In a message dated 3/31/2007 04:50:11 Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I agree, it is indeed a fantastic number, but you have to compare it with other results. There is comercial tools out there which is only 20-30 dB behind. Actually, the correlation techniques improves the longer you average, so then stability of setup and such becomes the hurdles, without looking I would guess they have put some thought into that. Normal crosscorrelation techniques looks like crude conceptual setups compared to this more elaborate setup. I'm looking forward to read about this. Cheers, Magnus Hi Magnus, BTW: here in the US they also like to measure things in fractions, and body part lengths for some unexplainable reason... Reasons I do hear are that SI is too "difficult" for the average Joe to comprehend, and replacing road signs costs too much. Gotta get my 5/32 Fluid Ounce, 3-7/16 Inch Latte now :) __________ My requirements are not that high: I recently got a Wenzel Ultra Low Noise OCXO, have a DC-coupled Mixer, and 'just' need to build the low noise amps for the PLL and baseband amplification. Will feed that into my Audio Precision System Two Audio Analyzer, and see if I can't get close to -200dBc (Well, I'd be happy to measure -155 to -160dBc/Hz noise floor already). Does anybody have any experience with using real Audio analyzers for these phase noise measurements? I am particularly interested in how to calibrate the system, and find the descriptions at Wenzel lacking, and at Vectron not detailed enough... bye, Said ************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com. _______________________________________________ time-nuts mailing list [email protected] https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
