52:17 pm
content: Quote from: Wuerstchenhund on February 23, 2016, 02:56:02 pmOne would think it would be upgradeable, I will have to search my emails because 4 years ago I had to send it out for a display replacement (at $6K including cal) and I seem to remember it wasn't an option, maybe because I have an older unit that has the old style PS2 keyboard connector on the front panel instead of the USB ports. Of course I could be confused and/or wrong.No matter, I ended up getting an Agilent generator for RF immunity testing and I wrote a Q&D LabVIEW app to check loss in my test station cables, which is what I need it for. Slow but it works.

author: apelly
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: February 23, 2016, 05:56:06 pm
content: Quote from: danny_isr on February 23, 2016, 04:29:51 pmSome guys helped me out here:https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/new-spectrun-analyser-what-accessories/msg576456/#msg576456

author: danny_isr
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: February 23, 2016, 05:57:40 pm
content: Quote from: apelly on February 23, 2016, 05:56:06 pmgreat, exactly what i was looking for !

author: Wuerstchenhund
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 23, 2016, 06:54:57 pm
content: Quote from: trojanrabbit on February 23, 2016, 04:52:17 pmI don't think you're wrong (maybe the support person has given you incorrect information) but you can definitely retrofit the TG in these instruments. Not that it's worth doing, though, the TG module is priced pretty typical for R&S (i.e. $$$) ;-)QuoteAs I said, I can recommend having a look at the B10 option (Ext Gen Control), which works really well and makes the RF generator behaving pretty much like a TG (it's all controlled from the FSP/ESPI). Plus it's simple to retrofit (a PCB module plus two connectors) and the parts aren't that expensive.

author: trojanrabbit
author_rank: Newbie
timestamp: February 23, 2016, 07:17:57 pm
content: Quote from: Wuerstchenhund on February 23, 2016, 06:54:57 pmThanks for your input. Yeah, 4 years ago the TG option was quoted at $4K (I was looking for a new analyzer). The ESPI will have to go in for cal soon anyway (or replacement), we're thinking about joining a Satellite Lab program so we can "self-certify", if one of the requirements is that we need to upgrade to a "full-compliance" receiver it would not surprise me.

author: Wuerstchenhund
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 23, 2016, 07:52:19 pm
content: Quote from: trojanrabbit on February 23, 2016, 07:17:57 pmYou're welcome. Should you ever consider retrofitting the TG to your ESPI let me know and I can find out for you what the exact P/Ns are that you need . As I said TGs modules are generally expensive but it should not cost anywhere near $4k.

author: uhfradio
author_rank: Newbie
timestamp: June 08, 2016, 10:30:03 pm
content: This was a very helpful thread. I have been wrestling with the same question as the OP.In my case I have three low power (50W) UHF repeaters (all with duplexers) and a handful of HTs to maintain for private/non critical use. I have been debating the Rigol 815 + TG vs something like the HP 8920A. In my case I will only be working between 400MHz and 500MHz. I want to be able to tune duplexers, and align the repeaters and HTs. So I need to be able to check RX sensitivity, desense testing, check/align narrow/wide band as well as tone modulation, check/align freq drift etc.If all I wanted to do was tune duplexers, I would not even think about it and just go the Rigol 815 + TG route. But if I want to do other things then it gets more complected. Technically the 815 + TG can be used for sensitivity measurements, but you have to use attenuators to get the signal generator way down there plus it won't do SINAD, although there are other methods. You can also check modulation, but again attenuators, voice modulation, plus a rough min/max hold method instead of FM modulation and deviation meter. With the 815 you need a sampler, etc. Of course no real o-scope capabilities I believe. Of course it has a nicer screen and a warrantyI have been looking at the HP 8920A. As I understand it it has SA, TG, o-scope, deviation meter, SINAD, FM modulation, tone (with the correct option), and better RBW. But it is more expensive. I see them around for $2200-$2500 vs the $1500 Rigol 815 + TG. Of course the 815 cost starts going up when you add in a sampler, variable attenuator and various fixed attenuators for sensitivity and repeater and HT TX testing. My understanding is that the 8920A is capable of handling 60W continuous and 100W intermittent (very intermittent I would assume). Since I would be under 50W in all cases (and in a very low RF environment) , I don't think I would need to worry about samplers and attenuators and could just hook up the 4W HT and even the repeaters directly to the service monitor. Correct?Decisions decisions....Edit: How much difference does the firmware really make? Although I suspect that depends on what bugs/enhancements they add and if it applies to how one uses it. I have seen some 8920A's with rev A.17 but I found a user guide for A.18 and above...

