[TenTec] Ed Hare's First Response to my 2nd and 3rds post of 3/4

[Jim Reid]

I rcvd and email from Ed.  He has not yet been "accepted"
by the list moderator to join the TT reflector.  He has
asked me to post his first reply to my comments about
the ARRL Lab test procedures/methods for dynamic
range and IP numbers.  And after re-reading that first
post of mine,  I deserved his "low blow" rebuke,  hi.
His reply:

"Hi, Jim,

The article in question is available for download at:

http://www.arrl.org/tis/info/pdf/020708qex046.pdf

I suggest that people read it, especially my sidebar, before reading this
post.

> 1.  Referencing measurements to the  MDS level is not
> best,  because establishing the MDS level is a matter
> of the perception of the person doing the test!  MDS should
> be dropped from the process,  per Doug.

The measurement of the noise floor of a receiver cannot be dropped from the
process, because it is an important receiver operating parameter.  It could
be reported as a noise figure although neither noise floor or noise figure
that is a complete number without reporting the bandwidth.  And a noise
floor measurement is NOT a perception thing at all; it is made with an
RMS-reading voltmeter and can be done accurately by an experienced test
engineer who knows how to interpret a somewhat noisy meter reading.

> Also,  Doug recommends the use of the Audio Spectrum analyzer as
> far superior to locating spurious signals (IMD's) near/in
> the noise floor or below it;  not using an audio meter
> as is now used in the ARRL Lab with who knows what
> accuracy.

Actually, the accuracy of the ARRL Lab's metrology is good. The HP-339 is
one of our older pieces of equipment, but it is a true RMS reading meter and
it is calibrated by an external cal lab as recommended by the manufacturer.
If a particular reading is not influenced by receiver reciprocal mixing, and
a noise-floor measurement is not, the accuracy of the result is quite good.
Seeing as the noise-floor measurement is made by measuring the receiver
input noise level, noise is an integral part of the measurement. I would be
hard pressed to use a spectrum analyzer to make a noise floor measurement on
a receiver. It could be done with some analyzers, but it would require that
one either use an analyzer that is capable of reporting the entire power
level of the displayed spectrum, or do an FFT and obtain same on the
receiver output noise, then add a signal-generator signal and determine when
the total power rose by 3 dB.  It is much easier to make that measurement
with an analog meter.

In making measurements of receiver dynamic range, the ARRL Lab does indeed
make those measurements at the noise floor.  If you look at the graphs I
generated for the sidebar in the above article, you will correctly note that
receivers do NOT always follow the third-order laws; in fact, from my 15+
years of experience testing receivers for ARRL Product Review (either as
test engineer, or supervising one), I have found that most do not. For a
number of years, ARRL made dynamic range measurements at the noise floor,
then calculated an IP3 from those measurements.  Doug Smith and I have had a
number of interesting discussions about this, and when we first started,
that is exactly how he felt ARRL should be making IP3 measurements, so that
the dynamic range and IP3 results always added up correctly.

A few years back, though, Ulrich Rohde worked with ARRL and helped us
understand why the noise floor was not an ideal place to make IP3
measurements.  He suggested to ARRL that we use an S5 receiver output level
as the standard for making IP3 measurements. At the time, I took a look at
as many of the current spate of radios as I could lay hands on, and did some
measurements of IP3 at various levels, as Mike Tracy did for the sidebar I
wrote.  When I looked at the graphs of those tests, at first I was quite
puzzled about how to best decide what the "real" IP3 of the radio might be.
After all, I could get a different IP3 at the noise floor, at S5, at S9,
etc.  But when I did what I suggest readers do and draw a "best fit" line
with the correct 1:1 and 3:1 slope onto the real graphs at levels below AGC
compression, I concluded then and now, that the measurements made at an S5
level were a good representation for the IP3 of that radio at the level at
which amateurs are apt to encounter IMD distortion on the bands.  To correct
any misunderstanding, ARRL has been making its IP3 measurements well above
the noise floor -- at an S5 receiver output level -- for over 10 years
running now.

Frankly, for most HF installations, an intermod product that is equal to the
noise floor of a receiver will not be heard once that receiver is connected
to an antenna and band noise that is tens of dB higher than the receiver
input noise. Even an intermod product whose output were S1 or so would
generally not cause harmful interference. By selecting an S5 receiver output
level as the point at which IP3 is made, we have both a good fit for the way
real receivers have performed over decades of testing and an intermod level
that is reasonably representative of the level that will probably cause
harmful interference in actual use.

