• The move to the new server is done. There are some software and database maintenance updates in process. This has us passing the hat around to help out. We appreciate any donations. Seriously, even a dollar helps. The payment page may be found here - https://www.audiokarma.org/support.html

Audio Analyzers - HP 8903B vs. QuantAsylum QA403

Paul Malloy

Paul Malloy

Active Member
Been putting together some bench testing equipment and I'm about to pull the trigger for an audio analyzer. I was planning on getting the QuantAsylum QA403 because of the cost (and it's brand new), but an HP 8903B (working) just came up at about the price.

Just wondering if they is an advantage of the HP 8903B over the QA403?

Here's a list of the test equipment I have now:

Tektronix 2236 (100Mhz, frequency counter, DMM, timer)
Tektronix CFG250 Function Generator
Sound Technology 1000A
Telulex SG-100 Waveform Generator
Fluke 87V Multimeter
8ohm 100W dummy loads
Cheapo component tester
Soldering/Desoldering Station
Dim Bulb Tester
Isolation Transformer
Heathkit V-7A VTVM
HP 204C Oscillator

Paul

Edit: Title should be

Audio Analyzers - HP 8903B vs. QuantAsylum QA403​

 
Register to hide this ad
Edited your title.

I have a 8903A that I use with the Pete Millet software, with a National Instruments USB<->HPIB adapter. I like it a lot. After seeing another member's travails with the QA403 and looking at the manual, I wasn't all that impressed - although the QA403 has quite a bit better source, with an order of magnitude or so lower distortion as I recall. The user interface and manual on the QA403 need a bit of work, and I like the fact I can use he 8903A without having to connect the computer to measure stuff.
 
w3jn said:
Edited your title.

I have a 8903A that I use with the Pete Millet software, with a National Instruments USB<->HPIB adapter. I like it a lot. After seeing another member's travails with the QA403 and looking at the manual, I wasn't all that impressed - although the QA403 has quite a bit better source, with an order of magnitude or so lower distortion as I recall. The user interface and manual on the QA403 need a bit of work, and I like the fact I can use he 8903A without having to connect the computer to measure stuff.
Click to expand...
i've got an 8903b and i would be interested in running pete's software. do you think this would work?

 
IMO it's a toss-up. The QA403 has better specs, but is more software/computer based with all of the pluses and minuses associated with that. I have an 8903b and I appreciate the simplicity (I also appreciate that I paid <$350 for it). If the 8903b was cheaper I'd definitely lean that way, but for the same price, I'd be tempted to go QA403.
 
I think you should get both! FWIW, I like a traditional analyzer because it has a THD residual output that I can look at on a scope. I actually find that more useful than anything else when doing things like design or biasing an amp. Don't know if the QA403 can do that. OTOH, the 8903 might well need some service and it's not a simple device. I find the clicky switches annoying to use. It's big and takes up bench space. I wrote some simple software to run mine with a Prologix adapter.
 
The analyzers may need a calibrated mic. I did not see that on the list. Keep this in mind if you are going to keep any analyzers.
 
KingBubba said:
Sorry, I spent too much time in a theater where they were always analyzing pink noise before shows. Being the light guy, I had to put earplugs in to survive.
Click to expand...
i've got a an audiocontrol c101 w/ mic, i know what you are talking about.

i also used to get my s10 on the spl meter at stereo stores when they brought the big audiocontrol unit around. i almost bought one awhile back.
 
Any HP 8903B is certainly getting on in years, and may be due for a little freshening up. It was a very good machine in it's day, and is still extremely capable many decades later.
So, unless you want to get into the measuring of microfarts on Mars levels of performance, it is more than adequate.

And, unlike some other more recent machines on the market, the HP has an absolutely staggering level of support available for all aspects of it's usage and servicing.
 
painttoad said:
i've got an 8903b and i would be interested in running pete's software. do you think this would work?

Click to expand...
I think that’s the one I have, but that one is almost certainly a Chinese clone. The Prologix one may be a bit cheaper. As I recall I had to download a bunch of NI drivers, unsure if they will work with a clone NI adapter.
 
w3jn said:
I think that’s the one I have, but that one is almost certainly a Chinese clone. The Prologix one may be a bit cheaper. As I recall I had to download a bunch of NI drivers, unsure if they will work with a clone NI adapter.
Click to expand...
i did some quick research. the prologix is over double the price.

modern drivers from NI will detect a clone and not work but i found the recommended 17.0 and earlier drivers on the internet archive.

i think i will give it a go at a later date, i've got other stuff goin on right now that can't wait.

thank you.
 
Thanks everyone. Seems like 6 of these and half dozen of the other. I like the 8903B it's tried and true, but the QA403 is new and shiny. The 8903B would be about $690 vs. $615 for the QA403 shipped. I have a day to think if the cost difference is worth it.

I have a very nice PC next to my workbench too which makes me lean toward the QA403.
 
If you've already got a PC there and the 8903b is an extra $75 I think the QA403 is a no-brainer. It's also quite a bit smaller/lighter (the 8903B is not exactly compact!).
 
Why a 8903B and not a 8903A? I note a present dearth of them on eBay but I got a nice working 8903A a few years ago for less than $350.
 
w3jn said:
Why a 8903B and not a 8903A? I note a present dearth of them on eBay but I got a nice working 8903A a few years ago for less than $350.
Click to expand...
I would buy one for $350 no problem. Neither the 8903A or B I can find in that price range.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom