Not sure which command your referencing, for the VGAC it is an unsigned number, however it splits ranges at code 128 (low amplification mode vs high amplification mode), so 0-127 is low amplification mode, 128-255 is high amplification mode.
I went into more detail a few pages back in this thread,
I figured out!
But the story is somewhat confusing. The quote:
If the decimal is greater than 127, it should minus 255.Then the value is code value. Such as the wave data is ―FC‖ convert to decimal is 252. So the code value is 252-255 = -3.
comes from the documentation of the WAVEFORM? | WF? command.
I implemented this treating the rawvalues as a signed 8 bit integer. But that would be -256. So not the documented way. For a moment I thought I screwed up.
The problem is, that I convert this at two places, and in the averaging part I was still using the suggested (documented) way, which brings every value 1 step up above 127 (thus below 0) compared to the other method.
I have the strong suspicion that the documentation is wrong. It should say:
If the decimal is greater than 127, it should minus 256. Then the value is code value. Such as the wave data is ―FC‖ convert to decimal is 252. So the code value is 252-256 = -4.
Which is treating them as signed 8 bit values. Without having two ways of ending up with a resulting 0.
Also this solves the strange glitch around the value of 0.
Hmm, I think the glitch just shifted to some voltage above 0. The way I average things (by throwing away the extremes) results in very fine details/errors, but may also effect the way these errors shows themselves. I have to sit on my thinking stone for this one.
instead of throwing away those extemes, you could just do statistical culling,
Take Average of a sample window,
Get however many standard deviations you desire,
Cull any readings outside of that window and take the median value.
A mathematician will probably hunt me to the end of the earth for suggesting it, but see how you go.
The location of the glitches stay at the same voltage while changing to a higher sensitivity (100mV -> 20mV). So these gitches are not related to the adc.
If I do a offset on the AWG they rise with that offset.
The problem is that my analogue glitches where of about the same size as the digital ones. That is confusing.
If I however go down in sensitivity, the digital glitches will show very clear.
It show clearly that the "ramp -256" should be the correct one. The " ramp-255" has as expected a double 0 outcome.
instead of throwing away those extemes, you could just do statistical culling,
Take Average of a sample window,
Get however many standard deviations you desire,
Cull any readings outside of that window and take the median value.
A mathematician will probably hunt me to the end of the earth for suggesting it, but see how you go.
The reason I think throwing them away is a good thing, is because the extremes can be just be spikes because someone started the microwave. Those shouldn't be averaged with just noisy values.
But we probably think alike, I'm having some foreign language issues here...
Also in my case I know that I measure a slow ramp, so any "details" would be errors. And I'm in the process of hunting them down
For those who like to see the stairsteps at 2V/div. (The wrong calculation also does not go negative enough!)
I'm glad the 0-crossing error can be fixed. Now I've still some analogue glitches (or AWG problems, but that would not be my first guess) to tackle. May'be some ringing, because it also repeats its self, but does not variate with VDiv settings. This I will continue in the other thread to keep this one clean.
Somewhere on this thread I think there was a "scope comparison chart" posted. I've done several searches but can't seem to find it. I'm looking at the Siglent SDS1000x-e line but wanted to compare it with others. Thanks.
So I did some investigation on the other glitches I still get.
The graph:
* Shows the averaging of 190 values, 50% in the extremes discarded
* 10.0 mV / div but also the same is seen on 100mV/div and 20 mV/div (so no ADC issues here)
For me this is a strong indication that the SAG1021 has a DAC or other digital issue. Also this shift up does not restore (which would be an indication of something more analogue).
Same settings, but with the ofset of the AWG, from 0.353 to 0.343 V.
The relative position of the glitch seem exactly the same! (The offset may drift a bit so an exact difference of 0.01 V should not have been be expected.)
Somewhere on this thread I think there was a "scope comparison chart" posted. I've done several searches but can't seem to find it. I'm looking at the Siglent SDS1000x-e line but wanted to compare it with others. Thanks.