author: TheSteve
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: June 08, 2016, 11:02:57 pm
content: For repeater/radio work you're better off with the 8920A(or 8921A or 8920B). The trick is to make sure you get one with the proper options(high power input, spectrum analyzer etc). Also some go 400 kHz and up and some start at 30 MHz. May as well try to find a version that goes lower so you can also align HF rigs. They have quite the fan in them and don't over heat very fast even with 100 watts in. You also get a proper signal gen and can do return loss if you buy a return loss bridge(815 would need one too).and yes, I do own an 8921A

author: uncle_bob
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: June 08, 2016, 11:36:11 pm
content: Quote from: TheSteve on June 08, 2016, 11:02:57 pmHiA basic spectrum analyzer isn't of much use for setting up an HT or other radio receivers. Any of the 89xx series will do a much better job. Most of the options are firmware issues. There are places around that can turn one into an amazingly broadband device ...(Yes I have one as well).Bob

author: uhfradio
author_rank: Newbie
timestamp: June 09, 2016, 01:19:21 am
content: Although one thing I just noticed. If I am reading the specs right, the HP 89XX has a min RBW of 300Hz, while the Rigol 815 has 100Hz. Some claim that even 100Hz is not good enough, so I am wondering about that 300Hz RBW for the 89XX.

author: uncle_bob
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: June 09, 2016, 01:24:05 am
content: Quote from: uhfradio on June 09, 2016, 01:19:21 amHiFor some things, a resolution bandwidth of over 5 Hz is simply not adequate. For a lot of work an RBW of 1 KHz would do just fine. Setting up radios is in the "1 KHz is fine" range.Bob

author: KE5FX
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 09, 2016, 02:02:28 am
content: The trend is toward wider bandwidths in modern communications work -- up to hundreds of MHz, in fact. The analysis bandwidth of some of the newer signal analyzers is in the 1 GHz range. 3 MHz or even 10 MHz isn't enough to take in a whole WiFi signal, and it only gets worse from there. But if you don'tknowthat you need wideband and/or real-time analysis capabilities, the answer is that you don't.Meanwhile, resolution bandwidths down to 1 Hz or even less can be very useful in low-level RF work with stable sources. This is one thing that the E4406A really excels at. Second place in this category goes to the 856xE series portable analyzers -- which are also the quietest in terms of their own LO noise floor. But if you don'tknowthat you need extremely narrow resolution bandwidth or low PN, the answer is that you don't.What that means is that you should take the same advice that would/should be given to someone who's just learning to play guitar for the first time. Buy something dirt cheap and use it to learn on. Then, when (if) you're ready to move on from that first guitar, you'll know what to look for in your next one.Possible mistakes:- Buying an 8568 or 8566 if you don't have plenty of room on your bench and actively enjoy playing with test equipment.- Paying too much for an 8590 series model. These are warmed-over incarnations of much older instruments, released by HP when Tektronix caught them flat-footed with no portable instruments.- Turning down a great deal on an 856xE-series model. These are among the best SAs ever built in the analog era, even though they were sold as portables and not "lab grade" benchtop models. I prefer the display and UI on the 8566/8568 but performance-wise, the 856xE series is superior.Also keep an eye out for an LCD-based R&S FSP in good shape. I can't stand their user interfaces myself, but you may not agree. Their performance is in the 8560E class in most respects, and they are a more modern design. They do take forever to boot, but their fan isn't stupidly loud like the 8566/8568, so you won't mind leaving them on. The biggest drawback is that if anything goes wrong with an off-brand spectrum analyzer (read: anything other than HP or Tek, and yes, that includes R&S and Advantest and other well-respected names) you are hosed.I don't know anything about Rigols, but I will say that some of the low-cost Asian offerings are starting to look pretty competent. They will not perform up to HP standards in pretty much any respect, but they have other advantages that you shouldn't ignore off because a bunch of spectrum analyzer snobs on EEVBlog told you to.To go back to the earlier metaphor, you will not find it useful as a beginning musician to listen to Eric Clapton and David Gilmour argue about whose guitar is better.

