time-nuts@lists.febo.com

Discussion of precise time and frequency measurement

View all threads

Which GPSDO for an accurate, low phase noise 10 MHz?

BK
Bill Katz
Tue, Apr 29, 2025 3:17 AM

Hello.
I found this group last year when I was working on my microwave rover
station (up to 10GHz currently, 24 GHz soon) when I ran into a challenge.

First I bought a small Rubidium standard, hoping that would keep my system
accurate. (Symmetricom x72 from ebay).  It looked fine with some
transverters, but with one brand the phase noise was so bad, one couldn't
make out the primary tone on the spectrum analyzer.  The next step was a
club member sent me an HP 10811A, which has great phase noise, but showed
some drift when I fed my counter from the rubidium standard.

Oh, and once I repaired the (apparently somewhat common) temperature fuse
inside the second 10811A inside the counter, I now had two oscillators that
almost agree.  Almost.

So I'd like to get something that can run the instruments in my house, and
allow me to calibrate the OCXO in my rover equipment.  And tweak in the
various other OCXO standards.

At the high end, there are used HP Z3801As that seem to have excellent
phase noise, but are somewhat expensive.  At about half the price are used
Thunderbolt units.  and there are a myriad of other options.  What are the
pros/cons of some of these units?

Thank you,
Bill Katz
KA1TZ

Hello. I found this group last year when I was working on my microwave rover station (up to 10GHz currently, 24 GHz soon) when I ran into a challenge. First I bought a small Rubidium standard, hoping that would keep my system accurate. (Symmetricom x72 from ebay). It looked fine with some transverters, but with one brand the phase noise was so bad, one couldn't make out the primary tone on the spectrum analyzer. The next step was a club member sent me an HP 10811A, which has great phase noise, but showed some drift when I fed my counter from the rubidium standard. Oh, and once I repaired the (apparently somewhat common) temperature fuse inside the second 10811A inside the counter, I now had two oscillators that almost agree. Almost. So I'd like to get something that can run the instruments in my house, and allow me to calibrate the OCXO in my rover equipment. And tweak in the various other OCXO standards. At the high end, there are used HP Z3801As that seem to have excellent phase noise, but are somewhat expensive. At about half the price are used Thunderbolt units. and there are a myriad of other options. What are the pros/cons of some of these units? Thank you, Bill Katz KA1TZ
GM
Greg Maxwell
Tue, Apr 29, 2025 6:33 AM

For radio I use a PRS10 (/SRS725) that is conditioned on its 1PPS input by
a gps timing receiver-- though I'm not currently doing anything as high as
10GHz, and its phase noise ( http://www.ke5fx.com/rb.htm ) probably gets
beat by your 10811A... if all you really need is signal to adjust your
OCXOs then the phase noise performance ought not matter (so long as it
isn't completely awful), and your x72 or any timing receiver PPS ought to
be enough to serve that purpose.

For a while PRS10 could easily be extracted from various bits of kit that
showed up on ebay, though I'm not sure if that's still true.

but with one brand the phase noise was so bad, one couldn't make out the

primary tone on the spectrum analyzer

I think that's likely the fault of the particular transverter.  If you
multiplying an oscillator up to 10GHz then that is going to be very
sensitive and it really needs a good cleanup oscillator.

On Tue, Apr 29, 2025 at 4:03 AM Bill Katz via time-nuts <
time-nuts@lists.febo.com> wrote:

Hello.
I found this group last year when I was working on my microwave rover
station (up to 10GHz currently, 24 GHz soon) when I ran into a challenge.

First I bought a small Rubidium standard, hoping that would keep my system
accurate. (Symmetricom x72 from ebay).  It looked fine with some
transverters, but with one brand the phase noise was so bad, one couldn't
make out the primary tone on the spectrum analyzer.  The next step was a
club member sent me an HP 10811A, which has great phase noise, but showed
some drift when I fed my counter from the rubidium standard.

Oh, and once I repaired the (apparently somewhat common) temperature fuse
inside the second 10811A inside the counter, I now had two oscillators that
almost agree.  Almost.

So I'd like to get something that can run the instruments in my house, and
allow me to calibrate the OCXO in my rover equipment.  And tweak in the
various other OCXO standards.

