What is Samp detection in your screenshots ? Never used it
What is Samp detection in your screenshots ? Never used itIt is very common to use sample detection in noise measurements. I believe this is even 'a must' by convention.
I just forgot about it during the 2nd measurement.
Yet you still compared apples with oranges.
Of course the FPL1007 is more expensive but don't forget that my SSA3032X-R has the same hardware as the 3075X-R. Then you no longer talk about entry-level models. Especially not if you buy a few expensive options.
Let's consider for a moment the consequences of bad phase noise.
Is there a reason you use a different RBW when comparing the R&S to the Siglent?
Yet you still compared apples with oranges.
That's quite a bold statement, so to say.
But I have done a new measurement for you in which you will see that the noise values with the sample detector are better than with a peak measurement. The choice of the detector is therefore important.
In my post where I used a peak measurement (by mistake) I actually put the SSA3032X-R at a disadvantage and yet it was even better than the SVA1032X.
There is some extra noise going on at the left few divisions of the display. Is this still not fixed?
Of course the FPL1007 is more expensive but don't forget that my SSA3032X-R has the same hardware as the 3075X-R. Then you no longer talk about entry-level models. Especially not if you buy a few expensive options.
While we are comparing numbers, let's put thing in perspective...
Even SSA3075X-R is still half the price of FPL1007... And that is for FPL1007 base price without any options, that are, by the way, even more expensive on R&S. For instance: 40 MHz BW realtime option on R&S cost 4000 € alone! While it is actually free on SSA3075X-R now...
For 4000€ (only for realtime option on R&S) you can buy ALL the options for SSA3075X-R, that includes a set of nearfield EMC probes...
So my comment on this is : " 2-3x times more expensive R&S SA actually has slightly better performance than SSA3075X-R?
Really? Well it effing better have better performance for the price you pay for it..."
It is still a Chinese company whose name is suspiciously similar to Agilent and they do their best to copy expensive Western items. There are so many examples that show that Siglent is far from having things in order. You notice it in the documentation and you notice it in the errors in the firmware.
In general, it looks like the -R may be either a superior design or given more attention, possibly a few better components.
In general, it looks like the -R may be either a superior design or given more attention, possibly a few better components.It's not quite that simple.
X-R models certainly use different HW to most SSA/SVA models but not all.
We can clearly see evidence of this in SSA+, SVA and SSA X-R datasheets.
With some study we can identify 3 HW versions that cover all models from 1.5 - 7.5 GHz.
In general, it looks like the -R may be either a superior design or given more attention, possibly a few better components.It's not quite that simple.
X-R models certainly use different HW to most SSA/SVA models but not all.
We can clearly see evidence of this in SSA+, SVA and SSA X-R datasheets.
With some study we can identify 3 HW versions that cover all models from 1.5 - 7.5 GHz.
I'm sure you're right but what I'm really after is visibility to how well it calibrates and how stable that calibration is. In spite of videos and web reviews, there isn't much at the VNA end and nothing at the cal end. A few more looks at how well it behaves up to 7+ GHz would also be helpful.
Hey, you could be an industry leader. Just get Siglent to support you and your US and worldwide counterparts with a virtual try out online. You select the instrument which is then connected to a matrix of sources, loads, reflectances, etc. Our internet bandwidths are high enough to support that fairly well today.
This is OT from the phase noise but I guess this is a MT (multi topic) thread
In the process of downsizing and eliminating several higher end gear, I'm headed toward either an SVA1075X or possibly a -R of the SSA series. One thing I have not seen on this blog, flog me if wrong, is the SOLT performance of these units. In general, it looks like the -R may be either a superior design or given more attention, possibly a few better components.
Can you post an image of your SOLT cal with the load performed last, in LOG form. How stable is it over an hour or two (assuming analyzer has been warmed for an hour)?
Higher end VNAs are fairly rock solid. The early FieldFox wanders like crazy. I'm scared sh-less over the four leaf clovers out of the Siglents Smith chart prior to cal. I am seeing better than -60dB on the bench VNA and the FF.
I would like to think that Siglent's converters and dynamic range are good enough to get down there but have seen NO plots of such.