author: uhfradio
author_rank: Newbie
timestamp: June 09, 2016, 02:23:31 am
content: Yea, thanks. That is always the thing, specs are just numbers, sometimes it is hard to know how much a particular number really matters. I am aware that I do not necessarily need the "top RF performance". I am aware of the danger of chasing specs and having capabilities one neither needs nor will use. Of course that is the challenge, figuring out what specs matter and what level you need them at when just getting started.I will look again, but I thought the 856X did not have signal/tracking generators (I am not sure that is correct though). Tuning duplexers is a big part of what I need to be able to do so A tracking generator would be necessary.One of the key things I want to do is be able to tune some duplexers. One of the ones I have is a PD526 band pas/reject. My understanding is that you can get the reject on those down around -100dB. The 89XX specs say that the SA display range is only 80dB. So the notch would potentially be below the display range. I suppose you might be able to move the ref down (move the trace up) by 30dB and be able to see the bottom, but I am wondering if these systems are limited in tuning deep notches?Edit: This is similar to a comment earlier in this thread about the HP859X and "the display is cramped and only shows 80dB range (of which only 70dB is claimed as valid as a log display in the specs)" I am concerned if this will impact duplexer tuning below 80db using a HP892X.

author: TheSteve
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: June 09, 2016, 07:52:22 am
content: Adjusting the reference level does get around that limitation for duplexer tuning. You'll have no problems tuning them.

author: uhfradio
author_rank: Newbie
timestamp: June 09, 2016, 04:02:36 pm
content: Thank you for the feedback. I do think a 892XA/B with the right options is a better way to go (assuming you are looking for one piece of equipment) if you want to both tune filters and do basic radio work.Now to justify the cost.....

author: G0HZU
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 09, 2016, 07:31:58 pm
content: QuoteAt work we have a couple of old HP8560A analysers that have the internal tracking gen option fitted.However, the 'tracking' performance of the internal TG isn't very good and this caused issues/confusions to any new users. The other common issue with the HP8560/1/3 portable analysers at work is that the button membrane on the front panel is quite fragile and so most of our older analysers (eg the CRT versions) in this range suffer from this deaf/intermittent button issue and it can be very frustrating to use the analyser once it gets like this. But they are still very nice analysers in terms of the RF performance they offer. But if you don't need this performance then you would be better off with the Rigol IMO.You can also attach an external TG to many of the HP856x analysers in the form of the HP 85644/5 unit. I've got one of these here and it works very well as a TG with my old HP8566B. But these TG units are normally very expensive so not really an option. However, I was lucky to buy a very clean one for just £175 on ebay (faulty, turned out to be a blown fuse due to wrong voltage selection) but that was a rare fluke. They normally cost several thousand dollars on ebay.

author: Wuerstchenhund
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 10, 2016, 05:34:55 am
content: Quote from: uhfradio on June 09, 2016, 02:23:31 amMany R&S SAs like the FSP KE5FX mentioned have an option called "external generator control" which allows to use an external RF generator (i.e. R&S SME/SMIQ, but also some non-R&S models like the Agilent ESG Series) as tracking generator, which is quite neat. Retrofitting the option on the FSP if it doesn't already have it isn't overly expensive either (I paid less than GBP250 for the parts from R&S, installation takes less than half an hour).Considering that the presence of a TG often raises the price by 50% or so, ext gen control might be a decent alternative. Plus the RF performance of many TGs isn't as good as a standalone RF generator either.As to the FSP itself, be aware that there are two variants out there, the older ones (1064.4495.xx) have a beige/grey front bezel and run WindowsNT on a slow Pentium3 controller with PATA hard disk, while the later ones (1164.4391.xx) have a beige/blue front bezel run WindowsXP on a Pentium-M based controller with SATA hard drive. The newer variants also have some other improvements, i.e. in the RF sections. Should you opt for an FSP then I'd strongly recommend looking at the later models.The FSP UI isn't that bad, many things just require a few more button presses than on many other analyzers, but main functions have their own front panel buttons.

author: razberik
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: June 10, 2016, 02:45:02 pm
content: Why are in fact TGs so rare and so expensive ?I have never seen such a R&S TG unit alone. Google images gives no answer of unit itself. Contrary to HP units for 859x series.