At the high end, there are used HP Z3801As that seem to have excellent
phase noise, but are somewhat expensive.  At about half the price are used
Thunderbolt units.  and there are a myriad of other options.  What are the
pros/cons of some of these units?

Thank you,
Bill Katz
KA1TZ


time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@lists.febo.com
To unsubscribe send an email to time-nuts-leave@lists.febo.com

For radio I use a PRS10 (/SRS725) that is conditioned on its 1PPS input by a gps timing receiver-- though I'm not currently doing anything as high as 10GHz, and its phase noise ( http://www.ke5fx.com/rb.htm ) probably gets beat by your 10811A... if all you really need is signal to adjust your OCXOs then the phase noise performance ought not matter (so long as it isn't completely awful), and your x72 or any timing receiver PPS ought to be enough to serve that purpose. For a while PRS10 could easily be extracted from various bits of kit that showed up on ebay, though I'm not sure if that's still true. > but with one brand the phase noise was so bad, one couldn't make out the primary tone on the spectrum analyzer I think that's likely the fault of the particular transverter. If you multiplying an oscillator up to 10GHz then that is going to be very sensitive and it really needs a good cleanup oscillator. On Tue, Apr 29, 2025 at 4:03 AM Bill Katz via time-nuts < time-nuts@lists.febo.com> wrote: > Hello. > I found this group last year when I was working on my microwave rover > station (up to 10GHz currently, 24 GHz soon) when I ran into a challenge. > > First I bought a small Rubidium standard, hoping that would keep my system > accurate. (Symmetricom x72 from ebay). It looked fine with some > transverters, but with one brand the phase noise was so bad, one couldn't > make out the primary tone on the spectrum analyzer. The next step was a > club member sent me an HP 10811A, which has great phase noise, but showed > some drift when I fed my counter from the rubidium standard. > > Oh, and once I repaired the (apparently somewhat common) temperature fuse > inside the second 10811A inside the counter, I now had two oscillators that > almost agree. Almost. > > So I'd like to get something that can run the instruments in my house, and > allow me to calibrate the OCXO in my rover equipment. And tweak in the > various other OCXO standards. > > At the high end, there are used HP Z3801As that seem to have excellent > phase noise, but are somewhat expensive. At about half the price are used > Thunderbolt units. and there are a myriad of other options. What are the > pros/cons of some of these units? > > Thank you, > Bill Katz > KA1TZ > _______________________________________________ > time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@lists.febo.com > To unsubscribe send an email to time-nuts-leave@lists.febo.com >
BC
Bob Camp
Tue, Apr 29, 2025 12:02 PM

Hi

Any source at 10 MHz will have issues if multiplied directly to 10 GHz.

Your phase noise goes up be 20 log N. You are multiplying by a thousand. The
net result is phase noise that is 60 db worse at 10 GHz than at 10 MHz.

Even your “pretty good” 10811 will be suffering when you do that.

The answer is to go up to 10 GHz in stages. One of about a billion approaches:

  1. lock up a quiet 100 MHz crystal oscillator to your 10 MHz source set the PLL
    bandwidth to maybe 50 Hz. Outside that bandwidth the quieter 100 MHz source
    “rules”.

  2. Do the same thing to get to (maybe) 1 GHz. Lock up a DRO there. Same idea
    with PLL bandwidth.

  3. Now step up to 10 GHz and lock up a third quiet oscillator.

In each case you are making a tradeoff. The phase noise at some offset from carrier
on each of the 100, 1G, 10G sources is below that of the “multiplied up” source you
are locking to. Closer in to carrier that’s not the case.

GPSDO’s are no different.

GPS “as delivered” is a very noisy signal. The typical module adds to this noise.
This means it is not a good source to use for at all “offsets”. What gets confusing
is that we now talk about offsets with units of time rather than frequency. That’s
a pretty common thing as you go below 1 Hz.

Averaged over a second, your GPS is very poor compared to just about any crystal
oscillator you might pick. Compared to your 10811 it might be poor out to 100’s of
seconds.

The same process applies here as to the 10 GHz setup. You very much have to pick
that crossover point between the lousy GPS signal and your great local standard.