But you have hit upon one flaw in this system. S5 could be -109 dBm in one
receiver, -129 dBm in another with a very generous S meter and -89 dBm in
yet another receiver.   I believe that correcting this is a good step for
ARRL to take and we intend to take it, but only after doing a thorough
investigation on any change, coordinated well with manufacturers.  In
general, it should not make a tremendous difference in the actual IP3
calculation. If you look at the graphs in my sidebar, I had made IP3
measurements at S1, S5 and S9 (plus a few other levels for some of the
receivers). I don't imagine that even a stingy S meter would not read at
least S5 for a signal level of -73 dBm, the "Collins" S9 standard.  So the
net effect of being at different points along that intersecting first-order
and third-order set of lines is, between S1 and S7, typically not more than
a few dB.  But the potential for hanky panky is still present with the
present test levels and I want to change it.  Look at the Fig C in my
sidebar.  If a manufacturer were to note that his radio has a significantly
higher IP3 at S9+, and made his S meter the most stingy in the world, the
"real" IP3 of that radio would be somewhat inflated, by about 8 dB -- not a
good thing by any stretch.

The other factor in S meter sensitivity is receiver sensitivity. Mike Tracy
and I just had a nice chat and our thinking is that if we were to take the
"Collins" S5 level of -109 dBm and add the receiver's noise figure to it, we
would have about as close to a standard receiver output level for IP3
measurements as one could get.  There is a minor downside to that, though --
the eyeball factor.  It is relatively easy for a test engineer to eyeball a
whole S unit number -- S5 for example. But if we standardize on -109 dBm +
noise figure, that will result in a S meter reading that is  usually  not
going to be a whole number. When the "on channel" reading is taken, the
engineer will then have to readjust the signal generators to create an
intermodulation product, then eyeball that product to the same S meter
reference level -- not an easy task with a few minutes time between the two
measurements. It may be more accurate in the long run to allow a +- 4 dB
variation from the standard level, to allow the test engineer to select a
whole-unit level, to make for a more accurate reading.  In a receiver with a
true 1:1 and 3:1 slope, there would be no difference of IP3 measured at any
level. In real-world receivers, this 4 dB variation would result in an IP3
reading that varied by the amount that the straightness of the curves
deviated from ideal over a 4-dB range. From my experience with receivers,
this generally would result in only a fractional dB difference in IP3, and I
might expect at least that much from the eyeball factor.

Now, one might say to skip the S meter and look only at receiver output, but
the only way to do that is with signals that are weak enough to be in the
linear range of the receiver.  We have seen receivers whose  AGC is so tight
that we can never get more than 9 dB change in receiver output no matter
what we do. In most radios, the receiver output will be the same at S5 as it
would at S9.  We could, for most receivers, do IP3 measurements at a
receiver output that is 10 dB below the 1 dB compression point, but that is
making an IP3 measurement at a level that is much less than the signals
typically encountered during actual receiver use.

All in all, I think we are on the right track with an S5ish output level and
it now is a matter of improving the standardization.

Actually, Doug and I agree pretty closely up to this point. Our differences
of opinion stem from "dynamic range" measurements. ARRL continues to make
dynamic range measurements at the noise floor, even though they are a bit
difficult to make.  We do this because the very definition of two-tone,
third-order dynamic range (TTTODR) is the difference between the noise floor
and an unwanted receiver response at the noise floor level. The definition
of blocking dynamic range (BDR) is the difference between the noise floor
and the level of signal that causes 1 dB of degradation in the the
receiver's performance.

When you look at the graphs, especially 1C, you can see that the
relationship between that actual measurement and IP3 and other points along
those curves is not as clear cut as theory might suggest.  Doug and Ulrich
both state that dynamic range can be calculated from an IP3 measurement made
at a higher level.  I disagree that this is the best way to determine
dynamic range.  First, one could get a different "dynamic range" at any
point along the curve and if the calculation is intended to go backwards to
the noise-floor level by assuming that lines that are not straight are
actually straight, I see no reason not to do what one already has to do to
get the noise floor reference in the first place, and make the actual
measurement at the noise floor. It is not, IMHO, an accurate measurement to
make a "dynamic range" measurement at a high level and then calculate
backwards to what the measurement would be if the receiver performed
differently than the receiver actually performs.  If an actual measurement
can be made -- impossible for IP3 -- then doing so is superior to any
calculation that assumes ideal performance where ideal performance is not
apt to exist.

What is lost doing it this way?  Well, an IP3 calculation made from dynamic
range could and probably will be different than an IP3 calculation made at
higher levels. Those that want to see everything add up in real-world
receivers as if those receivers followed theory perfectly will have to do a
bit of thinking about how real-world receivers actually perform. I think the
tradeoff to have measurements made that reflect what a receiver is actually
doing outweigh any lost sense of aesthetics.

