tinySA versus Siglent SSA3021X+

[@johnwest7993]

For HF work I have a TinySA that I use all the time, and I have an HP 3585A sitting on the bench gathering dust. If I were writing a research paper I'd use the HP. But I'm not, and for every-day jobs the TinySA simply can't be beat. If I'd had a TinySA 40 years ago I would have been happier than a pig in mud, and I would have been able to do many things I was never able to do in electronics until recently. It's an inexpensive, powerful, and convenient tool. If you do RF, and you don't have one, get one, and get a NanoVNA, too. Pay an extra $15 and get them from the approved vendors and you will be glad you did.

[@ovi_4]

You seem to truly praise the Tiny very much against the HP. Now (in 2024) there is a Tiny SA ULTRA version of it. My intention is to use it purely for ordinary vintage AM and FM radios (vacuum tiube as well as solid state ones. My question to you is: Would the Tiny SA or ULTRA variant satisfy my needs to properly do that job or should I rather fork out big Dollar for a full size SA such as SIGLENT??? Or the likes ??? Tnx.

[@amham48]

Excellent comparison and the Tiny SA is truly amazing for it's price! It just needs a larger screen in the next iteration.

[@Chettuser]

RBW too!

[@edinfific2576]

I've got my TinySA Ultra and I'm happy with it so far. It is very accurate and fairly sensitive. If a new version came out with faster scanning and lower noise floor, I would consider buying it.

[@pericha2]

Tiny SA works a lot slower than Siglent. Averaging is on, clearly visible by the shape of noise, while none on the Siglent. Moreover the window function is not the same and that can affect how small signals can be be seen. Also Tiny SA very well optimises input parameters for best measurements, while Siglent needs manual adjustment for best performance. When measuring signals close to noise floor without averaging, noise contributes to measured peak level. I would like to see remake of this video addressing the issues mentioned here, and with better exposure so we can clarly see all numbers on both displays. However Tiny SA is great spectrum analyser even without taking into account the price.

[@BaldurNorddahl]

he disabled the preamp and averaging on the siglent. All other parms limited to what the tinysa can do. You would not use the siglent instrument in this way. The tinysa is amazing so I feel a bit sad about such a unneeded misleading comparison.

[@vidasvv]

EXCELLENT video Erik, tnx 4 the upload ! 73

[@randyjones6225]

The harmonics on the Siglent were noticeably higher than the TinySA, but the reference level was set at -20 dBm, while the TinySA appeared to be at 0 dBm, suggesting that the Siglent input was being overloaded. At least, that is what I observed in the video.

[@ErikKaashoek]

Both where using 0dB attenuation and measured the same level for the fundamental. The Siglent can not be set to a ref level of 0dBm with 0dB attenuation so I had to use -20dBm but the table shows the correct level of the fundamental.

[@DavidAnthonyAlbert]

@@ErikKaashoek@randyjones6225 is correct, you were clearly over-driving the SSA with a signal well above the reference level; if you had configured the SSA properly, it would not have shown the spurious signals. A reasonable criticism of the SSA is that it should have indicated an overload, but it's quite clear that's why the harmonics were there, not because of any fundamental flaw in the SSA's front end.

[@CLGilbert]

@@DavidAnthonyAlbert What would have been a proper configuration in this case? Wasn't the Siglent's Dynamic range exhausted?

[@dutchradiopirate]

Hi Erik, did you ever try to analyze a DAB signal with the TinySA? I AM trying to find a way to visualize the shoulders - but for somee reason i am not suceeding and do not see the shoulders clearly

[@JohnUsp]

You need to remake this video comparing against the tinySA ULTRA.

[@erin19030]

Ive ordered the TinySA in hopes of verifying the IF response of AM Radios and tracking down spurious interference signal within each radio I work on. If all goes well I want to integrate several SA’s in my electronics classroom to help college students , with the basic theory as part of my Physics students ,about the Radio Frequency Spectrum. We build projects like the Theremin, AM breadboard radios and digital circuit theory. I have great hopes to see an SA at every work station in my labs.

[@edinfific2576]

So, any updates?

[@dougbas3980]

Wow! Can not believe the ability of this cheap tool!

[@w5cdt]

It compares favorably with my R&S FSP-7. Equal or better noise figure and dynamic range.

[@raindropsrising7662]

Thank you for the comparison and the work on TinySA. Highly educational. Just ordered the Ultra.

[@brianmiller6320]

Nice to see this comparison, too many other reviews claim the TinySA can’t do this that and the other, when in fact it does show itself to be better than some other devices when in the right hands. Thank you Erik.