author: uncle_bob
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: June 10, 2016, 04:26:49 pm
content: HiIf the intent here is to work on radio *receivers*, especially hand held ones, a tracking generator as a signal source is likely to be of very limited value. They simply are not designed to provide calibrated signals at very low levels. The vast majority of them are not shielded well enough for low level work. They are not set up to provide modulated signals for receiver work. Unless they are fully synthesized to an external reference it's unlikely they are accurate enough for receiver alignment. Simply put - they aren't up to the job.Bob

author: KJDS
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 10, 2016, 06:05:51 pm
content: Quote from: razberik on June 10, 2016, 02:45:02 pmIf a business wants test equipment to tune filters then it will by a VNA, not a spec ana.

author: razberik
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: June 10, 2016, 07:55:40 pm
content: So who is the main customer of devices with built-in TG ? Who is willing to pay extra costs for TG ?I am asking for better understanding the market.

author: uncle_bob
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: June 10, 2016, 09:53:39 pm
content: Quote from: razberik on June 10, 2016, 07:55:40 pmHi1) General repair / troubleshoot shop that needs to track down system faults. Think stuff like cable TV head end repair. They head out in the truck and don't really know what they will find when they get there.2) Bench level design on things that don't have very tight specs. Also where cost of equipment constraints rule out a network analyzer. Think in terms of three guys in a garage ....3) People who bought a demo unit. The field demo gear is often loaded with options. That way they have fewer models to stock. After the discount, the "tracking generator was free".(Yes there *is* overlap between numbers 2 and 3)Bob

author: Wuerstchenhund
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 10, 2016, 10:31:49 pm
content: Quote from: razberik on June 10, 2016, 02:45:02 pmAs other said they are rare because TGs are of limited value for anything that very basic tasks, and with rarity comes a price premium on the 2nd hand market if you really need/want it.Also, for many of the tasks a TG is used there are other (cheaper?) alternatives, i.e. a wideband noise source which works with any SA.QuoteWith R&S they are even more rare as for HP is simply because many who require a coupled RF source rather go for the combination of Ext Generator Control option (something that HP/Agilent never offered) plus a separate RF generator.

author: razberik
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: June 10, 2016, 11:46:12 pm
content: Thank you for your explanation.It just annoys me when I see beautiful Rohde & Schwarz beast with many GHz's and there is only a black plug with label RF OUT.I much more like the way of Advantest almost 30yrs ago. If there was no TG, there was no hole & plug in front panel. Well, I am playing with my R3361A here around. It last for few days since I repaired it.And I like it !

author: Wuerstchenhund
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 11, 2016, 08:05:47 am
content: Quote from: razberik on June 10, 2016, 11:46:12 pmIt's not just you. You'd think a company like R&S could come up with something better than a black piece of plastic behind the (usually beige) front panel cut-out, but no.

author: uhfradio
author_rank: Newbie
timestamp: June 12, 2016, 03:28:37 pm
content: Quote from: uncle_bob on June 10, 2016, 04:26:49 pmI am trying to better understand these comments. I thought that the various radio test sets (and their tracking generators) like a HP 892x were specifically designed, at least in part, for receiver alignment. They do provide a modulated signal. And they are capable of SINAD, so I would assume they were somewhat accurate at low levels. I also thought that they were routinely used by radio technicians for repeater site maintenance, duplexer tuning, and hand held alignment. But the comments above indicate that this is not the case?

author: uncle_bob
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: June 12, 2016, 03:33:19 pm
content: Quote from: uhfradio on June 12, 2016, 03:28:37 pmHiThe tracking generator on a *spectrum analyzer* doe not do any of these things. Thus a spectrum analyzer with a tracking generator is not very useful at all for receiver work. On the other hand, a proper signal generator *does* give you the stuff you need to do receiver tests. A communications test set (there are lots of them out there, going back at least 50 years) combines a signal generator with a few other things to let you do multiple tests with a single box. The original idea was to have one box in the truck when you went out on a service call or one box on the bench to work on things. A few decades back, cell phones came along and the internals of a communications test set changed a bit. It's still the same idea, just slightly different bits and pieces.Bob

author: uhfradio
author_rank: Newbie
timestamp: June 12, 2016, 03:49:53 pm
content: I see, thank you for clarifying. That does agree with my understanding and previous research. So yes, a Rigol 815 +TG (for example) is not very useful, for receiver work. But a communication test set with SA and TG is useful as the RF generator is in fact designed to provide TG functions as well as low level output, modulation, etc.

