Does the GD R8000 actually exist?

This forum exists for the purposes for discussing service monitors (This includes but is not limited to Motorola, HP, Aeroflex, GD, etc). Additional topics allowed include test procedures, interpretation of test results, where to find information about specific tests, antenna VSWR, return loss testing, duplexer and filter alignment, etc.

Moderator: Queue Moderator

Post Reply
cablemonkey
Posts: 42
Joined: Wed Feb 06, 2008 11:23 am

Does the GD R8000 actually exist?

Post by cablemonkey »

The local dealer has been saying "A few more months" for more than a year now. Apparently no one's even seen a working demo, just a mock up.

Has anyone seen one in the wild? Played with one?
User avatar
xmo
Moderator
Posts: 2547
Joined: Fri Oct 12, 2001 4:00 pm

Re: Does the GD R8000 actually exist?

Post by xmo »

Here is some information I just received, so if you want to see it, give Phil a call:

During the upcoming IWCE show General Dynamics will be showing the “new” R-8000 service monitor. This new monitor will start to deliver in March and April of this year.

General Dynamics is doing an invite only, off the show floor meeting for invited prospective buyers.

M.I.N.K. Marketing Co. is your authorized Manufacture Representative for General Dynamics Test Equipment.

Phil Snyder
M.I.N.K. Marketing Co. Inc.
Ph. 913-780-1888
User avatar
transistor747
Batboard $upporter
Posts: 155
Joined: Wed Jan 26, 2005 2:46 pm

Re: Does the GD R8000 actually exist?

Post by transistor747 »

We received our R8000 about a week ago, and have been learning how to use it.
They had a lot of start-up problems. We ordered it over a year ago.
They shipped ours without a couple of features working (tracking generator, basic o'scope, etc.), they say the software is still being tweaked and will be an upgrade in a month or so.

The ethernet and USB connections should be right handy for upgrades and add-on's I hope.

So far, it's very impressive.
"The state of the art may well have exceeded the state of the need"
User avatar
Elroy Jetson
Posts: 1158
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2001 4:00 pm

Re: Does the GD R8000 actually exist?

Post by Elroy Jetson »

I did a detailed review of an R-8000 several months ago. Our GD rep brought it by and asked me to review it, so I put it through
its paces for a week and wrote a long critique of it.

As a direct result of my input, they have made some changes to the new version, all aimed at putting the most-used options and
tools in more accessible locations in the softkey menus. Some changes to help information were also made.


My approach is simple: I'm going to pull the thing out of its case, plug it in, turn it on, and not even ask where the manual for it is.
I don't believe that I should have to refer to the manual in order to quickly figure out how to use the monitor in basic operating modes.

Where's the signal? Frequency counter, please. Enter the frequency indicated, quickly and easily. View the signal on the spec an or
mod scope. Determine what signalling, if any, is on it. Decode and display PL/DPL information. Copy this information into the generator,
edit as needed for repeater offsets, if required.

I want it to be genuinely simple to operate and the changes I suggested, of which some were implemented, unquestionably do make the
unit a little bit easier to operate. Less time exploring, more time using it.

One thing I'd really like to see is a "universal" digital modulation analyzer feature. One that auto-locks to the data rate of any given digital
signal and allows me to analyze I/Q modulation values on the fly. Apparently this is a bit of a challenge and it's not there yet. Its I/Q
modulation analyzer is limited to MotoTrbo mode as of now...if you have that option. I want it for P25 as well.

The part of the R8000 that I found to be least impressive is its spectrum analyzer performance. Being FFT-based, it does have its limitations,
and those limitations place a limit on how useful the spectrum analyzer is to me. Its sweep rate is inadequate and doesn't allow me to really see
the averaged shape of a signal. I gather they've done some tweaks to the operating parameters to improve it a little. But it still won't take the
place of a dedicated spectrum analyzer for some specific applications. Nor should it, in a general purpose service monitor.

In general I think the R8000 is a very nice unit. I certainly can't complain about its size and weight. I'd rather carry it than an IFR 1200!

Elroy
csxtech
New User
Posts: 3
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2009 11:29 am

Re: Does the GD R8000 actually exist?