[@PowderMill]

Fantastic video presentation! Thank you & 73

[@burkettc]

I've just run across your very informative channel! I did notice @ 1:07 that the SMA connection to the tinySA on the low side is not tight. If you hadn't tightened that off camera before performing the measurements, that could certainly have an impact on signal strength. I know that you know this and that it was likely an oversight... just commenting for everyone's benefit. My only gripe, to be honest, with the tinySA/nanoVNA lines is that you really can't use a proper SMA torque wrench, as the connector might very well come off of the circuit board.

[@ErikKaashoek]

In general you need a torque wrench when you want the phase to be repeatable, which is very important for a VNA, not so important for an SA. Hand tight is sufficient, and indeed, that was not the case at 1:07

[@jacek7178]

very informative, but the zoom, you know!

[@wess3026]

Excellent!

[@jil2net]

Thank you!

[@dennisqwertyuiop]

tiny ultra the listen option,can it send audio to pc when using pc control

[@ErikKaashoek]

No, audio only via 3.5mm audio jack

[@dennisqwertyuiop]

@@ErikKaashoek too bad ,maybe some upgrade,,,thank you

[@Chris-hy6jy]

Why didn't you switch on the LNA on the Siglent?

[@ErikKaashoek]

The Siglent LNA reduces the dynamic range and this comparison is about the dynamic range

[@Chris-hy6jy]

@@ErikKaashoek but if you're trying to see low power signals just above the noise floor, you'd normally turn the preamp on right?

[@ErikKaashoek]

@@Chris-hy6jy DYnamic range is about seeing both strong and weak signals in the same scan. Having a strong signal (the fundamental) next to a weak signal (the harmonics) while the LNA is on will create a lot of distortion (e.g. harmonics) in the LNA making it impossible to measure the true level of the harmonics.

[@Chris-hy6jy]

Ok understood. I assume dropping the RBW on the Siglent would help with this though? I believe it goes all the way down to 10Hz? What's the minimum RBW on the TinySA?

[@ErikKaashoek]

@@Chris-hy6jy Yes, reducing the RBW will reduce the noise level. For a fair comparison on dynamic range the RBW should be about the same on both devices. The tinySA basic has minimum RBW of 3kHz, the Ultra has 200Hz minimum RBW. The IIP3 of the Siglent is lower than the tinySA so dropping the RBW may reveal harmonics generated inside the Siglent. Of course overall the Siglent is a better SA, in particular its scanning speed and smallest RBW are much better.

The performance of the TinySA is amazing; it's beating a $1600 instrument in many ways. Quite a bargain for a bit over US$50, and it will do most of what you will need for testing of HF radios. This video only shows the performance of the Low input of the TinySA. The High input doesn't perform as well. Perhaps you could do another video showing its performance?

[@dannelson8556]

No it's not, it's very clear that the two instruments are not configured optimally. The tiny VNA has been configured optimally while the Siglent hadn't. Overall it's kind of a dishonest comparison. With that said, even with its limitations it's a great learning tool and I do recommend them to all new hams I am elmering. When I first got into ham radio all we had was slide rules and if you were lucky you might have access to a oscilloscope but it was very rare for him to have access to any type of measuring equipment that he didn't build himself. So being able to get your hands on a little VNA and spectrum analyzer for under $200 total is a amazing accomplishment. These two tools combined with the amateur radio handbook will go a long ways to furthering your understanding of signal measurement. When learning new things it sometimes difficult to understand what you're reading and what you're seeing in pictures being able to actually recreate the experiment you see in the amateur do handbook and see the results first hand go a long ways to helping you understand what you're looking at. I mean seriously my agilent attenuator set costs more than this spectrum analyzer in fact just one of my agilent end connector attenuators cost four to five times more than this signal analyzer and that's just for a single attenuator. Don't even get me started on the cost of phase matched jumper cables.

[@vk5fe943]

Exactly, he's comparing using the Siglent settings to match the tinySA limited settings. TinySA is indeed a very nice low-cost tool, but won't get even close to a "full" spectrum analyzer and yes, when you go up in frequency, costs will increase exponentially (by the way, this thing is addictive). Anyway, an interesting vídeo.

[@InternetGoldMiner]

Yup have one its a nice little tool if you keep it to HF under 30mhz.

[@JAKOB1977]

@@vk5fe943 TinySA ULTRA hold my bear fellow..! while I dazzled you with my 12Ghz span. :P for a tad over 100 bucks. obviously not 12Ghz reference span, but you do get quite a few gigahertz with a decent liniear span. Very impressed with the Ultra to a point, that I hope Erik a year or two down the line takes a new step as they are suppresingly potent SA products flooded in SAfeatures.