Differences
This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.
|
588sherwood [2007/04/10 16:40] n5na |
588sherwood [2007/05/21 00:44] |
||
|---|---|---|---|
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| - | ====== Rob Sherwood's Official Omni VII Measurements ====== | ||
| - | **From the Ten-Tec Reflector April 10, 2007** | ||
| - | I have Rob's written permission to pass this on to the reflector members. | ||
| - | |||
| - | 73 | ||
| - | |||
| - | Rick, DJ0IP | ||
| - | |||
| - | ---- | ||
| - | |||
| - | |||
| - | Test Data on Omni VII, serial number 11C10866\\ | ||
| - | May 2007 | ||
| - | |||
| - | Dynamic range tests of the Omni VII using both the 2.5 kHz and 500 Hz distributed roofing filters. | ||
| - | |||
| - | The 2-kHz dynamic range measured the same with either roofing filter. This was expected, since the test tones are spaced 2 and 4 kHz away, and even the 2.5 kHz filter provides very significant rejection of the test tones. The 500 Hz filter did, however, provide very significant additional rejection of a test tone or interfering signal 1 kHz from a weak desired signal. In a pile up or contest, the 500 Hz distributed roofing filter is highly recommended. One could also call the 455 kHz filters "DSP protection | ||
| - | filters". The 300 Hz roofing filter would be useful in very dense signal environments, such as the ARRL or CQ 160 meter CW contests. More casual CW operation may not require the 300 Hz optional filter in addition to the 500 Hz unit. | ||
| - | |||
| - | Measured parameters vs. factory specifications: | ||
| - | |||
| - | ^Parameter ^ Spec ^ Measured ^ | ||
| - | |DR3 20 kHz (dB) | 90 | 92 | | ||
| - | |DR3 2 kHz (dB) | 78 | 80 | | ||
| - | |Sensitivity, preamp off: (uV) | 0.5 | 0.45 | | ||
| - | |Sensitivity, preamp on: (uV) | 0.18 | 0.17 | | ||
| - | |Noise floor, preamp off: (dBm) | | -130 | | ||
| - | |Noise floor, preamp on: (dBm) | | -140 | | ||
| - | |AGC threshold, preamp off: (uV) | | 0.8 | | ||
| - | |AGC threshold, preamp on: (uV) | | 0.2 | | ||
| - | |S9 (uV) | 50 | 59 | | ||
| - | |Preamp | | 12 dB gain | | ||
| - | |||
| - | |||
| - | |||
| - | S meter reading does not change with preamp or attenuator setting. While this may be confusing, it is the correct way to keep the S meter calibration constant, regardless of preamp or attenuator settings. Some commercial receivers keep S meter readings constant regardless of preamp or attenuator selection, such as the Ten-Tec RX-340. | ||
| - | |||
| - | Phase noise measured -124 dBc @ 10 kHz, vs. spec of 125 dBc at 10 kHz, basically meeting spec. This parameter is the least accurate of my measurements, as it must be measured indirectly. IF DSP filters integrate phase noise differently than classic discrete filters. A slight change in the bandwidth compensation for dBc would resolve the 1 dB difference. | ||
| - | |||
| - | The only area where measured numbers are significantly different from spec is blocking. | ||
| - | |||
| - | Normally I measure blocking at the onset of AGC, and only at 100 kHz due to common phase noise limitations. I don't agree with the ARRL's method of measuring IP3 and blocking at S5, nominally -93 dBm. Ten-Tec does not use either of these methods to specify blocking. Measuring blocking in a DSP radio is almost meaningless, due to the way the digital AGC is handled by the DSP chip. | ||
| - | |||
| - | The following blocking numbers were done using the ARRL method. | ||
| - | |||
| - | *NF, 500 Hz CW filter: -130 dBm | ||
| - | *Blocking at S5 @ 100 kHz 134 dB | ||
| - | *Blocking at S5 @ 20 kHz 119 dB | ||
| - | *Blocking at S5 @ 2 kHz 118 dB | ||
| - | |||
| - | Attempting to measure blocking at the specified level of 135 dB @ 20 kHz, I fed in a + 5 dBm signal into the Omni VII. Two things were observed: the S meter went up from S5 to S6, and the audio went down 7 dB. Blocking is not a practical limit on the Omni VII. | ||
| - | |||
| - | Rob Sherwood | ||
| - | |||
| - | Sherwood Engineering, Inc. | ||
| - | |||
| - | NC0B | ||