Why even do this? Eventually GPS wins. Go out long enough in time and it will out
perform anything you likely have hooked to your radio. Some GPS’s do better than
others. They will “win more” long term. It should be no big surprise that those modules
cost more than the ones that don’t perform as well.

These days, the eBay or typical home brew GPSDO uses a simple GPS module for
cost reasons. That’s not a bad idea as long as the end result meets your needs.
Don’t spend $3,000 if $100 will solve the problem ….

Bob

On Apr 28, 2025, at 11:17 PM, Bill Katz via time-nuts time-nuts@lists.febo.com wrote:

Hello.
I found this group last year when I was working on my microwave rover
station (up to 10GHz currently, 24 GHz soon) when I ran into a challenge.

First I bought a small Rubidium standard, hoping that would keep my system
accurate. (Symmetricom x72 from ebay).  It looked fine with some
transverters, but with one brand the phase noise was so bad, one couldn't
make out the primary tone on the spectrum analyzer.  The next step was a
club member sent me an HP 10811A, which has great phase noise, but showed
some drift when I fed my counter from the rubidium standard.

Oh, and once I repaired the (apparently somewhat common) temperature fuse
inside the second 10811A inside the counter, I now had two oscillators that
almost agree.  Almost.

So I'd like to get something that can run the instruments in my house, and
allow me to calibrate the OCXO in my rover equipment.  And tweak in the
various other OCXO standards.

At the high end, there are used HP Z3801As that seem to have excellent
phase noise, but are somewhat expensive.  At about half the price are used
Thunderbolt units.  and there are a myriad of other options.  What are the
pros/cons of some of these units?

Thank you,
Bill Katz
KA1TZ


time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@lists.febo.com
To unsubscribe send an email to time-nuts-leave@lists.febo.com

Hi Any source at 10 MHz will have issues if multiplied directly to 10 GHz. Your phase noise goes up be 20 log N. You are multiplying by a thousand. The net result is phase noise that is 60 db worse at 10 GHz than at 10 MHz. Even your “pretty good” 10811 will be suffering when you do that. The answer is to go up to 10 GHz in stages. One of about a billion approaches: 1) lock up a quiet 100 MHz crystal oscillator to your 10 MHz source set the PLL bandwidth to maybe 50 Hz. Outside that bandwidth the quieter 100 MHz source “rules”. 2) Do the same thing to get to (maybe) 1 GHz. Lock up a DRO there. Same idea with PLL bandwidth. 3) Now step up to 10 GHz and lock up a third quiet oscillator. In each case you are making a tradeoff. The phase noise at some offset from carrier on each of the 100, 1G, 10G sources is below that of the “multiplied up” source you are locking to. Closer in to carrier that’s not the case. GPSDO’s are no different. GPS “as delivered” is a very noisy signal. The typical module adds to this noise. This means it is not a good source to use for at all “offsets”. What gets confusing is that we now talk about offsets with units of time rather than frequency. That’s a pretty common thing as you go below 1 Hz. Averaged over a second, your GPS is very poor compared to just about any crystal oscillator you might pick. Compared to your 10811 it might be poor out to 100’s of seconds. The same process applies here as to the 10 GHz setup. You very much have to pick that crossover point between the lousy GPS signal and your great local standard. Why even do this? Eventually GPS wins. Go out long enough in time and it will out perform anything you likely have hooked to your radio. Some GPS’s do better than others. They will “win more” long term. It should be no big surprise that those modules cost more than the ones that don’t perform as well. These days, the eBay or typical home brew GPSDO uses a simple GPS module for cost reasons. That’s not a bad idea as long as the end result meets your needs. Don’t spend $3,000 if $100 will solve the problem …. Bob > On Apr 28, 2025, at 11:17 PM, Bill Katz via time-nuts <time-nuts@lists.febo.com> wrote: > > Hello. > I found this group last year when I was working on my microwave rover > station (up to 10GHz currently, 24 GHz soon) when I ran into a challenge. > > First I bought a small Rubidium standard, hoping that would keep my system > accurate. (Symmetricom x72 from ebay). It looked fine with some > transverters, but with one brand the phase noise was so bad, one couldn't > make out the primary tone on the spectrum analyzer. The next step was a > club member sent me an HP 10811A, which has great phase noise, but showed > some drift when I fed my counter from the rubidium standard. > > Oh, and once I repaired the (apparently somewhat common) temperature fuse > inside the second 10811A inside the counter, I now had two oscillators that > almost agree. Almost. > > So I'd like to get something that can run the instruments in my house, and > allow me to calibrate the OCXO in my rover equipment. And tweak in the > various other OCXO standards. > > At the high end, there are used HP Z3801As that seem to have excellent > phase noise, but are somewhat expensive. At about half the price are used > Thunderbolt units. and there are a myriad of other options. What are the > pros/cons of some of these units? > > Thank you, > Bill Katz > KA1TZ > _______________________________________________ > time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@lists.febo.com > To unsubscribe send an email to time-nuts-leave@lists.febo.com
EM
Ed Marciniak
Tue, Apr 29, 2025 4:05 PM