The sticky one pinned at the top of the Test Equipment board ?
For the 4ch Siglent X-E's just use a search with the exact model # and the one your want to compare it to.
There's quite a few comparison threads.
What is the latest available firmware version?
There must be something newer. I have 7.1.x.
I think the complete firmware version numbering is for example like this: 7.1.6.1.26
If I'm not mistaken on the Siglent website its only the last 3 groups of digits that counts
I have had my 1104X-E about a week. My firmware is 8.1.6.1.26 Hardware version 01-04 Cal certificate is dated Feb-19-2019
I have had my 1104X-E about a week. My firmware is 8.1.6.1.26 Hardware version 01-04 Cal certificate is dated Feb-19-2019
These bolded are important 8.1.
6.1.26 when we normally talk about FW version.
example 7.1.6.1.26 and 8.1.6.1.26 are same when look as user.
first 7 or 8 do not care. (no meaning for users)
x.
1.6.1.26
This 1 tell SDS1004X-E Operating System-V1 (Only For 4-Channel )
Better explained in SDS1004X-E Operating System-V1 .zip package included pdf.
Lets hope no one anymore have 0 in this place in 4 channel model. If have, please update, following tightly instructions.
Does SDS1104X-E have digital filters like band pass, low pass , high pass and band gap?
I want a scope upgrade but i need those filters, since i do power electronics work.
Thanks
I am not sure about Siglent scopes, but micsig tablet scopes (I think it is the plus model that includes all the options) and GWInstek GDS1054B (installed as an APP that you can download from their website) have digital filters.
Micsig: High Low Pass
GWInstek: High Low Band Pass
The GDS1054B can be hacked to activate serial decoding, 300MHz (actual frontend BW is 100MHz, but can visualize signals up to 350MHz), search function, segmented memory.
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/possible-gw-instek-gds-1000b-hack/msg1252772/#msg1252772
SDS1104X-E is in my interest, the alternative in my budget is the famous ds1054z but since its ui is so slow i am searching for something better...
GDS1054B is out of my price range
GDS1054B is $390 - $420 in the US
the alternative in my budget is the famous ds1054z but since its ui is so slow
So slow....says who ?
In the last 4 years I got two ones, we (company) working actual with three every day.
It surely had some issues comparing with the top of the pops what dso concerns.
But "so slow" was not the point.
...
GDS1054B is out of my price range
If you don't need the 4 channels, take a lookEDIT: Attached a screen capture from an IDS-2047E with band-pass 20MHz to 50MHz on CH1, and low-pass 50MHz on CH2, both with a 60MHz sinusoidal 4Vpp at input
At a glance, I didn't saw this option on the SDS1000X-E manual, but on the GW-Instek manual they only mention Low and High pass filter, when the current firmware has also band-pass. So things with the Siglent manual may also not be updated for the current firmware.
I suppose if anyone else, tautech may clarify this for you about the Siglent.
Thank you Mortymore for the datails.
I want to know for the Siglent, if it doesn't have filters i will chose the Rigol.
So slow....says who ?
In the last 4 years I got two ones, we (company) working actual with three every day.
It surely had some issues comparing with the top of the pops what dso concerns.
But "so slow" was not the point.
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/ds1054z-sometimes-slow/
Thank you Mortymore for the datails.
I want to know for the Siglent, if it doesn't have filters i will chose the Rigol.
Does the Rigol have digital filters?
Does the Rigol have digital filters?
According to the
manual, yes.
see on pag.116: Math Operation - Filter: Low Pass, High Pass, Band Pass, Band Stop
EDIT1: In the meantime, I had some fun, sort of reproducing what this video suggests, also taking advantage of the Spectrum Analyzer (instead of FFT) to start finding the harmonic frequencies, and later isolate them using the band-pass filter APP to isolate the harmonics
EDIT2: Seems that Siglent SDS1000CFL series has digital filter option, but I can't find it on SDS1000X-E