author: uncle_bob
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: June 12, 2016, 05:31:20 pm
content: Quote from: uhfradio on June 12, 2016, 03:49:53 pmHiYes, that's correct as long as you get the right test set. (= it does indeed have both SA and TG functions).Bob

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 12, 2016, 05:41:00 pm
content: Quote from: uhfradio on June 12, 2016, 03:49:53 pmEvery communication test set I have seen only offers a very limited span on the spectrum analyser part. This is no problem for testing communication devices but it will be of no use for EMC testing.

author: Wuerstchenhund
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 12, 2016, 06:14:10 pm
content: Quote from: nctnico on June 12, 2016, 05:41:00 pmMost of them have, yes, however there are some exceptions like the R&S CMU200 and CRTU-RU, or the Agilent E7495A/B which pretty much offer zero to full span (I *believe* the same is true for the Anritsu MT88xx cell phone testers if the SA option is installed, but I don't know for sure).The CMU200/CRTU has the better RF performance but the E7495 has some nice features (i.e. a wideband noise source for simple network analysis which is a good replacement for a TG) and is portable.

author: uncle_bob
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: June 12, 2016, 06:59:26 pm
content: Quote from: nctnico on June 12, 2016, 05:41:00 pmHiThere are a *lot* of testers out there. In many cases they have multiple soft configurable options. There are some that do quite well over a 400 KHz to 1 GHz sort of range. You *do* have to be very careful to not just get the right model, but to get one that is both "unlocked" and calibrated over the full range.Bob

author: radar_macgyver
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: June 13, 2016, 12:23:21 am
content: What about the USB-connected instruments from Signal Hound? Some models meet the OP's requirements (frequency range and price), although from all I've gathered thus far, their RF performance for the models other than the BB60C suffer from leakage and harmonics that are removed in software. Some reviews complained about the software, but that's been updated significantly in the recent past with the release of their Spike software.They also sell signal sources with a sync input that can be used as a tracking generator.Has anyone used these? Care to comment about their performance? I'm specifically interested in their phase noise spec. Shahriar did a nice review, but didn't look at the phase noise in detail (or maybe I just missed that part?)The Tek RSA306B seems nice, but priced outside the OPs budget.

author: uncle_bob
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: June 13, 2016, 01:55:01 am
content: Quote from: radar_macgyver on June 13, 2016, 12:23:21 amHiI would not count on really good phase noise on a device like that. I simply is no something they focus on. If it is not a critical spec, they didn't spend the extra money to do a good job of it. That said, if -130 dbc / Hz at 100 KHz is "good enough" it may be able to hit that.Bob

author: hendorog
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 13, 2016, 02:40:00 am
content: Quote from: uncle_bob on June 13, 2016, 01:55:01 amSH published an old whitepaper showing phase noise measurements for the SA44B:https://signalhound.com/sigdownloads/SA44B/AppNote-4.pdfSo it looks cleaner than the Rigol 815 spec. (-80 dBc @10kHz)

author: radar_macgyver
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: June 13, 2016, 02:54:12 am
content: Quote from: uncle_bob on June 13, 2016, 01:55:01 amI should clarify, the reason I asked about phase noise is that the larger instruments achieve decent phase noise since they have YTOs to generate their swept LO. The Signal Hound uses monolithic oscillators so I figured it would be similar to what the Rigol can achieve (which, from all the teardown videos I've seen, does not contain a YTO, but seem to use discrete LOs instead - see Dave's teardown video at ~30:35).Per the spec sheet of the BB60C, at 1 GHz it's -93 dBc/Hz at 100 kHz offset; that's worse than the DSA815's -100 dBc/Hz at 100 kHz. I guess it's wise to get an RTSA for signal analysis and a swept SA for things like phase noise, just like G0HZU suggested.Quote from: hendorog on June 13, 2016, 02:40:00 amThanks, that clears things up - those plots look pretty good, especially with an external OCXO. I'll stop threadjacking now.