What can also get lost is that many dynamic range measurements cannot be
made because receiver noise, notably reciprocal mixing, masks the
measurement being made.  In these cases, ARRL reports the measurements as
"noise limited" at the level that caused a 3 dB increase in noise for a
TTTODR measurement or a 1 dB increase in noise for a BDR measurement.

Doug has suggested that an audio spectrum analyzer be used to make receiver
measurements.  In the case of a measurement that is not affected by receiver
noise, there will be no difference between the measurement made with an
RMS-reading audio voltmeter and a spectrum analyzer. Actually, I take it
back, because the HP-339 has a spec of +-2% accuracy, if memory serves, and
the HP-8563E has an accuracy of 2 dB or about +-60% or so , although for
relative measurements made at a close frequency separation, the accuracy is
going to be better than spec for both instruments. In the case of a
measurement that is completely noise limited, the analyzer will buy nothing,
because if the receiver is swamped by its own phase noise in the presence of
strong signals, the analyzer can't be used to dig a distortion product out
of that noise. In between, though, is an area where the analyzer may be able
to do some things that the RMS-reading voltmeter cannot. Do we want to,
though?  I am not sure we do.

Let's look at one extreme. Assume that a receiver is noisy, but that an
intermodulation product can be detected 15 dB below the receiver noise
present during the test. Right now, with the RMS voltmeter method, we would
report that reading as being noise limited at N dB, with N being related to
the signal levels that caused the increase in noise instead of a distortion
product or blocking. Would it really be more useful to QST readers to dig
that distortion product out of the noise so that we could report that if the
receiver were not as noisy as it is, the dynamic range would have been N dB?
I really don't think so, and IMHO, the noise limited value is of more use to
QST readers than a "dynamic range" measurement that in that case cannot be
achieved by the receiver in practice.

Where could a spectrum analyzer be used more effectively than an RMS-reading
voltmeter? I have seen a few receivers where phase noise/reciprocal mixing
and the intermod or blocking seem to run neck and neck. In that case, the
good judgment of the test engineer has to sort out the intermod or blocking
from the noise and get a reading anyway. I think in these relatively rare
cases, the analyzer will do a better job than the RMS-reading voltmeter, in
spite of the specification inferiority of the analyzer. Mike Tracy intends
to look into that for an upcoming review. But do not discount the value of
an RMS-reading voltmeter, because an audio spectrum analyzer is doing
nothing different than the meter when measuring the desired signals and when
measuring the input noise of the receiver, the voltmeter is a LOT easier to
use.

> 3.  How the introduction of noise (from reciprocal mixing, from
> inaccuracies about knowledge of the rcvr's noise figure,
> imperfection about "knowing" the MDS of the particular
> rcvr,  etc.) is accounted for can cause inaccurate measurement
> results;  how these are accounted for ought to be part of
> the report of results for the measurement presented of IMD,
> IP's,  etc.  Also to be included is how the actual BW used
> in the measurement was determined and that number.
> (Note:  ARRL procedure is to just select whatever the
> rcvr has stated to be at or close to 500 Hz BW;  Doug
> notes that in various rcvrs tested the actual BW's
> ranged from 300 to 700 Hz for filters with 500 Hz labels).

I agree that some changes should be made in the way that ARRL reports
bandwidth. In reporting the noise floor of the receiver, this can only be
absolutely accurately interpreted if the rectangular bandwidth of the
receiver passband is also known. Of course, although noise figure of a
receiver is independent of bandwidth, one can really relate it to what one
will hear from a receiver in real use if one also knows the bandwidth of the
receiver.  So any method of reporting sensitivity is tied into bandwidth --
not surprising because the real-world performance of a receiver is also
related to bandwidth.  Right now, ARRL reports the -6 dB bandwidth points on
the receiver.  This is probably pretty close to the equivalent rectangular
bandwidth in most cases.  The League is also including some bandwidth
measurements in most of the expanded test-result reports that are done for
most rigs. Tidying up this loose end would be a good improvement to make.
But, as in the S5 reference level for IP3, we really are not talking more
than a few dB difference, if that, in almost all cases.

> 4. Doug discusses the ARRL IMD and IP measurement
> equipment set up and use explicitly.  He suggests the use
> of a better hybrid combiner for "summing" the outputs of
> the two input test signals;  he mentions his new design for
> same,  notes the ARRL is/was evaluating it,  but no mention
> of whether the ARRL labs will be using it now/in the future.
> He points to several isolation/filtering issues which need
> more attention within the present set up.