A while back I recall seeing an Australian company that offered a sapphire “whispering gallery” (in this context simply meaning the cavity equivalent of a waveguide operating in a higher order mode with lower losses) oscillator with a regenerative divider for direct 10GHz output. I assume they probably took a silver plated copper cavity and shrink fitted it onto the sapphire, or metallized the sapphire and then fitted it into a housing. I have no idea how they’d tune it.

Unfortunately, I’m going to assume it was far more costly than would work for me or my use cases.

For the rest of us, the best reasonable cost ~10GHz solution available is likely a DRO with a sampling phase detector locked to a ~100-200MHz oscillator, which succeeded the 70-80s technique of an VHF ~100MHz SC cut crystal locking an ~1.6 GHz cavity oscillator (with a sampling phase detector), followed by an SRD (Frequency west/CTI/MA-COM brick). It’s either that or tolerate synthesizer phase noise and noise sidebands.


From: Bob Camp via time-nuts time-nuts@lists.febo.com
Sent: Tuesday, April 29, 2025 7:02:33 AM
To: Discussion of precise time and frequency measurement time-nuts@lists.febo.com
Cc: Bob Camp kb8tq@n1k.org
Subject: [time-nuts] Re: Which GPSDO for an accurate, low phase noise 10 MHz?

Hi

Any source at 10 MHz will have issues if multiplied directly to 10 GHz.

Your phase noise goes up be 20 log N. You are multiplying by a thousand. The
net result is phase noise that is 60 db worse at 10 GHz than at 10 MHz.

Even your “pretty good” 10811 will be suffering when you do that.

The answer is to go up to 10 GHz in stages. One of about a billion approaches:

  1. lock up a quiet 100 MHz crystal oscillator to your 10 MHz source set the PLL
    bandwidth to maybe 50 Hz. Outside that bandwidth the quieter 100 MHz source
    “rules”.

  2. Do the same thing to get to (maybe) 1 GHz. Lock up a DRO there. Same idea
    with PLL bandwidth.

  3. Now step up to 10 GHz and lock up a third quiet oscillator.

In each case you are making a tradeoff. The phase noise at some offset from carrier
on each of the 100, 1G, 10G sources is below that of the “multiplied up” source you
are locking to. Closer in to carrier that’s not the case.

GPSDO’s are no different.

GPS “as delivered” is a very noisy signal. The typical module adds to this noise.
This means it is not a good source to use for at all “offsets”. What gets confusing
is that we now talk about offsets with units of time rather than frequency. That’s
a pretty common thing as you go below 1 Hz.

Averaged over a second, your GPS is very poor compared to just about any crystal
oscillator you might pick. Compared to your 10811 it might be poor out to 100’s of
seconds.

The same process applies here as to the 10 GHz setup. You very much have to pick
that crossover point between the lousy GPS signal and your great local standard.

Why even do this? Eventually GPS wins. Go out long enough in time and it will out
perform anything you likely have hooked to your radio. Some GPS’s do better than
others. They will “win more” long term. It should be no big surprise that those modules
cost more than the ones that don’t perform as well.

These days, the eBay or typical home brew GPSDO uses a simple GPS module for
cost reasons. That’s not a bad idea as long as the end result meets your needs.
Don’t spend $3,000 if $100 will solve the problem ….

