Hello Erik and Group,
Erik, thanks for the info regarding the DSP code.
And thanks to the other posters on this subject. It is good to know
there is an active EMC testing cohort out there.
I guess I need to remember that it is PRE-COMPLIANCE testing and
that the RBW errors are indeed small.
When I was in the industry developing product, we always aimed for a
minimum 6-10dB headroom at the development stage.
That way, we generally managed first pass testing during
manufacturing.
I have been out of the game for many years now but still like to
follow what is happening.
The TinySA and the new Ultra are amazing pieces of kit. Thank you so
much for these great little gems Erik.
73...Bob VK2ZRE
On 27/11/2022 6:01 pm, Erik Kaashoek
wrote:
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
On Sat, Nov 26, 2022 at 10:13 PM, Bob Ecclestone wrote:
Since RBW is implemented in software, it would be
relatively easy to implement on the the TinySA and/or the ULTRA.
Bob,
The RBW is implemented by the chip manufacturer in embedded DSP
code that can not be modified and there? is only a limited set of
parameters you can modify to steer this code.
I will have a look but I'm afraid it will not be possible to have
exactly the specified RBW.
Even with approximated RBW I know many people are successfully
using the tinySA in EMC pre-compliance as the differences are
small. Try to calculated the difference in dB when measuring a
wide band source
--
For more info on the tinySA go to
