... and a question:
What is ths 'Para Switch' for in the Save menu?
CSV output seems to be identical on and off.
But what about a FFT peak list export?
Folks, having played with the scope for some weeks, I can report it's indeed a good instrument. And I suspect that as I (hopefully) improve my knowledge, I'll find it even better.
I'd like, however, to make a few observations..:
1. Using the web interface, one could theoretically use it as it was an usb scope, with all the advantages that come with that. Two things, however, do prevent a truly satisfying experience. A) The web interface is lagged. Like a lot lagged. One could observe that that's due to the vnc tunnel and/or the ethernet link, but when I control other PCs in my home network using vnc (or a variant thereof, like rdp) I experience almost no lag. There is much to be improved. Possibly, compression protocols, or whatever. B) The scope's 1024x600 interface looks horribly blurred and coarse when scaled up brutally to 28" 4K (3840x2160). That would be easily addressable by making the client perform proper rescaling (as most vnc PC clients do).
2. I'm still trying to figure out the best way to make the scope impervious to dust. Originally, I wanted to invert airflow direction, that is, making the big opening on the back an air intake, and use the lateral vents as exhaust. The scope would have had positive pressure inside it when turned on, and the back opening would have been easily filterable.
I'm not sure, however, that inverting the airflow is actually a good idea. One alternative would be leaving the airflow direction as it is, and filter the lateral intakes. It'll be ugly, though. The only way to do this is by applying bi-adhesive, and then cut two strips of filter and attaching them to the bi-adhesive. Advice would be welcome.
Folks, having played with the scope for some weeks, I can report it's indeed a good instrument. And I suspect that as I (hopefully) improve my knowledge, I'll find it even better.
I'd like, however, to make a few observations..:
1. Using the web interface, one could theoretically use it as it was an usb scope, with all the advantages that come with that. Two things, however, do prevent a truly satisfying experience. A) The web interface is lagged. Like a lot lagged. One could observe that that's due to the vnc tunnel and/or the ethernet link, but when I control other PCs in my home network using vnc (or a variant thereof, like rdp) I experience almost no lag. There is much to be improved. Possibly, compression protocols, or whatever. B) The scope's 1024x600 interface looks horribly blurred and coarse when scaled up brutally to 28" 4K (3840x2160). That would be easily addressable by making the client perform proper rescaling (as most vnc PC clients do).
2. I'm still trying to figure out the best way to make the scope impervious to dust. Originally, I wanted to invert airflow direction, that is, making the big opening on the back an air intake, and use the lateral vents as exhaust. The scope would have had positive pressure inside it when turned on, and the back opening would have been easily filterable.
I'm not sure, however, that inverting the airflow is actually a good idea. One alternative would be leaving the airflow direction as it is, and filter the lateral intakes. It'll be ugly, though. The only way to do this is by applying bi-adhesive, and then cut two strips of filter and attaching them to the bi-adhesive. Advice would be welcome.
It is using VNC. Scope is small embedded processor based. Comparing VNC performance with powerful PC host is not really propper comparison.
I do see a bit faster response (a really small one) when using dedicated VNC client software on PC side.
Compression would not help, it is not network speed.
Also, you cannot resize non integer ratios and expect perfect rendering..
Folks, having played with the scope for some weeks, I can report it's indeed a good instrument. And I suspect that as I (hopefully) improve my knowledge, I'll find it even better.
I'd like, however, to make a few observations..:
1. Using the web interface, one could theoretically use it as it was an usb scope, with all the advantages that come with that. Two things, however, do prevent a truly satisfying experience. A) The web interface is lagged. Like a lot lagged. One could observe that that's due to the vnc tunnel and/or the ethernet link, but when I control other PCs in my home network using vnc (or a variant thereof, like rdp) I experience almost no lag. There is much to be improved. Possibly, compression protocols, or whatever. B) The scope's 1024x600 interface looks horribly blurred and coarse when scaled up brutally to 28" 4K (3840x2160). That would be easily addressable by making the client perform proper rescaling (as most vnc PC clients do).
2. I'm still trying to figure out the best way to make the scope impervious to dust. Originally, I wanted to invert airflow direction, that is, making the big opening on the back an air intake, and use the lateral vents as exhaust. The scope would have had positive pressure inside it when turned on, and the back opening would have been easily filterable.
I'm not sure, however, that inverting the airflow is actually a good idea. One alternative would be leaving the airflow direction as it is, and filter the lateral intakes. It'll be ugly, though. The only way to do this is by applying bi-adhesive, and then cut two strips of filter and attaching them to the bi-adhesive. Advice would be welcome.
It is using VNC. Scope is small embedded processor based. Comparing VNC performance with powerful PC host is not really propper comparison.
I do see a bit faster response (a really small one) when using dedicated VNC client software on PC side.
Compression would not help, it is not network speed.
Also, you cannot resize non integer ratios and expect perfect rendering..
I know it uses vnc, that's why I was asking for the same behaviour we get on a PC-to-PC vnc connection. About the impossibility of having zero (or near zero) lag and the lack of computational power, I understand. But as for the resolution, note how vnc clients perform resizing & rescaling on PCs (I mean both proper vnc clients and rdp on windows): regardless of the resolution/size of the monitor attached to the host you are remotely operating (or even if it's a headless machine) the resolution is always properly rescaled for the monitor you are using on the guest PC. The OS's UI is rescaled accordingly.
That's because the non-integer ratios between pixels don't enter into the picture at all. The host sends the information to the guest about what's supposed to be rendered on the screen. The guest's vnc client performs the actual rendering at the native resolution.
I wonder why we cannot have the same for the scope interface.
If you want to bring ratios in the picture because, say, the PC-style rescaling is too demanding for some reason (but the heavy lifting is made on the client..), then it would suffice to rescale up to a window sized as the maximum integer-multiple resolution that's closest to the native one. E.g., I got a 4K monitor, then it could rescale at 1024*3 x 600*3.
Folks, having played with the scope for some weeks, I can report it's indeed a good instrument. And I suspect that as I (hopefully) improve my knowledge, I'll find it even better.
I'd like, however, to make a few observations..:
1. Using the web interface, one could theoretically use it as it was an usb scope, with all the advantages that come with that. Two things, however, do prevent a truly satisfying experience. A) The web interface is lagged. Like a lot lagged. One could observe that that's due to the vnc tunnel and/or the ethernet link, but when I control other PCs in my home network using vnc (or a variant thereof, like rdp) I experience almost no lag. There is much to be improved. Possibly, compression protocols, or whatever. B) The scope's 1024x600 interface looks horribly blurred and coarse when scaled up brutally to 28" 4K (3840x2160). That would be easily addressable by making the client perform proper rescaling (as most vnc PC clients do).
2. I'm still trying to figure out the best way to make the scope impervious to dust. Originally, I wanted to invert airflow direction, that is, making the big opening on the back an air intake, and use the lateral vents as exhaust. The scope would have had positive pressure inside it when turned on, and the back opening would have been easily filterable.
I'm not sure, however, that inverting the airflow is actually a good idea. One alternative would be leaving the airflow direction as it is, and filter the lateral intakes. It'll be ugly, though. The only way to do this is by applying bi-adhesive, and then cut two strips of filter and attaching them to the bi-adhesive. Advice would be welcome.
It is using VNC. Scope is small embedded processor based. Comparing VNC performance with powerful PC host is not really propper comparison.
I do see a bit faster response (a really small one) when using dedicated VNC client software on PC side.
Compression would not help, it is not network speed.
Also, you cannot resize non integer ratios and expect perfect rendering..