Bob

On Apr 28, 2025, at 11:17 PM, Bill Katz via time-nuts time-nuts@lists.febo.com wrote:

Hello.
I found this group last year when I was working on my microwave rover
station (up to 10GHz currently, 24 GHz soon) when I ran into a challenge.

First I bought a small Rubidium standard, hoping that would keep my system
accurate. (Symmetricom x72 from ebay).  It looked fine with some
transverters, but with one brand the phase noise was so bad, one couldn't
make out the primary tone on the spectrum analyzer.  The next step was a
club member sent me an HP 10811A, which has great phase noise, but showed
some drift when I fed my counter from the rubidium standard.

Oh, and once I repaired the (apparently somewhat common) temperature fuse
inside the second 10811A inside the counter, I now had two oscillators that
almost agree.  Almost.

So I'd like to get something that can run the instruments in my house, and
allow me to calibrate the OCXO in my rover equipment.  And tweak in the
various other OCXO standards.

At the high end, there are used HP Z3801As that seem to have excellent
phase noise, but are somewhat expensive.  At about half the price are used
Thunderbolt units.  and there are a myriad of other options.  What are the
pros/cons of some of these units?

Thank you,
Bill Katz
KA1TZ


time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@lists.febo.com
To unsubscribe send an email to time-nuts-leave@lists.febo.com


time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@lists.febo.com
To unsubscribe send an email to time-nuts-leave@lists.febo.com

A while back I recall seeing an Australian company that offered a sapphire “whispering gallery” (in this context simply meaning the cavity equivalent of a waveguide operating in a higher order mode with lower losses) oscillator with a regenerative divider for direct 10GHz output. I assume they probably took a silver plated copper cavity and shrink fitted it onto the sapphire, or metallized the sapphire and then fitted it into a housing. I have no idea how they’d tune it. Unfortunately, I’m going to assume it was far more costly than would work for me or my use cases. For the rest of us, the best reasonable cost ~10GHz solution available is likely a DRO with a sampling phase detector locked to a ~100-200MHz oscillator, which succeeded the 70-80s technique of an VHF ~100MHz SC cut crystal locking an ~1.6 GHz cavity oscillator (with a sampling phase detector), followed by an SRD (Frequency west/CTI/MA-COM brick). It’s either that or tolerate synthesizer phase noise and noise sidebands. ________________________________ From: Bob Camp via time-nuts <time-nuts@lists.febo.com> Sent: Tuesday, April 29, 2025 7:02:33 AM To: Discussion of precise time and frequency measurement <time-nuts@lists.febo.com> Cc: Bob Camp <kb8tq@n1k.org> Subject: [time-nuts] Re: Which GPSDO for an accurate, low phase noise 10 MHz? Hi Any source at 10 MHz will have issues if multiplied directly to 10 GHz. Your phase noise goes up be 20 log N. You are multiplying by a thousand. The net result is phase noise that is 60 db worse at 10 GHz than at 10 MHz. Even your “pretty good” 10811 will be suffering when you do that. The answer is to go up to 10 GHz in stages. One of about a billion approaches: 1) lock up a quiet 100 MHz crystal oscillator to your 10 MHz source set the PLL bandwidth to maybe 50 Hz. Outside that bandwidth the quieter 100 MHz source “rules”. 2) Do the same thing to get to (maybe) 1 GHz. Lock up a DRO there. Same idea with PLL bandwidth. 3) Now step up to 10 GHz and lock up a third quiet oscillator. In each case you are making a tradeoff. The phase noise at some offset from carrier on each of the 100, 1G, 10G sources is below that of the “multiplied up” source you are locking to. Closer in to carrier that’s not the case. GPSDO’s are no different. GPS “as delivered” is a very noisy signal. The typical module adds to this noise. This means it is not a good source to use for at all “offsets”. What gets confusing is that we now talk about offsets with units of time rather than frequency. That’s a pretty common thing as you go below 1 Hz. Averaged over a second, your GPS is very poor compared to just about any crystal oscillator you might pick. Compared to your 10811 it might be poor out to 100’s of seconds. The same process applies here as to the 10 GHz setup. You very much have to pick that crossover point between the lousy GPS signal and your great local standard. Why even do this? Eventually GPS wins. Go out long enough in time and it will out perform anything you likely have hooked to your radio. Some GPS’s do better than others. They will “win more” long term. It should be no big surprise that those modules cost more than the ones that don’t perform as well. These days, the eBay or typical home brew GPSDO uses a simple GPS module for cost reasons. That’s not a bad idea as long as the end result meets your needs. Don’t spend $3,000 if $100 will solve the problem …. Bob > On Apr 28, 2025, at 11:17 PM, Bill Katz via time-nuts <time-nuts@lists.febo.com> wrote: > > Hello. > I found this group last year when I was working on my microwave rover > station (up to 10GHz currently, 24 GHz soon) when I ran into a challenge. > > First I bought a small Rubidium standard, hoping that would keep my system > accurate. (Symmetricom x72 from ebay). It looked fine with some > transverters, but with one brand the phase noise was so bad, one couldn't > make out the primary tone on the spectrum analyzer. The next step was a > club member sent me an HP 10811A, which has great phase noise, but showed > some drift when I fed my counter from the rubidium standard. > > Oh, and once I repaired the (apparently somewhat common) temperature fuse > inside the second 10811A inside the counter, I now had two oscillators that > almost agree. Almost. > > So I'd like to get something that can run the instruments in my house, and > allow me to calibrate the OCXO in my rover equipment. And tweak in the > various other OCXO standards. > > At the high end, there are used HP Z3801As that seem to have excellent > phase noise, but are somewhat expensive. At about half the price are used > Thunderbolt units. and there are a myriad of other options. What are the > pros/cons of some of these units? > > Thank you, > Bill Katz > KA1TZ > _______________________________________________ > time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@lists.febo.com > To unsubscribe send an email to time-nuts-leave@lists.febo.com _______________________________________________ time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@lists.febo.com To unsubscribe send an email to time-nuts-leave@lists.febo.com
MW
Michael Wouters
Tue, Apr 29, 2025 10:43 PM