Post by csxtech »

I felt compelled to toss in my two cents. As for operation with/without the manual...since I believe the idea behind the R8000 came for the General Dynamics purchase of Rights to Motorola's R2600 series service monitor - Heck may be they bought all of Motorola's test equipment division - I am not sure. Whatever the case I expected the menus/display to be pretty much the same as the R2600 series and for the most part it is. Well - that is about all that is the same! So far I am not impressed with more than the light weight!!! Out of two units received in the shop - one has an internal noise problem and the second one has now developed a response problem. Press a key -- 10 to 20 sec wait then the unit responds. Software releases are presently on a 30 to 60 day release cycle - HECK that is pretty quick for development cycles... Gen Dyn has a ways to go to pull this off - I am pretty sure (i hope) it will get there...the thing that concerns me in a major corp like Gen Dyn is - in the hard economic times, if they start trimming fat and there is no ROI in this area they could scrap it!! They have plenty of D.O.D .contracts that will make them $$$ ...something to think about.

BTW - Bird's Signal Hawk was a big disappointment - but that I tested about 8 to 9 months ago before returning it. Maybe their software improved -- anyone using one?

I am trying to be open minded about all the test equipment built on top of Operating Systems -- but it sure seems manuf. do not mind releasing equipment that does not meet it owns specs. Now they give you a good phone number for support and will address the issue in new software release, but what about those guys who just grab it out the box and head into the field to test an align with? Ever remember having to test test equipment and finding a lot of problems - like basic operation????
User avatar
Elroy Jetson
Posts: 1158
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2001 4:00 pm

Re: Does the GD R8000 actually exist?

Post by Elroy Jetson »

I have to say that I really disagree with the idea of making expensive test equipment dependent on a cheap but complicated PC operating system.


The older computer-based equipment that had its own unique and application-specific operating software, such as any of your older HP spectrum analyzers,
or the Tektronix 2xxx series scopes or 49x series spectrum analyzers, are all highly reliable and don't depend on Microsoft updates. I persist in my thinking
that this is still the best way to go if you want your test equipment to be reliable and have a long service life.

I was DEEPLY disappointed to learn that Tektronix' new Real-time signal analyzers are based on software applications running on XP. (RSA 6120A)

When I got a Tektronix demo of those units, YES, IT DID CRASH. During the demo.


Nice. And that's what, 130,000 dollars or so for the top model? Reliant on a 99 dollar operating system? WTF is wrong with this generation of test
equipment designers? Clearly they've got a lot of hard lessons to learn.


I predict that PC-based test equipment will lose value on the used market at rates never seen before. My 492 was about 18,000 dollars new, 20 years
ago. Right now I can still get better than 2K for it. I think that you will be able to pick up a used Tek RSA 6120A for connsiderably less than 10 percent
of its new cost, when it's 20 years old. The software issues alone will make it virtually worthless. Who supports a 20 year old PC today? Yeah,
I've got a 486 machine for Moto RSS, but frankly I'm trying to retire the last radios that I have that need it. It's more trouble than it's worth.

The R8000 may suffer a similar fate. Being PC-based, its value will be dependent on PC support and that's bad news.


Elroy
User avatar
mancow
Batboard $upporter
Posts: 2374
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 4:00 pm

Re: Does the GD R8000 actually exist?

Post by mancow »

It's a disposable world.
User avatar
Elroy Jetson
Posts: 1158
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2001 4:00 pm

Re: Does the GD R8000 actually exist?

Post by Elroy Jetson »

I don't have to like it.


Elroy
User avatar
Wowbagger
Aeroflex
Posts: 1287
Joined: Tue Dec 10, 2002 10:46 am

s/Computer operating system/Windows/g

Post by Wowbagger »

Look folks, let's not make the mistake of assuming that the only "computer operating system" is Windows.

I agree with you guys - I cringe when I see a piece of test gear running Windows (unless it is one of our competitors - then I cheer and say "You Go Guys!"). IFR had looked at basing a service monitor on Windows years ago, and as a result I've had a fair amount of training on the internals of Windows. I still wake up screaming sometimes.

However, Windows isn't the alpha and omega of operating systems - indeed I normally object to "Windows" and "Operating system" being in the same sentence without an intervening "IS NOT AN". The 3900 is Linux based, as is the the 3500 (well uClinux, but).

