"chuck" wrote in message
ink.net...
Good info, Owen. I think the EIA test procedures really have FM or AM in
mind, rather than SSB or, what is exactly the same for SINAD purposes, CW.
The 60% figure just doesn't apply to SSB or CW. You would simply use an
unmodulated signal generator with the frequency offset to produce a 1 kHz
tone in the receiver's audio output, preferrably centered in the
receiver's passband. Then a measure of rms af voltage at the receiver's
output with and without the 1 kHz filter would be made.

We don't hear much about SINAD testing procedures for SSB and CW. Even the
ARRL's test procedure manual glosses over the procedure for other than FM.

The old Canadian Department of Communications Document RSS 125 Issue 1,
Released August 1st, 1976, precisely describes the method of SINAD
measurements for SSB equipment. In the past 25 years or so, HP's distortion
analyzers (such as the HP8903B) were used for this measurement. In the late
60s and early 70s I have seen Heathkit distortion analyzers used for SINAD
measurements. The latest versions of RSS125 seem to be more in line with
FCC standards, where receiver specifications are not required for
certification purposes (See
http://www.agiletestgroup.com/ICCertifications.html).

73,

Frank

Thanks for the info, Frank.

Actually, the RSS125 on the site doesn't contain the procedure, but
RSS181, also available at that site, does.

FWIW, the procedure is basically what has been discussed, except that
the signal generator output to be recorded as the receiver's sensitivity
is that level which produces a 12 dB SINAD at 50% of rated audio output!
Probably a more realistic test than allowing the AF stage to operate at
a low-distortion level of something like 1% of rated output.

73,

Chuck
NT3G


Frank wrote:


The old Canadian Department of Communications Document RSS 125 Issue 1,
Released August 1st, 1976, precisely describes the method of SINAD
measurements for SSB equipment. In the past 25 years or so, HP's distortion
analyzers (such as the HP8903B) were used for this measurement. In the late
60s and early 70s I have seen Heathkit distortion analyzers used for SINAD
measurements. The latest versions of RSS125 seem to be more in line with
FCC standards, where receiver specifications are not required for
certification purposes (See
http://www.agiletestgroup.com/ICCertifications.html).

73,

Frank

On Sat, 15 Oct 2005 00:40:34 GMT, "W3JDR" wrote:


Recently, it has become quite easy to do true RMS measurement at audio
frequencies using DSP techniques. In fact at audio you can even do an
accurate RMS measurement in DSP using a PIC microcontroller to sample the
signal and perform the calculations.

I mentioned in an earlier post that I had done some comparisons of
true RMS response based SINAD measurements and average responding
meters.

I have just rerun the test.

I have a receiver with 2400Hz wide IF , fed with SSG and connected to
a HP334A Distorion Analyser. I have adjusted the SSG for 12dB
indicated SINAD on the HP334A.

The HP334A's meter is boldly labelled RMS, but it is an average
responding meter scaled for RMS with a sine wave.

I measured the output from the HP334A using a no-name true RMS
voltmeter that covers the audio frequencies involved (trap there...
some dont make it past power frequencies), and measured SINAD of
11.3dB.

I connected the HP334A output to a PC running FSM and measured the
following figures for Vtotal and Vfiltered

total filtered
V Average 2708 679
V RMS 2753 763
V Peak 4287 2302

(The three detectors in FSM are all calibrated to read the same on a
sine wave.)

The FSM measurements indicate a SINAD of 11.1dB RMS responding and
12dB average responding.

Overall, the two / three methods are reasonably consistent indicating
around 12dB SINAD using an average response meter, and around 11.2 dB
using RMS responding meters.

That suggests to me that using an average responding instrument may
overestimate the SINAD by a little less than a dB. However, given the
statistical variance of the noise, I would not be fretting about it,
especially on an FM rx where it might only need a smaller change in
C/N for that SINAD change.

I connected the rx to a Motorola R1013A which indicated 12dB SINAD (it
is most unlikely to have an RMS responding ALC and meter).

Owen
--

On Mon, 17 Oct 2005 00:05:18 GMT, Owen Duffy wrote:

This is seriously bad, replying to one's own post... but.

It occurs to me a quick test to reveal whether a SINAD meter is RMS
responding or average responding is to test it with a 1KHz square
wave. I am not suggesting this as a cal procedure, just a test that is
more sensitive to the meter response than noise testing.

IIRC, the Taylor series coefficients for a square wave a all even
harmonics are 0, the others are 4/pi/n.

So, theoretically:
- an ideal average responding meter should read (1-2/pi)% which is
36.3% or 8.8dB on an perfect square wave;
- an ideal RMS responding meter should read
(1-(2^-0.5*4/PI())^2)^0.5*100% which is 43.5% or 7.23dB.

Does the maths make sense?

I observe that my R1013A indicates 9dB on a good square wave, and the
HP334A around 35% (9.1dB)... so another indication that they are
average responding. I expect the readings a little low because neither
instrument has infinite bandwidth.

Owen
--

On Mon, 17 Oct 2005 03:09:11 GMT, Owen Duffy wrote:


So, theoretically:
- an ideal average responding meter should read (1-2/pi)% which is
36.3% or 8.8dB on an perfect square wave;

I think this is close to the right answer, but for the wrong reason. I
think it needs to be evaluated iteratively, and I get an answer closer
to 34.3% or 9.3dB.