Hello Ed

Cryogenic sapphire oscillators (CSOs) aren’t metallized - confinement of
the microwaves is by total internal reflection of the propagating waves.

They cost about a million dollars but you get short term stability better
than 1E-15 off the shelf.

Regards
Michael

On Wed, 30 Apr 2025 at 6:22 am, Ed Marciniak via time-nuts <
time-nuts@lists.febo.com> wrote:

A while back I recall seeing an Australian company that offered a sapphire
“whispering gallery” (in this context simply meaning the cavity equivalent
of a waveguide operating in a higher order mode with lower losses)
oscillator with a regenerative divider for direct 10GHz output. I assume
they probably took a silver plated copper cavity and shrink fitted it onto
the sapphire, or metallized the sapphire and then fitted it into a housing.
I have no idea how they’d tune it.

Unfortunately, I’m going to assume it was far more costly than would work
for me or my use cases.

For the rest of us, the best reasonable cost ~10GHz solution available is
likely a DRO with a sampling phase detector locked to a ~100-200MHz
oscillator, which succeeded the 70-80s technique of an VHF ~100MHz SC cut
crystal locking an ~1.6 GHz cavity oscillator (with a sampling phase
detector), followed by an SRD (Frequency west/CTI/MA-COM brick). It’s
either that or tolerate synthesizer phase noise and noise sidebands.


From: Bob Camp via time-nuts time-nuts@lists.febo.com
Sent: Tuesday, April 29, 2025 7:02:33 AM
To: Discussion of precise time and frequency measurement <
time-nuts@lists.febo.com>
Cc: Bob Camp kb8tq@n1k.org
Subject: [time-nuts] Re: Which GPSDO for an accurate, low phase noise 10
MHz?

Hi

Any source at 10 MHz will have issues if multiplied directly to 10 GHz.

Your phase noise goes up be 20 log N. You are multiplying by a thousand.
The
net result is phase noise that is 60 db worse at 10 GHz than at 10 MHz.

Even your “pretty good” 10811 will be suffering when you do that.

The answer is to go up to 10 GHz in stages. One of about a billion
approaches:

  1. lock up a quiet 100 MHz crystal oscillator to your 10 MHz source set
    the PLL
    bandwidth to maybe 50 Hz. Outside that bandwidth the quieter 100 MHz source
    “rules”.