I've seen the effect Windows has on programmers - it introduces what I call "Windows Programmer Dain-Bramage". Programmers assume that the Microsoft way is the ONLY way (Multiple Document Interface, the Windows UI occupying pixels on screen all the time, the idea that it is OK to have to RESTART THE FREAKING INSTRUMENT just to use a remote display, and many internal issues that are only of interest to a programmer.)
This is my opinion, not Aeroflex's.

I WILL NOT give you proprietary information. I make too much money to jeopardize my job.

I AM NOT the Service department: You want official info, manuals, service info, parts, calibration, etc., contact Aeroflex directly, please.
IRS_BDN_MB
Posts: 30
Joined: Thu Sep 11, 2008 1:58 pm

Re: Does the GD R8000 actually exist?

Post by IRS_BDN_MB »

How good is the R8000 for testing Moto TRBOs in digital mode? Is there any other service monitor that can test a Moto TRBO? If so is it a better monitor? Should I buy now or wait a few months for more of the bugs to get worked out?

Any info would be highly appreciated.
User avatar
Wowbagger
Aeroflex
Posts: 1287
Joined: Tue Dec 10, 2002 10:46 am

Re: Does the GD R8000 actually exist?

Post by Wowbagger »

IRS_BDN_MB wrote:How good is the R8000 for testing Moto TRBOs in digital mode? Is there any other service monitor that can test a Moto TRBO? If so is it a better monitor? Should I buy now or wait a few months for more of the bugs to get worked out?

Any info would be highly appreciated.
The Aeroflex 3900 series tests MotoTRBO - we worked closely with the Motorola design team for MotoTRBO and were developing the test suite as the Motorola guys were developing MotoTRBO.
This is my opinion, not Aeroflex's.

I WILL NOT give you proprietary information. I make too much money to jeopardize my job.

I AM NOT the Service department: You want official info, manuals, service info, parts, calibration, etc., contact Aeroflex directly, please.
IRS_BDN_MB
Posts: 30
Joined: Thu Sep 11, 2008 1:58 pm

Re: Does the GD R8000 actually exist?

Post by IRS_BDN_MB »

Wowbagger wrote:
IRS_BDN_MB wrote:How good is the R8000 for testing Moto TRBOs in digital mode? Is there any other service monitor that can test a Moto TRBO? If so is it a better monitor? Should I buy now or wait a few months for more of the bugs to get worked out?

Any info would be highly appreciated.
The Aeroflex 3900 series tests MotoTRBO - we worked closely with the Motorola design team for MotoTRBO and were developing the test suite as the Motorola guys were developing MotoTRBO.

So its the best monitor for testing TRBO's digitally then?
User avatar
Wowbagger
Aeroflex
Posts: 1287
Joined: Tue Dec 10, 2002 10:46 am

Re: Does the GD R8000 actually exist?

Post by Wowbagger »

IRS_BDN_MB wrote:
Wowbagger wrote: The Aeroflex 3900 series tests MotoTRBO - we worked closely with the Motorola design team for MotoTRBO and were developing the test suite as the Motorola guys were developing MotoTRBO.

So its the best monitor for testing TRBO's digitally then?
I am biased as hell on this, so perhaps you shouldn't trust what I say. I know of no other service monitor on the market that can test MotoTRBO natively: I don't knowif the GD R8000 can test MotoTRBO natively or not.
This is my opinion, not Aeroflex's.

I WILL NOT give you proprietary information. I make too much money to jeopardize my job.

I AM NOT the Service department: You want official info, manuals, service info, parts, calibration, etc., contact Aeroflex directly, please.
User avatar
Elroy Jetson
Posts: 1158
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2001 4:00 pm

Re: Does the GD R8000 actually exist?

Post by Elroy Jetson »

The R8000 that I reviewed did have the MotoTrbo test suite in it. But having no Trbo equipment, I was not able to put it through its paces. I can not give a solid opinion on that feature for that reason. I can only note that it was present.


Elroy
tvsjr
Posts: 4118
Joined: Fri Nov 28, 2003 9:46 am

Re: Does the GD R8000 actually exist?

Post by tvsjr »

Wowbagger wrote:I know of no other service monitor on the market that can test MotoTRBO natively: I don't knowif the GD R8000 can test MotoTRBO natively or not.
Yes, the GD R8000 will test MotoTRBO natively. I played with one for a bit... looked fairly simple, but I didn't dig too deep into the details.
User avatar
escomm
Queue Moderator
Posts: 5168
Joined: Fri Mar 24, 2006 8:24 pm

Re: Does the GD R8000 actually exist?