Doug has made a few assumptions that are not correct.  In addition to the
simple, two-port coupler method, ARRL also has a set of high-linearity 1-W
instrumentation amplifiers donated to us by Ulrich Rohde.  We have used
these to verify that with the old HP-8640B generators, the ARRL Lab can
accurately measure up to about +33 dBm IP3 and with the Marconi generators,
the test-fixture IMD is low enough to measure about +40 dBm IP3, if memory
serves.  All receivers measured to date are below that level, so the
two-port coupler is quite sufficient. I believe that Mike Tracy has
confirmed that the simple test setup is good to +75 dBm IP2. I do know that
although the amplifier setup is a lot more cumbersome, Mike always confirms
any IP3 readings above +25 dBm, just to ensure that ARRL is measuring the
unit under test, not the ARRL test fixture. We are also aware of the other
limitations of our test equipment and would NEVER knowingly report a number
that we were not convinced was a real unit measurement.

> 8.  Ed's conclusion in his sidebar piece seems a good summary
> comment to all of this:  " In the case of the receivers (tested here)
> what is the "true" intercept point of each receiver?  There really
> is no true number........ the tests took considerable time.  QST
> readers want to see Product Reviews as soon as possible,
> and the ARRL Lab can't take time to do much extra testing
> for radios being reviewed. Measurements made at the noise
> floor are difficult to make,  and the influence of the measured
> noise on an IP3 calculation made from receiver response at
> the noise floor is not a very accurate way to make
> measurements." (!)
>
> And yet,  that is exactly what is done by the ARRL and reported
> in their published rig test reports!  Not only that,  but note that
> every rig tested is going to be tested with different power levels
> since not every rig's S meter is going to read S = 5 with an
> exact -97 dBm input signal power pair.  And ARRL Labs take
> no account for the differing BW's of the selected filter "closest
> to a 500 Hz bandwidth,  nor even if the rig has one!

That is not exactly what is done by the ARRL and reported in their published
test reports. The measurements made at the noise floor are, well -- the
noise floor measurement and the dynamic range measurements.  There is no
other place to measure the noise floor and, as I outlined above, I believe
that a dynamic range measurement made at the noise floor is more accurate
than a calculation based on ideal receiver responses extrapolated from a
higher level. My words as written are exactly what ARRL does, an IP3
measurement made at the noise floor is not an accurate place to make an IP3
measurement, as can be readily seen in 2 or the 3 graphs in my sidebar.

> It seems that ARRL has neither the time,  the equipment nor
> the interest in publishing more accurate test data.  Hope folks
> will agree that this throws the accuracy responsibility back
> to the manufactures and ourselves,  their customers and our
> own "on the air" judgments about the performance of our
> radios.

That is below the belt and an absolutely incorrect statement.  Over the
years I have been involved in product testing for ARRL, I have made, and
will continue to make, improvements in the way ARRL tests and reports on
equipment. Our equipment is quite up to the tasks at hand here and after I
have spent literally hundreds of staff hours investigating test methods I
have to wonder why you would try to tell the world that ARRL has no interest
in publishing more accurate test data. The time that went into the sidebar
alone should have told you why saying was a cheap shot that has no place in
a technical discussion. I agree that improvements should be made, but they
are going to be made carefully, because if every time someone told me what
ARRL is doing "wrong," such as making dynamic range measurements at the
noise floor, the way ARRL tests equipment could change every month. That
would not serve amateur radio. If we are going to make a change, it will be
in full communication with manufacturers, who need to understand fully up
front how ARRL will test their equipment. In the case at hand, Ten Tec's own
IP2 and IP3 specs stipulate "ARRL method," although the way we test
equipment is really NOT different than that done by industry as a whole.

Some of the European societies do some comprehensive testing, but no one
that I know of has documented their test methods as thoroughly as ARRL. None
routinely offer 40+ page test result reports.  If you believe that ARRL's
test methods are inaccurate, take a receiver and test it using them, and
then the valid method of your choice and you should get the same answer,
within a dB or so anyway. If not, I want to know about it and you would be
more than welcome to visit us here in the ARRL Lab and see how we are doing
our testing.

In this post, I have outlined some of the reasons that ARRL is making the
testing choices it is using. I believe them to be the correct choices,
offering a reasonable level of standardization in testing and reporting on
receivers with a wide range of capabilities and "real-world" receiver
performance. There are improvements in the works, but they are not going to
make a night and day difference in results, because the test methods used
give good results for the test conditions employed, and most improvements I
can think of will serve only to tighten up a bit on the test conditions.

73,
Ed Hare, W1RFI
ARRL Lab
225 Main St
Newington, CT 06111
Tel: 860-594-0318
Internet: w1rfi at arrl.org
Web: http://www.arrl.org/tis

>