This input stage is a Hantek / TEKWAY ...
As you can see there are slight differences.
This input stage is a Hantek / TEKWAY ...
As you can see there are slight differences.
The Rigol has a differnt chip on the entry, that can be programmed for the bandwidth, and can
be changed by software, so very different from the Hantek
From the TI datsheet of this chip:
The LMH6518 gain is programmed via a SPI-1
compatible serial bus. A signal path combined gain
resolution of 8.5 mdB can be achieved when the
LMH6518's gain and the Gsps ADC's FS input are
both manipulated. Inputs and outputs are DC-
coupled. The outputs are differential with individual
Common Mode (CM) voltage control (for Main and
Auxiliary outputs) and have a selectable bandwidth
limiting circuitry (common to both Main and Auxiliary)
• Oscilloscope Programmable Gain Amplifier
of 20, 100, 200, 350, 650, 750 MHz or full bandwidth.
sorry I may be late to the party..
The anti-aliasing function may not do what you expect but it does work. Here is an example same signal with and without anti-aliasing. I should have tried to zoom in to see what the actual waveforms look like. But there is some difference
CH1 is ~700Hz and CH2 is @ 7 MHz envelopes. The second picture - Antialiasing ON
It is likely that there are differences in the input stages of the DS2000 series.
It is likely that there are differences in the input stages of the DS2000 series.
Wim's chart of the different BW's of the different models was all made on the same DSO - he just changed the BW via software codes.
I know the Rigol is doing SOMETHING when you turn on anti-aliasing, but it's definitely NOT doing anti-aliasing as defined for DSOs - thus it DOES NOT WORK.
Imagine sending the command to 750MHz BW
I understand that a member, tried setting higher BW modes with the Hardware hack and the the DS2000 is NOT capable of more BW
My DS2072 has arrived Can't even open the box until my wife gets home
Another curious thing, look at the pictures.
Where is the difference?
I think this function changes how captured samples are mapped to pixels on the screen to minimize aliasing. It doesn't change the way the signal is sampled. It works when scan rate is much slower than the sampling rate. What did you expect this button to do?
Another curious thing, look at the pictures.
Where is the difference?
i dont get it, please more ext
Another curious thing, look at the pictures.
Where is the difference?
i dont get it, please more ext
IMHO, the BW is lower in the DS2202, but little more I can say.
I have a SDS8102V (real BW ~206MHz), when I have a DS2072 I will do more comparisons (DS2072 as DS2202).
What do you think?
Another curious thing, look at the pictures.
Where is the difference?
i dont get it, please more ext
IMHO, the BW is lower in the DS2202, but little more I can say.
I have a SDS8102V (real BW ~206MHz), when I have a DS2072 I will do more comparisons (DS2072 as DS2202).
What do you think?
I can not see on Agilent what the settings are...to compare
But what is lower then the 2202, to your opinion ?
See picture with a rise time of 1.5 nSec that is 350/1.5 is 233 Mhz,
what is also measured with a signal generator
Another curious thing, look at the pictures.
Where is the difference?Yes , I see a picture of 500Mhz Agilent Scope
with a Label of OWON , what is your point??
You like bullshit!!
See picture with a rise time of 1.5 nSec that is 350/1.5 is 233 Mhz,
what is also measured with a signal generator
See picture with a rise time of 1.5 nSec that is 350/1.5 is 233 Mhz,
what is also measured with a signal generator
It is even better. Look at the picture, there rise time is 1.32 ns which gives BW = 350 / 1.32 = 265 MHz.
I think this function changes how captured samples are mapped to pixels on the screen to minimize aliasing. It doesn't change the way the signal is sampled. It works when scan rate is much slower than the sampling rate. What did you expect this button to do?Anti-aliasing never changes how the waveform is sampled. But you seem to be thinking about IMAGE anti-aliasing - I'm speaking about WAVEFORM anti-aliasing; which is what a DSO is supposed to do if it has an anti-aliasing feature (it has nothing to do with jagged edges, pixels, etc).
This post and the following one provide more information.
Marmad, I understand what aliasing is. I don't believe it's a bug or even annoyance if this option does not let you to measure a 1 MHz signal with 200 kSa/s
You need to use a high enough sampling rate for the signal being measured and also make sure that any higher frequency components are cut off with a low pass filter. There is no way around it.
I bet one cycle of free trial options that IMAGE anti-aliasing is what Rigol had in mind and it's working as designed.
Oh no please do not misunderstand me. Respect please. I'm just saying what I think. Owon is not the best, but recognize that in the image above is nothing short, regarding BW.
Please understand that my native language is not English, so may that I am not express properly.@ Carrington
Yes sorry , and I apologize
To be complete you could say you are comparing :
A Rigol DS2072(hacked) with 2.0 GSa/s at $800 200 Mhz
A Owon SDS9302 with 3.2 Gsa/s at $1500 300 Mhz
An Agilent DSO-X-3502A with 4.0 GSa/s at $8000 500 MHz
zibadun: Man, we've been talking about this for ages already here - it's not about measurement; it's about incorrect display. The point is - you shouldn't see a waveform of a lower frequency - you should see noise (see what the 1MHz waveform SHOULD look like at that time base).
...
Of course there is - Agilent does it. It's actually fairly easy - there are papers written about it (linked in earlier posts in this thread). You just do random decimation from sampled data to display data (e.g. instead of displaying every Nth sample, you vary the decimation). So instead of seeing a FALSE lower frequency, you see NOISE.
I saw the "random decimation" note. You can prevent aliasing from appearing on the lower resolution image but you can't remove aliases from the sampled waveform if you selected too low sampling rate for your signal. There is simply no data about what was happening in between the samples. You can't look back and apply some algorithm that will turn aliases into noise and will leave "real" frequencies untouched.
Here is what I can get this function to do. Note false paterns removed by the Antialiasing feature. Sometimes it has the opposite effect and makes the picture worse. You just have to toggle on and off and use the one that looks better.