Post by escomm »

Wowbagger wrote:
IRS_BDN_MB wrote:
Wowbagger wrote: The Aeroflex 3900 series tests MotoTRBO - we worked closely with the Motorola design team for MotoTRBO and were developing the test suite as the Motorola guys were developing MotoTRBO.

So its the best monitor for testing TRBO's digitally then?
I am biased as hell on this, so perhaps you shouldn't trust what I say. I know of no other service monitor on the market that can test MotoTRBO natively: I don't knowif the GD R8000 can test MotoTRBO natively or not.
Like the 3920, whereby natively you mean with an additional $2200 software purchase after shelling out over $31k for the monitor itself, correct?
csxtech
New User
Posts: 3
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2009 11:29 am

Re: Does the GD R8000 actually exist?

Post by csxtech »

;-) That's got to sting!

I will say without a doubt, equipment running VxWorks & the various flavors of Linux...seem to be most stable (AeroFlex, Agilent...). I liked the quick look I had at the AeroFlex 3500. I look forward to a loaner and a couple of days testing it on the bench. If it measures up to it's claims - it will make a NICE piece of FIELD equipment. Depending on option I believe it sells for somewhere between $12,000 to $15,000 - OUCH!

BTW - the R8000 were shipped to Gen Dyn a week ago....no word back.. :-(
turbovectorz
Posts: 36
Joined: Sat Nov 29, 2008 5:11 pm
What radios do you own?: Sabers, homebrew scanners

Re: Does the GD R8000 actually exist?

Post by turbovectorz »

Hi ALL!

As a hobby, I like making homebrew scanners. I was wondering if you can do a raw L2 data dump from an R8000 or IFR 3920(nice!). If so, are there L3 messages can you extract from that?

Just curious..

Thanks all in advance!

TVZ
User avatar
Wowbagger
Aeroflex
Posts: 1287
Joined: Tue Dec 10, 2002 10:46 am

Re: Does the GD R8000 actually exist?

Post by Wowbagger »

turbovectorz wrote:Hi ALL!

As a hobby, I like making homebrew scanners. I was wondering if you can do a raw L2 data dump from an R8000 or IFR 3920(nice!). If so, are there L3 messages can you extract from that?


TVZ
Yes, the 39XX will dump the data as an XML stream, with both the raw symbol level data, and the parsed-out protocol data - here's an example:

