Just got mine, looks good. I can't wait to get some spare time and integrate it into Matlab to add the VSA functionality
Not a 14 bit front end, but still, for low order modulations it should work pretty well with the fast ETH interface!
Just got mine, looks good. I can't wait to get some spare time and integrate it into Matlab to add the VSA functionality
Not a 14 bit front end, but still, for low order modulations it should work pretty well with the fast ETH interface!
Could you please elaborate what's so special about 10bit DAC? I tried to find any pictures to comparison, but didn't find any _convincing_ evidence showing that 10-12bit scopes make a huge difference. I also noticed in some specs there are "effective number of DAC bits" which is often not even 8! So, looks like it's not always possible to make effective use of all the DAC bits available.
I'm asking because I'm making a decision -- to buy a cheaper scope from GW Instek (like gds-2074e), or to go with rtb2004. So, any pictures are welcome!
Just got mine, looks good. I can't wait to get some spare time and integrate it into Matlab to add the VSA functionality
Not a 14 bit front end, but still, for low order modulations it should work pretty well with the fast ETH interface!
Could you please elaborate what's so special about 10bit DAC? I tried to find any pictures to comparison, but didn't find any _convincing_ evidence showing that 10-12bit scopes make a huge difference. I also noticed in some specs there are "effective number of DAC bits" which is often not even 8! So, looks like it's not always possible to make effective use of all the DAC bits available.
I'm asking because I'm making a decision -- to buy a cheaper scope from GW Instek (like gds-2074e), or to go with rtb2004. So, any pictures are welcome!
Could you please elaborate what's so special about 10bit DAC?
There's an updated datasheet for the RTB out now, I compared it to the last one ...
UART decode spec changed: max bitrate officially reduced to 3 Mbps.
The RTB2K screen has 800 pixel vertical resolution so you can see at least 9-bits straight up. In general for any higher resolution scope I also find the extra bits useful in the following situations:
- Changing vertical scale after waveform capture, sort of like long memory in the other axis
- FFT
- Nonlinear math (If the RTB2K had any useful math capabilities )
- Post-processing as mentioned by others
ENOB can be an issue but usually doesn't come into play until higher frequencies, there is a whole world of low-frequency analysis where the extra bits can be handy.
I got it, thanks.Still, I would be very grateful If someone could share any actual data. Like, two zoomed waveforms, one is smoth and nice from rtb2000, another one crude and steppy from an 8bit scope.
Concerning FFT, the difference is in the noise floor?
And while I'm at it, here is the same signal with each scope in High Resolution mode acquired at 5V/div, zoomed up to 200mV/div.
I used to get similar distortion on my Tek TDS744A if there wasn't enough noise to make the hi-res oversampling work correctly.
I'm curious if 10bits are preserved over the whole bandwidth.
Did Dave give up on a in depth review of this scope?
I would comment that ENOB is more important than the ADC's banner bit-depth spec. And, no scope will ever have ENOB=BoR because there's going to be noise. That's one of the industry's dirty secrets .
I understand ENOB. What's BoR?
That some pretty strange distortion on the MSO X3024A. Here's your same hi-res measurement on a MSO X3104. Still noisier than the RTB2K, but not distorted.
To optimize the ADC you should zoom all your signals in full-screen when capturing
That some pretty strange distortion on the MSO X3024A. Here's your same hi-res measurement on a MSO X3104. Still noisier than the RTB2K, but not distorted.That is interesting that yours is so much better. I don't want to hijack the thread into a long discussion on the MSOX Hires mode so I won't post any more screens on this, but I get a similar result on all four input channels, with two different function gens, switching to 50-ohm termination, etc. Maybe a difference on the 1GHz front-end? My unit is a year out-of-cal, but I'd be surprised if cal would address this at all. I'm inclined to agree with nctnico that there just isn't enough noise on my 5V/div range to make averaging useful.
Didn't seem possible they would design the scope with such a low rate. Hopefully that gets fixed in the rumored "pro" version of the scope.
Didn't seem possible they would design the scope with such a low rate. Hopefully that gets fixed in the rumored "pro" version of the scope.
I don't think it's a bad scope, but with the current pricing it's now too close to the 3000T. If there is a pro version it will be interesting to see how they position it against the 3000T without lowering the current price of the 'non-Pro' version significantly.