  2. Do the same thing to get to (maybe) 1 GHz. Lock up a DRO there. Same
    idea
    with PLL bandwidth.

  3. Now step up to 10 GHz and lock up a third quiet oscillator.

In each case you are making a tradeoff. The phase noise at some offset
from carrier
on each of the 100, 1G, 10G sources is below that of the “multiplied up”
source you
are locking to. Closer in to carrier that’s not the case.

GPSDO’s are no different.

GPS “as delivered” is a very noisy signal. The typical module adds to this
noise.
This means it is not a good source to use for at all “offsets”. What gets
confusing
is that we now talk about offsets with units of time rather than
frequency. That’s
a pretty common thing as you go below 1 Hz.

Averaged over a second, your GPS is very poor compared to just about any
crystal
oscillator you might pick. Compared to your 10811 it might be poor out to
100’s of
seconds.

The same process applies here as to the 10 GHz setup. You very much have
to pick
that crossover point between the lousy GPS signal and your great local
standard.

Why even do this? Eventually GPS wins. Go out long enough in time and it
will out
perform anything you likely have hooked to your radio. Some GPS’s do
better than
others. They will “win more” long term. It should be no big surprise that
those modules
cost more than the ones that don’t perform as well.

These days, the eBay or typical home brew GPSDO uses a simple GPS module
for
cost reasons. That’s not a bad idea as long as the end result meets your
needs.
Don’t spend $3,000 if $100 will solve the problem ….

Bob

On Apr 28, 2025, at 11:17 PM, Bill Katz via time-nuts <

Hello.
I found this group last year when I was working on my microwave rover
station (up to 10GHz currently, 24 GHz soon) when I ran into a challenge.

First I bought a small Rubidium standard, hoping that would keep my

system

accurate. (Symmetricom x72 from ebay).  It looked fine with some
transverters, but with one brand the phase noise was so bad, one couldn't
make out the primary tone on the spectrum analyzer.  The next step was a
club member sent me an HP 10811A, which has great phase noise, but showed
some drift when I fed my counter from the rubidium standard.

Oh, and once I repaired the (apparently somewhat common) temperature fuse
inside the second 10811A inside the counter, I now had two oscillators

that

almost agree.  Almost.

So I'd like to get something that can run the instruments in my house,

and

allow me to calibrate the OCXO in my rover equipment.  And tweak in the
various other OCXO standards.

At the high end, there are used HP Z3801As that seem to have excellent
phase noise, but are somewhat expensive.  At about half the price are

used

Thunderbolt units.  and there are a myriad of other options.  What are

the

pros/cons of some of these units?

Thank you,
Bill Katz
KA1TZ


time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@lists.febo.com
To unsubscribe send an email to time-nuts-leave@lists.febo.com


time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@lists.febo.com
To unsubscribe send an email to time-nuts-leave@lists.febo.com


time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@lists.febo.com
To unsubscribe send an email to time-nuts-leave@lists.febo.com