<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<!DOCTYPE P25_log_data SYSTEM "p25_log.dtd">
<P25_log_data>
<TSBK timestamp="00000000" direction="rx" timeslot="0" type="osp" phys_channel="1">80 00 22 33 44 55 66 77 88 99 97 AC </TSBK>
<Trunking_message timestamp="00000000" direction="rx" timeslot="0" type="osp" phys_channel="1">
<P25_TSBK_header last_block="1" protected_flag="0" opcode="0" mfid="0"/>
<GRP_V_CH_GRANT priority="2" Reserved="0" full_duplex="1" emergency="0" protected_flag="0" packet_mode="0">
<Service_options/>
<Channel id="3" number="836"/>
<Group_address>5566</Group_address>
<Source_address>778899</Source_address>
</GRP_V_CH_GRANT>
</Trunking_message>
<TSBK timestamp="00000001" direction="rx" timeslot="0" type="osp" phys_channel="1">81 00 22 33 44 55 66 77 88 99 F8 E9 </TSBK>
<Trunking_message timestamp="00000001" direction="rx" timeslot="0" type="osp" phys_channel="1">
<P25_TSBK_header last_block="1" protected_flag="0" opcode="1" mfid="0"/>
</Trunking_message>
<TSBK timestamp="00000002" direction="rx" timeslot="0" type="osp" phys_channel="1">82 00 33 44 55 66 77 88 99 11 91 CE </TSBK>
<Trunking_message timestamp="00000002" direction="rx" timeslot="0" type="osp" phys_channel="1">
<P25_TSBK_header last_block="1" protected_flag="0" opcode="2" mfid="0"/>
<GRP_V_CH_GRANT_UPDT>
<Channel id="3" number="836"/>
<Group_address>5566</Group_address>
<Channel id="7" number="1928"/>
<Group_address>9911</Group_address>
</GRP_V_CH_GRANT_UPDT>
</Trunking_message>
<TSBK timestamp="00000003" direction="rx" timeslot="0" type="osp" phys_channel="1">83 00 44 55 66 77 88 99 11 22 E2 13 </TSBK>
<Trunking_message timestamp="00000003" direction="rx" timeslot="0" type="osp" phys_channel="1">
<P25_TSBK_header last_block="1" protected_flag="0" opcode="3" mfid="0"/>
<GRP_V_CH_GRANT_UPDT_EXP priority="4" Reserved="0" full_duplex="0" emergency="0" protected_flag="1" packet_mode="0">
<Service_options/>
<Reserved>55 </Reserved>
<Channel id="6" number="1655"/>
<Channel id="8" number="2201"/>
<Group_address>1122</Group_address>
</GRP_V_CH_GRANT_UPDT_EXP>
</Trunking_message>
<TSBK timestamp="00000004" direction="rx" timeslot="0" type="osp" phys_channel="1">84 00 55 66 77 88 99 11 22 33 AD 34 </TSBK>
<Trunking_message timestamp="00000004" direction="rx" timeslot="0" type="osp" phys_channel="1">
<P25_TSBK_header last_block="1" protected_flag="0" opcode="4" mfid="0"/>
<UU_V_CH_GRANT>
<Channel id="5" number="1382"/>
<Target_address>778899</Target_address>
<Source_address>112233</Source_address>
</UU_V_CH_GRANT>
</Trunking_message>
<TSBK timestamp="00000005" direction="rx" timeslot="0" type="osp" phys_channel="1">85 00 66 77 88 99 11 22 33 44 C3 4A </TSBK>
<Trunking_message timestamp="00000005" direction="rx" timeslot="0" type="osp" phys_channel="1">
<P25_TSBK_header last_block="1" protected_flag="0" opcode="5" mfid="0"/>
<UU_ANS_REQ priority="6" Reserved="0" full_duplex="1" emergency="0" protected_flag="1" packet_mode="0">
<Service_options/>
<Reserved>77 </Reserved>
<Target_address>889911</Target_address>
<Source_ID>223344</Source_ID>
</UU_ANS_REQ>
</Trunking_message>
<TSBK timestamp="00000006" direction="rx" timeslot="0" type="osp" phys_channel="1">86 00 77 88 99 11 22 33 44 55 82 F2 </TSBK>
<Trunking_message timestamp="00000006" direction="rx" timeslot="0" type="osp" phys_channel="1">
<P25_TSBK_header last_block="1" protected_flag="0" opcode="6" mfid="0"/>
<UU_V_CH_GRANT_UPDT>
<Channel id="7" number="1928"/>
<Target_address>991122</Target_address>
<Source_address>334455</Source_address>
</UU_V_CH_GRANT_UPDT>
</Trunking_message>
<TSBK timestamp="00000007" direction="rx" timeslot="0" type="osp" phys_channel="1">87 00 88 99 11 22 33 44 55 66 CB 45 </TSBK>
<Trunking_message timestamp="00000007" direction="rx" timeslot="0" type="osp" phys_channel="1">
<P25_TSBK_header last_block="1" protected_flag="0" opcode="7" mfid="0"/>
</Trunking_message>
<TSBK timestamp="00000008" direction="rx" timeslot="0" type="osp" phys_channel="1">88 00 99 11 22 33 44 55 66 77 A5 7D </TSBK>
<Trunking_message timestamp="00000008" direction="rx" timeslot="0" type="osp" phys_channel="1">
<P25_TSBK_header last_block="1" protected_flag="0" opcode="8" mfid="0"/>
<TELE_INT_CH_GRANT priority="1" Reserved="1" full_duplex="0" emergency="1" protected_flag="0" packet_mode="1">
<Service_options/>
<Channel id="1" number="290"/>
<Call_Timer>3344</Call_Timer>
<Source_address>556677</Source_address>
</TELE_INT_CH_GRANT>
</Trunking_message>
<TSBK timestamp="00000009" direction="rx" timeslot="0" type="osp" phys_channel="1">89 00 22 33 44 55 66 77 88 99 B2 A2 </TSBK>
<Trunking_message timestamp="00000009" direction="rx" timeslot="0" type="osp" phys_channel="1">
<P25_TSBK_header last_block="1" protected_flag="0" opcode="9" mfid="0"/>
<TELE_INT_CH_GRANT_UPDT priority="2" Reserved="0" full_duplex="1" emergency="0" protected_flag="0" packet_mode="0">
<Service_options/>
<Channel id="3" number="836"/>
<Call_Timer>5566</Call_Timer>
<Source_address>778899</Source_address>
</TELE_INT_CH_GRANT_UPDT>
</Trunking_message>