I know it uses vnc, that's why I was asking for the same behaviour we get on a PC-to-PC vnc connection. About the impossibility of having zero (or near zero) lag and the lack of computational power, I understand. But as for the resolution, note how vnc clients perform resizing & rescaling on PCs (I mean both proper vnc clients and rdp on windows): regardless of the resolution/size of the monitor attached to the host you are remotely operating (or even if it's a headless machine) the resolution is always properly rescaled for the monitor you are using on the guest PC. The OS's UI is rescaled accordingly.
That's because the non-integer ratios between pixels don't enter into the picture at all. The host sends the information to the guest about what's supposed to be rendered on the screen. The guest's vnc client performs the actual rendering at the native resolution.
I wonder why we cannot have the same for the scope interface.
If you want to bring ratios in the picture because, say, the PC-style rescaling is too demanding for some reason (but the heavy lifting is made on the client..), then it would suffice to rescale up to a window sized as the maximum integer-multiple resolution that's closest to the native one. E.g., I got a 4K monitor, then it could rescale at 1024*3 x 600*3.
Ahh.. now I get it what are you talking... VNC viewer built in web control doesn't have rescaling options.....
Yeah, this is HTML5 VNC client in browser (in Java), and not fully featured desktop application...
I use web control non resized 100% screen most of the time (it's large enough) and if I need more control of the VNC parameters I use VNC Viewer on a PC..
I don't like or use 4K monitors because they make pixels so small you need to resize everything to be able to see... So I avoid problem in the first place..
110 DPI monitor I have is highest pixel density that makes sense on desktop PC to me.. 3440x1440 for a monitor with 800x335 mm display size. (34" SJ55W Ultra WQHD Monitor). And that is marginally on a smallish side already for my eyes..
I didn't think about using a proper vnc viewer to access the scope interface.. Thanks, I'll try ASAP. Any recommendation on specific clients that work best with the scope 'server' would be welcome...
This would be a huge effort when e.g. the table could present at the end the THD.
Actually there´s no alternative from counting the shds together.
When one of our tested inverter shows a suspicious THD on the analyzer, we connect a scope at the output and watching the shds on the FFT screen.
Table function allows you to display the shds in numeric form, as mentioned above it would be cool if the scope would display the thd also.
EDIT:
http://www.sengpielaudio.com/calculator-thd.htm
THD table, calculator
Just linked this in another thread for Peter:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/362542224_Total_Harmonic_Distortion_THD_analysis_utilizing_the_FFT_capabilities_of_modern_digital_storage_oscilloscopes
....
The result is 0,2288% which is in the same ballpark.
.....
I don't see any huge advantage of VNC over the web interface. There may be a few ms difference. That's it.
Not enough to make me install more spyware permanently on my system.
You have to install just the vnc client, NOT the server.
You have to install just the vnc client, NOT the server.Right. Are you under the impression the client cannot be spyware? It is. It's confirmed. When active, it communicates with an external site. If your okay with that, that's fine. Not that I'm assuming they are doing anything detrimental with whatever data they are collecting, but I just don't feel I get enough from the product to warrant that exchange. As I said, the web interface works just fine and does not feel any more lagging than the VNC client, so why burden my system with more code that consumes resources I may need for other more useful things.
WE all run lots of spyware. Chrome is spyware, MS Word is spyware. Windows is spyware. It goes on and on. Almost everything you run on your system is spyware. It's collecting data and sending it off your network to someone else. Just be aware of that and balance that cost with the benefit of running the software. In my case VNC offers me nothing for the space it takes up and the resources it uses.
Are you under the impression the client cannot be spyware? It is. It's confirmed.
There are several VNC clients, some open source. Are they all spyware?
Has anyone watched the short Siglent video on using VNC:
Has anyone watched the short Siglent video on using VNC:Thanks!
Just did and was aware of all that. Still not enough added value for me to install it again. Tried it and it does not offer enough advantage to warrant staying on my system. My web browser is sufficient and I can use it for a lot of additional things I can't use VNC for.
telnetd -l /bin/sh
in the siglent_device_startup.sh
file, then it won't ask for any login details.