No idea. Suggest you contact your supplier

Well after 3 different computers, 5 different USB ports and 3 different USB cables, no luck.? Anything else to try?

Rick W7RMS

Please notice the RBW I used in my screen grabs
--

The cal output is hard coupled to the TCXO. The correction factor is used only for the low and high input frequency calculations

On Wed, Feb 17, 2021 at 10:34 AM, Erik Kaashoek wrote:

The TCXO runs on 30MHz and the lower cal output frequencies are created using a divider instead of a PLL
The cal output is like to 10MHz reference clock of other spectrum analyzers.
If the cal output is offset you can correct it using the CONFIG/EXPERT CONFIG/MORE/CORRECT FREQUENCY where you can enter the actual frequency of the 10MHz cal output
--

?

Erik,

I measure my 30 MHz. cal output and it was 45 Hertz off.? So I measured the 10 MHz. cal output and it was 15 Hz. off.? I went to CONFIG/EXPERT CONFIG/MORE/CORRECT FREQUENCY and entered 9999.985 K and did not notice any difference in the 10 MHz. cal output.? So I thought maybe this is just a divide by 3 of the TCXO and this offset adjustment does not have an effect.? So I went to the Low Output mode and? set it to 10 MHz. and i was still 15 Hz. off.

Could you please provide further details on how to use this feature or point me to a video that explains proper procedure.?

Regards - Roger

Sandro,
Be aware the problem is not an offset but a resolution issue. The output frequencies are on a fixed grid. So the maximum error will always stay the same.
The TCXO itself is rather accurate. Try to use your frequency counter to measure the error in the cal output as the cal output is directly coupled to the TCXO and does NOT have the frequency resolution problem?
The TCXO runs on 30MHz and the lower cal output frequencies are created using a divider instead of a PLL
The cal output is like to 10MHz reference clock of other spectrum analyzers.
If the cal output is offset you can correct it using the CONFIG/EXPERT CONFIG/MORE/CORRECT FREQUENCY where you can enter the actual frequency of the 10MHz cal output
--

Thanks for the selftes 6 output.
All confirm what I was hoping for.
No more needed

Check if there is another device close by.
Even a PC keyboard or mouse can cause problems
--

Hello Bruce,
thank you for your table.
When all the data are in the minus side, adjusting the 10MHz one? step lower(is the resolution), it is possible to reduce the error upper 400 MHz? 100 Hz or less
and have some data centered or positive.
I use calibrated rubidium so can measure/generate at 4GHz with less of 1 Hz error but, with these low frequencies, I have the same result of your good Gps.
So, I am thinking of an harmonic mixer to go in the microwave region with Tinysa, would be again a very interesting handy instrument.
Sandro

Spoors at 25.432M and 9.688M

Hello Erik,

selftest 6
ch> 0:?? 96.678M
1:?? 96.705M
2:?? 96.705M
3:?? 96.678M
4:?? 96.705M
5:?? 92.608M
6:?? 96.705M
7:?? 96.678M
8:?? 93.743M
9:?? 94.159M
10:?? 96.705M
11:?? 94.906M
12:?? 95.266M
13:?? 95.626M
14:?? 95.349M
15:?? 95.737M
16:?? 96.124M
17:?? 96.512M
18:?? 96.844M
19:?? 97.204M
20:?? 97.591M
21:?? 97.979M
22:?? 98.394M
23:?? 98.782M
24:?? 99.141M
25:?? 99.474M
26:?? 99.861M
27:?? 96.705M
28:?? 94.408M
29:?? 96.678M
30:?? 96.705M

Attached are 2 screenshots with firmware 86 and 88, no spurs.
Installed 33pF capacitors some time ago.

73, Rudi DL5FA
????

Hmm, i restore back to work after push CPU, look like bad soldering

Installed 33pF capacitors (long time ago)

All test complete
Command:

On Wed, Feb 17, 2021 at 06:32 AM, Erik Kaashoek wrote:

To give an impression of the spur improvements using the new v1.1-88 FW ....

Erik,
I had already installed the recommended bypass capacitors on the pcb to knock down the 48MHz spurs.? With the new v1.1-88 FW,?I saw further improvement.? I would suggest anyone considering installing the bypass capacitors first install? v1.1-88 FW and see if that resolves their issues.

? ??

Results of my self-test 6.

selftest 6

Selftest 6 is? only available in v1.1-88 and only relevant after upgrading to v1.1-88

--

One user reported a small selftest failure starting after upgrading to v1.1-88
This failure can not be caused by the upgrade to v1.1-88 but the coincidence is a bit worrying.

All that upgrade to v1.1-88, please be sure to run the selftest before and after the upgrade and report any differences in the selftest you notice after the upgrade to v1.1-88

Erik,
I ca not seem to get seftest 6 to work. Using the console command interface it says the correct syntax is: selftest (1-3) [arg]. I am on 1.1-85
Gary

开云体育

This is what I get.

12:? ?94.602M

13:? ?94.989M

14:? ?95.377M

15:? ?95.764M

16:? ?96.069M

17:? ?96.456M

18:? ?96.844M

19:? ?97.231M

20:? ?97.536M

?

my list is:

12:??? 96.484M

13:??? 95.211M

14:??? 95.626M

15:??? 95.958M

16:??? 96.373M

17:??? 96.705M

18:??? 97.093M

19:??? 97.397M

20:??? 96.650M?

Greetings

Sven Hegewisch

------------------------------------------

For more info on the tinySA go to

To give an impression of the spur improvements

v1.1-86 spurs when using an RBW of 10kHz


Same using the new v1.1-88 FW

--