And so on and so on. In P25 base radio (repeater) simulation you see both the outbound data we are generating and the inbound data we are receiving from the UUT, on both the control channel and the traffic channel. For radio simulator, you can see "what the radio saw" - the control channel data when the radio simulator in idle, the traffic channel data when active. In monitor mode, you can monitor multiple channels at once (within the IF limits of the instrument).
This is my opinion, not Aeroflex's.

I WILL NOT give you proprietary information. I make too much money to jeopardize my job.

I AM NOT the Service department: You want official info, manuals, service info, parts, calibration, etc., contact Aeroflex directly, please.
turbovectorz
Posts: 36
Joined: Sat Nov 29, 2008 5:11 pm
What radios do you own?: Sabers, homebrew scanners

Re: Does the GD R8000 actually exist?

Post by turbovectorz »

WowBagger,

Thank you very much for sharing! Now, I think I am in love with those Aeroflex/IFR 3920 Beauties! Gotta get one of those soon! :)

Sincerely,

TVZ
csxtech
New User
Posts: 3
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2009 11:29 am

Re: Does the GD R8000 actually exist?

Post by csxtech »

Well - received the two units back from GD. The one that was hanging was returned to normal abnormal operation. The one generating high frequency noise on a generated carrier -- NO CHANGE. Here is what I and a guy in another shop have taken notice of. If you generate from the R8000 (tried vhf & uhf) take a look at it with another service monitor. I have used both a GD 2670 and IFR Com-120. There seems to be a high freq. audio signal on the carrier with no modulation - shows up in readings with modulation. First response from GD = you MUST set base band filters on the equipment you are testing against! Hog wash (technical term)! Sure it cleans it up a good bit - has one would expect...BUT WHY SHOULD I HAVE TO CLEAN THE OUTPUT OF MY $22k SERVICE MONITOR. YOU DO NOT HAVE TO DO THAT FOR THE OUTPUT OF GD2670 OR COM-120!! The reverse of this test - to measure the generated output of the GD2670 look/sounded like crap until I enabled the base band filters (audio filter 300 - 3k) then it does improve...but without the filter enable I could see .5 to 1.0kHZ of modulation on an un-modulated carrier. This was the worst of the two units...but they both have this same symptom...ANYBODY got one of these and seeing the output running clean?? Check output on a spectrum analyzer neither of the two we have are clean!!!
ke2d
Posts: 29
Joined: Thu Mar 01, 2007 6:24 pm

Re: Does the GD R8000 actually exist?

Post by ke2d »

I see the same issue on my 6mo old GD 2670B - if I generate a signal out of the GD into either my COM-120B or 8920B (or both at the same time via a T), I see baseband noise on the generate out of the 2670B. All audio functions off, I still see 10-20Hz of garbage. Even worse, the generate output is not stable. The monitor (receive) side is as stable as a rock when my 120B or 8920B generate into the 2670B, but the generate out of the 2670B is not.

GD's response is that it is normal, and no one needs stability on the generate side. Bull - for the price of the box it should perform accordingly.


Even more disturbing is that even after how many revisions of the 2600 series, we stil can't get an audio taper quality volume control on the front panel? The volume control is either almost off or full blast. Too touchy.
tvsjr
Posts: 4118
Joined: Fri Nov 28, 2003 9:46 am

Re: Does the GD R8000 actually exist?

Post by tvsjr »

I sold an R2660 (iDEN box) for similar reasons... the 5MHz sawtooth on the tracking generator was horrible, and it always generated low-level garbage. I never checked to see how much it wandered around - it probably did that too.

Much happier with my HP 8921...
Post Reply

Return to “Test Equipment & RF Equipment Alignment”