> {quote：title = am95405写道：} {quote}>我不确定为什么N9912A没有等效或类似的CalReady。
我有点惊讶，因为在开机时在测试端口实施校准不是火箭科学。
尽管如此，他确实至少拥有HP N cal套件，我制造的SMA套件和QuickCal选件。
>有一点需要注意的是，安捷伦销售的大多数台式VNA并不真正具有CalReady，而是内部称为Mixer Cal的东西。
Mixer Cal实现内部标准化，因此您的S参数看起来相当准确。
没有匹配校正（与CalReady一样）。
然而，台式VNA的良好硬件最终会为您提供不错的测量，即使没有匹配校正的校准也是如此。
我相信他所拥有的8752A台式VNA在预热后会进行校准。
有一种方法可以使用85032B校准套件验证性能，但是您不需要校准套件来使用VNA，这与大多数台式VNA完全不同。
>> Em，不是一个非常令人印象深刻的动态范围规格！
我希望一些更昂贵的组合单位做得更好。
>>他们好多了。
例如，我附上了三个6 GHz FieldFox的动态范围的比较。
是的，这是一个巨大的差异 - 其他型号的性能提升了51分贝。
事实上，N9912A的特定频率似乎特别糟糕，似乎表明可能缺乏过滤功能。
我猜这就是为什么这个模型很便宜。
顺便说一句，我想到为什么干扰分析获得了这个选项。
我怀疑1）为仪器购买的选项2）出于安全原因，仪器重置为某种出厂默认值，因此固件非常老旧。
3）旧固件不支持该选项，但在固件更新时它变得生动。
无论如何，他有一个我不知道他有的选择。
>问候，> Afsi谢谢你Afsi。
以上来自于谷歌翻译
以下为原文
> {quote:title=am95405 wrote:}{quote}
> I am not sure why N9912A does not have an equivalent or similar CalReady.
I'm a bit surprised, as it can't be rocket science to implement a calibration at the test ports at switch on. Still, he does have at least an HP N cal kit, an SMA one I made, and the QuickCal option.
> One thing to note is that most benchtop VNAs that Agilent sells don't really have CalReady, but something internall called Mixer Cal. Mixer Cal implements an internal normalization, so that your S-parameters look reasonably accurate. There is no match correction (as there is with CalReady). However, the good hardware of the benchtop VNAs ends up giving you decent measurements, even without a cal with match correction.
I believe the 8752A benchtop VNA he has is calibrated after it is warmed up. There is a way of verifying the performance using an 85032B calibration kit, but you don't need a calibration kit to use the VNA, which is quite different to most benchtop VNAs as you say.
> > Em, not a very impressive dynamic range spec! I'd hope some of the more expensive combination units do better.
>
> They are much better. For example, I've attached a comparison of the dynamic range of three 6 GHz FieldFoxes.
Yes, a dramatic difference - up to a 51 dB improvement on the other models. The fact there are specific frequencies the N9912A seems particularly bad, seems to indicate there might be a lack of filtering. I guess that is why the model is quite cheap.
BTW, I thought about why that option was gained for the interference analysis. I suspect
1) Option purchased for the instrument
2) Instrument reset to some sort of factory defaults for security reasons, so firmware was very old.
3) The old firmware did not support the option, but it came to life when the firmware was updated.
Anyway, he has got an option I did not know he had.
> Regards,
> Afsi
Thank you Afsi.
> {quote：title = am95405写道：} {quote}>我不确定为什么N9912A没有等效或类似的CalReady。
我有点惊讶，因为在开机时在测试端口实施校准不是火箭科学。
尽管如此，他确实至少拥有HP N cal套件，我制造的SMA套件和QuickCal选件。
>有一点需要注意的是，安捷伦销售的大多数台式VNA并不真正具有CalReady，而是内部称为Mixer Cal的东西。
Mixer Cal实现内部标准化，因此您的S参数看起来相当准确。
没有匹配校正（与CalReady一样）。
然而，台式VNA的良好硬件最终会为您提供不错的测量，即使没有匹配校正的校准也是如此。
我相信他所拥有的8752A台式VNA在预热后会进行校准。
有一种方法可以使用85032B校准套件验证性能，但是您不需要校准套件来使用VNA，这与大多数台式VNA完全不同。
>> Em，不是一个非常令人印象深刻的动态范围规格！
我希望一些更昂贵的组合单位做得更好。
>>他们好多了。
例如，我附上了三个6 GHz FieldFox的动态范围的比较。
是的，这是一个巨大的差异 - 其他型号的性能提升了51分贝。
事实上，N9912A的特定频率似乎特别糟糕，似乎表明可能缺乏过滤功能。
我猜这就是为什么这个模型很便宜。
顺便说一句，我想到为什么干扰分析获得了这个选项。
我怀疑1）为仪器购买的选项2）出于安全原因，仪器重置为某种出厂默认值，因此固件非常老旧。
3）旧固件不支持该选项，但在固件更新时它变得生动。
无论如何，他有一个我不知道他有的选择。
>问候，> Afsi谢谢你Afsi。
以上来自于谷歌翻译
以下为原文
> {quote:title=am95405 wrote:}{quote}
> I am not sure why N9912A does not have an equivalent or similar CalReady.
I'm a bit surprised, as it can't be rocket science to implement a calibration at the test ports at switch on. Still, he does have at least an HP N cal kit, an SMA one I made, and the QuickCal option.
> One thing to note is that most benchtop VNAs that Agilent sells don't really have CalReady, but something internall called Mixer Cal. Mixer Cal implements an internal normalization, so that your S-parameters look reasonably accurate. There is no match correction (as there is with CalReady). However, the good hardware of the benchtop VNAs ends up giving you decent measurements, even without a cal with match correction.
I believe the 8752A benchtop VNA he has is calibrated after it is warmed up. There is a way of verifying the performance using an 85032B calibration kit, but you don't need a calibration kit to use the VNA, which is quite different to most benchtop VNAs as you say.
> > Em, not a very impressive dynamic range spec! I'd hope some of the more expensive combination units do better.
>
> They are much better. For example, I've attached a comparison of the dynamic range of three 6 GHz FieldFoxes.
Yes, a dramatic difference - up to a 51 dB improvement on the other models. The fact there are specific frequencies the N9912A seems particularly bad, seems to indicate there might be a lack of filtering. I guess that is why the model is quite cheap.
BTW, I thought about why that option was gained for the interference analysis. I suspect
1) Option purchased for the instrument
2) Instrument reset to some sort of factory defaults for security reasons, so firmware was very old.
3) The old firmware did not support the option, but it came to life when the firmware was updated.
Anyway, he has got an option I did not know he had.
> Regards,
> Afsi
Thank you Afsi.
举报