Hello Ed Cryogenic sapphire oscillators (CSOs) aren’t metallized - confinement of the microwaves is by total internal reflection of the propagating waves. They cost about a million dollars but you get short term stability better than 1E-15 off the shelf. Regards Michael On Wed, 30 Apr 2025 at 6:22 am, Ed Marciniak via time-nuts < time-nuts@lists.febo.com> wrote: > A while back I recall seeing an Australian company that offered a sapphire > “whispering gallery” (in this context simply meaning the cavity equivalent > of a waveguide operating in a higher order mode with lower losses) > oscillator with a regenerative divider for direct 10GHz output. I assume > they probably took a silver plated copper cavity and shrink fitted it onto > the sapphire, or metallized the sapphire and then fitted it into a housing. > I have no idea how they’d tune it. > > Unfortunately, I’m going to assume it was far more costly than would work > for me or my use cases. > > For the rest of us, the best reasonable cost ~10GHz solution available is > likely a DRO with a sampling phase detector locked to a ~100-200MHz > oscillator, which succeeded the 70-80s technique of an VHF ~100MHz SC cut > crystal locking an ~1.6 GHz cavity oscillator (with a sampling phase > detector), followed by an SRD (Frequency west/CTI/MA-COM brick). It’s > either that or tolerate synthesizer phase noise and noise sidebands. > > ________________________________ > From: Bob Camp via time-nuts <time-nuts@lists.febo.com> > Sent: Tuesday, April 29, 2025 7:02:33 AM > To: Discussion of precise time and frequency measurement < > time-nuts@lists.febo.com> > Cc: Bob Camp <kb8tq@n1k.org> > Subject: [time-nuts] Re: Which GPSDO for an accurate, low phase noise 10 > MHz? > > Hi > > Any source at 10 MHz will have issues if multiplied directly to 10 GHz. > > Your phase noise goes up be 20 log N. You are multiplying by a thousand. > The > net result is phase noise that is 60 db worse at 10 GHz than at 10 MHz. > > Even your “pretty good” 10811 will be suffering when you do that. > > The answer is to go up to 10 GHz in stages. One of about a billion > approaches: > > 1) lock up a quiet 100 MHz crystal oscillator to your 10 MHz source set > the PLL > bandwidth to maybe 50 Hz. Outside that bandwidth the quieter 100 MHz source > “rules”. > > 2) Do the same thing to get to (maybe) 1 GHz. Lock up a DRO there. Same > idea > with PLL bandwidth. > > 3) Now step up to 10 GHz and lock up a third quiet oscillator. > > In each case you are making a tradeoff. The phase noise at some offset > from carrier > on each of the 100, 1G, 10G sources is below that of the “multiplied up” > source you > are locking to. Closer in to carrier that’s not the case. > > GPSDO’s are no different. > > GPS “as delivered” is a very noisy signal. The typical module adds to this > noise. > This means it is not a good source to use for at all “offsets”. What gets > confusing > is that we now talk about offsets with units of time rather than > frequency. That’s > a pretty common thing as you go below 1 Hz. > > Averaged over a second, your GPS is very poor compared to just about any > crystal > oscillator you might pick. Compared to your 10811 it might be poor out to > 100’s of > seconds. > > The same process applies here as to the 10 GHz setup. You very much have > to pick > that crossover point between the lousy GPS signal and your great local > standard. > > Why even do this? Eventually GPS wins. Go out long enough in time and it > will out > perform anything you likely have hooked to your radio. Some GPS’s do > better than > others. They will “win more” long term. It should be no big surprise that > those modules > cost more than the ones that don’t perform as well. > > These days, the eBay or typical home brew GPSDO uses a simple GPS module > for > cost reasons. That’s not a bad idea as long as the end result meets your > needs. > Don’t spend $3,000 if $100 will solve the problem …. > > Bob > > > > On Apr 28, 2025, at 11:17 PM, Bill Katz via time-nuts < > time-nuts@lists.febo.com> wrote: > > > > Hello. > > I found this group last year when I was working on my microwave rover > > station (up to 10GHz currently, 24 GHz soon) when I ran into a challenge. > > > > First I bought a small Rubidium standard, hoping that would keep my > system > > accurate. (Symmetricom x72 from ebay). It looked fine with some > > transverters, but with one brand the phase noise was so bad, one couldn't > > make out the primary tone on the spectrum analyzer. The next step was a > > club member sent me an HP 10811A, which has great phase noise, but showed > > some drift when I fed my counter from the rubidium standard. > > > > Oh, and once I repaired the (apparently somewhat common) temperature fuse > > inside the second 10811A inside the counter, I now had two oscillators > that > > almost agree. Almost. > > > > So I'd like to get something that can run the instruments in my house, > and > > allow me to calibrate the OCXO in my rover equipment. And tweak in the > > various other OCXO standards. > > > > At the high end, there are used HP Z3801As that seem to have excellent > > phase noise, but are somewhat expensive. At about half the price are > used > > Thunderbolt units. and there are a myriad of other options. What are > the > > pros/cons of some of these units? > > > > Thank you, > > Bill Katz > > KA1TZ > > _______________________________________________ > > time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@lists.febo.com > > To unsubscribe send an email to time-nuts-leave@lists.febo.com > _______________________________________________ > time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@lists.febo.com > To unsubscribe send an email to time-nuts-leave@lists.febo.com > _______________________________________________ > time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@lists.febo.com > To unsubscribe send an email to time-nuts-leave@lists.febo.com