Thanks IM3 ! That's exactly what I was looking for. I'm not asking you to run it again, but have you noticed that it remains stable for some time?
Yes, -50dB is a decent number, especially if it's repeatable and stable. For small chip and pcb antenna work, the final result is usually well above -30dB and can be a lot worse but acceptable.
My other units are PNA and early FieldFox, both of which may be gone with retirement downsizing. They are about 20dB (at 10kHz IFBW) lower but the FieldFox drifts a bit, while the PNA is rock solid (should be at 55lbs / 25kg). The difference must be in the directional couplers.
And of course, this is where Siglent's 38dB to 40dB corrected directivity comes from.
I've recently been lurking the blog doing my due diligence in search for a viable SA/ VNA for amateur radio use, and use as a hobbyist. I was about to pull the trigger on a SVA1015X when IM3's post came up. I would like to mention that I do appreciate the level of expertise in this forum.
I had considered the SSA3032X-R, but do I really need a RTSA, probably not. Is it a a really cool function, yes it is! Looking at the data provided by IM3 the 3032X-R is back in the radar.
I'd hate to invest the extra capital just for the RTSA feature if all of the other performance characteristics are relatively similar between the SVA1015X, and the SSA3032X-R.
From the most recent information in the thread, I want to verify by consensus that the SSA3032X-R does indeed have better phase noise characteristics and better HW than the SVA-1015X?
Thank you for the consideration of my question.
I've recently been lurking the blog doing my due diligence in search for a viable SA/ VNA for amateur radio use, and use as a hobbyist. I was about to pull the trigger on a SVA1015X when IM3's post came up. I would like to mention that I do appreciate the level of expertise in this forum.
I had considered the SSA3032X-R, but do I really need a RTSA, probably not. Is it a a really cool function, yes it is! Looking at the data provided by IM3 the 3032X-R is back in the radar.
I'd hate to invest the extra capital just for the RTSA feature if all of the other performance characteristics are relatively similar between the SVA1015X, and the SSA3032X-R.
From the most recent information in the thread, I want to verify by consensus that the SSA3032X-R does indeed have better phase noise characteristics and better HW than the SVA-1015X?
Thank you for the consideration of my question.
As always a lot of things depends on budget, so I can't help with that, but I can explain how I came to my choice.
For now there are 2 main RF designs of interest within the Siglent spectrum analyzers. (The 3rd choice is the 5000 series and too expensive)
The better RF design of the 2 can be recognized in the documentation by a DNAL of -165 dBm.
The simpler RF designs have a more worse DNAL value. More like -156 dBm and -161dBm.
I think all beter ones are the SVA1075X, SSA3075X-PLUS, SSA3032X-R, SSA3050X-R, SSA3075X-R.
Now what I had already described in an earlier post is that the simpler RF design of my SVA1032X has led to poor phase noise in a large part of the spectrum. In any case, worse than -98dBc that Siglent specifies at 1GHz.
The better RF design doesn't have that problem and have the same phase noise across the entire spectrum.
To see how physically different the designs are, I advise you to view 2 links.
For the more simple RF design, watch a video from EEVBlog here:
Click here for a look at the better RF design. (Scroll to reply 53 & 54)
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/siglent-ssa3000x-r-57-5ghz-real-time-spectrum-analyzer/?all
As far as I know the only photos on the internet of this version. (Thanks to TV84 on this blog)
How I made a choice which analyzer to buy:
Of the SVA series, only the SVA1075X is suitable, but then you pay €9200.
Of the SSA X-PLUS series, only the SSA3075X-PLUS is suitable, but then you pay €7875. But it has no VNA function. I thought that could be upgraded, but it would require some tinkering.
The SSA3032X-R is the cheapest of the SSA X-R series and costs €4830, but you can expand it to 7.5 GHz for free, including all options with the key generator that you can download here.
http://tpcg.io/_SV2SRE (Many thanks to the guys who made this script)
In my opinion, the SSA3032X-R is the device that gives you the most for the least money.
And real time is nice to have, really.
My SVA1032X : Firmware_V3.2.2.6.0R7 original Version with all Options
yellow: 10MHz, blue: 200MHz, red: 500MHZ, green: 1GHz
(Attachment Link)