Owen
--

Hello Owen,

Seems both average-responding and trms meters use rectifiers, so a
square wave input with perfect symmetry should result in BOTH meters
reading the same: an amount equal to the peak square wave voltage. Am I
confused on this?

Chuck

Owen Duffy wrote:
On Mon, 17 Oct 2005 03:09:11 GMT, Owen Duffy wrote:



So, theoretically:
- an ideal average responding meter should read (1-2/pi)% which is
36.3% or 8.8dB on an perfect square wave;


I think this is close to the right answer, but for the wrong reason. I
think it needs to be evaluated iteratively, and I get an answer closer
to 34.3% or 9.3dB.

Owen
--

"Richard Clark" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 14 Oct 2005 13:08:22 -0500, "Steve Nosko"
wrote:

A meter, a pure 1kHz tone modulated signal generator and a 1kHz notch is
all
that is needed. What happens if you don't have a "real" RMS meter? I
don't
know.

Hi Steve,

You don't need a "real" RMS meter. The expressed requirement for a
pure 1kHz tone provides the necessary sine wave shape such that it
simply becomes a matter of scale calibration. If you had said a
square wave 1KHz tone (nothing pure about that), then you would have
to dig deep for a "real" RMS meter. That too, could be scaled, but I
wouldn't count on it because it would be a rare amplifier chain that
could faithfully keep it square - and the notch would inject it into
the measurement as distortion and noise.

73's


Hi Richard,

I don'r know about that. For the un-notched signal, yes, where the
dominant component is the sine wave. However, not knowing how a non-RMS
meter may respond to the notched-out (predomanantly noise) signal, I'd thing
there is a possible cause for error compared to an RMS meter.
73, Steve, K,9.D;C'I

"Owen Duffy" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 14 Oct 2005 13:08:22 -0500, "Steve Nosko"
wrote:

Owen, (& crb)
Your words are contrary to the way we measured it (Motorola). ...

It was a shabby description in my first post Steve, ...with considerable
clarification...

Yes, I didn't mention that the 1KHz tone needs to be relatively low
distortion. ...
frequency of the tone is important as the notches
in semi automatic instruments are typically +/10Hz or so, ...
Owen


Not only that, but 1kHz is important because it is the standard and
usiang another freq, say 2kHz puts is on another part of the de-emphasis
curve and numbers'll change.
73, Steve, K,9.D;C'I

"Owen Duffy" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 17 Oct 2005 00:05:18 GMT, Owen Duffy wrote:

This is seriously bad, replying to one's own post... but.

It occurs to me a quick test to reveal whether a SINAD meter is RMS
responding or average responding is to test it with a 1KHz square
wave. I am not suggesting this as a cal procedure, just a test that is
more sensitive to the meter response than noise testing.

IIRC, the Taylor series coefficients for a square wave a all even
harmonics are 0, the others are 4/pi/n.

So, theoretically:
- an ideal average responding meter should read (1-2/pi)% which is
36.3% or 8.8dB on an perfect square wave;
- an ideal RMS responding meter should read
(1-(2^-0.5*4/PI())^2)^0.5*100% which is 43.5% or 7.23dB.

Does the maths make sense?



Wait a minute here. You're percents and dB is confusing.

I don't know about the 1-2/pi. It's been about a year or so since I went
through all this for that QST article using a serise resistor in the power
line to figure out power supply (and rig) power consumption - unfortunately
ignoring the pulsed nature of capacitor input power supply current,
BUT...

I don't remember the analytical expressions for these quantities. I'll use
the common numbers...

For the meter that responds to average (63% peak - I think this is 2/pi) ,
but shows RMS which is .707 of peak (1/root2), the ratio for average input
to reading = 0.707/.63 . For this I get 2/(2* root2)

Average of a square wave is equal to the peak.

So a 1 volt (pk) square wave should measure 1.11 Volts on one of these (sine
average responding, RMS displaying) meters and 1V on an rms meter.

I think I did that right?

73, Steve, K,9.D;C'I

Nope. See my previous post.


A square wave has an average equal to the RMS equal to the peak. It's just
like DC.

The "older types" RESPOND to average of a SINE (63% of peak) but display the
value for the RMS (71% of peak), so they have a 1.11 correction factor to
get from average to RMS.

73, Steve, K,9.D;C'I


"chuck" wrote in message
ink.net...
Hello Owen,

Seems both average-responding and trms meters use rectifiers, so a
square wave input with perfect symmetry should result in BOTH meters
reading the same: an amount equal to the peak square wave voltage. Am I
confused on this?

Chuck

Owen Duffy wrote:
On Mon, 17 Oct 2005 03:09:11 GMT, Owen Duffy wrote:



So, theoretically:
- an ideal average responding meter should read (1-2/pi)% which is
36.3% or 8.8dB on an perfect square wave;


I think this is close to the right answer, but for the wrong reason. I
think it needs to be evaluated iteratively, and I get an answer closer
to 34.3% or 9.3dB.

Owen
--