Nice feature overall. But -- do you really trust these images filtered waveforms so that you can really measure something from these. In my eyes they look bit odd. But of course this is nice feature and lot of more than nothing.
I hope if they are implemented they ara also so documented that user know enough exactly these filters detailed data and errors. Most bad thing what can happen with these dsigital side filters is if user come fooled with alias frequencies and then do not know anything what is false and what is true without some further checks. Most danger these are for example possible unexperienced users who are still in learning curve position where believe all what instrument show - but truth is that all what can see in DSO display is sum of known and unknown errors mixed with unknown input signal.
Then side note. (example images 5 and 6 names ) Fundamental frequency == 1st harmonic! Yesterday, now and forever.
If someone name harmonics wrong like this then all goes wrong. This error swap also odd and even harmonics and if who ever make this error then just all goes wrong when he think anything bit more complex. More I thing this was just typing error (example your images 5 and 6). I note it because I have seen this error (not only typing error but also thinking error) many times and this error is not very rare.
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
Nice feature overall. But -- do you really trust these images filtered waveforms so that you can really measure something from these. In my eyes they look bit odd. But of course this is nice feature and lot of more than nothing.
I hope if they are implemented they ara also so documented that user know enough exactly these filters detailed data and errors. Most bad thing what can happen with these dsigital side filters is if user come fooled with alias frequencies and then do not know anything what is false and what is true without some further checks. Most danger these are for example possible unexperienced users who are still in learning curve position where believe all what instrument show - but truth is that all what can see in DSO display is sum of known and unknown errors mixed with unknown input signal.
Then side note. (example images 5 and 6 names ) Fundamental frequency == 1st harmonic! Yesterday, now and forever.
If someone name harmonics wrong like this then all goes wrong. This error swap also odd and even harmonics and if who ever make this error then just all goes wrong when he think anything bit more complex. More I thing this was just typing error (example your images 5 and 6). I note it because I have seen this error (not only typing error but also thinking error) many times and this error is not very rare.
So you are still on your crusade to prove that filters are stupid because Siglent doesn't have them..
And you criteria is that after you filter the signal it doesn't look the same as original and it is confusing and it can confuse somebody.
So can inverting channel and scopes have that. So can all other math that does precisely that: it makes signal on screen look completely different than input signal. That's confusing too.
Filters on a scope are just another math operation where we want to make some mathematical transformation because we are interested in what a signal would look like if we do that.
People gave you few scenarios where it is useful. One is extracting modulation from PWM signal. Second one might be measuring RMS in specific bandwidth. Or simply suppressing 50 Hz hum in a signal.Etc, etc.
In order to be useful, naturally, it has to be implemented correctly, with defined characteristics.. So I prefer no filter to some crap.
Also you have to setup input signal correctly and know what are you doing, otherwise you will get crap. GIGO, as always.
But well implemented, filtering is powerful tool.
But well implemented, filtering is powerful tool.
Nice feature overall. But -- do you really trust these images filtered waveforms so that you can really measure something from these. In my eyes they look bit odd. But of course this is nice feature and lot of more than nothing.
I hope if they are implemented they ara also so documented that user know enough exactly these filters detailed data and errors. Most bad thing what can happen with these dsigital side filters is if user come fooled with alias frequencies and then do not know anything what is false and what is true without some further checks. Most danger these are for example possible unexperienced users who are still in learning curve position where believe all what instrument show - but truth is that all what can see in DSO display is sum of known and unknown errors mixed with unknown input signal.
Then side note. (example images 5 and 6 names ) Fundamental frequency == 1st harmonic! Yesterday, now and forever.
If someone name harmonics wrong like this then all goes wrong. This error swap also odd and even harmonics and if who ever make this error then just all goes wrong when he think anything bit more complex. More I thing this was just typing error (example your images 5 and 6). I note it because I have seen this error (not only typing error but also thinking error) many times and this error is not very rare.
So you are still on your crusade to prove that filters are stupid because Siglent doesn't have them..
And you criteria is that after you filter the signal it doesn't look the same as original and it is confusing and it can confuse somebody.
So can inverting channel and scopes have that. So can all other math that does precisely that: it makes signal on screen look completely different than input signal. That's confusing too.
Filters on a scope are just another math operation where we want to make some mathematical transformation because we are interested in what a signal would look like if we do that.
People gave you few scenarios where it is useful. One is extracting modulation from PWM signal. Second one might be measuring RMS in specific bandwidth. Or simply suppressing 50 Hz hum in a signal.Etc, etc.
In order to be useful, naturally, it has to be implemented correctly, with defined characteristics.. So I prefer no filter to some crap.
Also you have to setup input signal correctly and know what are you doing, otherwise you will get crap. GIGO, as always.
But well implemented, filtering is powerful tool.
And you jump over my main phrase in my answer, where from this selective blindness is coming?
Also these filters are in Siglent many older models and thousands of times I have told them as useful. But not at all without also some cons and also traps.QuoteBut well implemented, filtering is powerful tool.
Yes. Of course.
Then need define what is well implemented. Have you seen these filters detailed specifications. As long as they are "something" they are for nice images. "Adjust and look if you like image is nice".
Nice feature overall. But -- do you really trust these images filtered waveforms so that you can really measure something from these. In my eyes they look bit odd. But of course this is nice feature and lot of more than nothing.
I hope if they are implemented they ara also so documented that user know enough exactly these filters detailed data and errors. Most bad thing what can happen with these dsigital side filters is if user come fooled with alias frequencies and then do not know anything what is false and what is true without some further checks. Most danger these are for example possible unexperienced users who are still in learning curve position where believe all what instrument show - but truth is that all what can see in DSO display is sum of known and unknown errors mixed with unknown input signal.
Then side note. (example images 5 and 6 names ) Fundamental frequency == 1st harmonic! Yesterday, now and forever.
If someone name harmonics wrong like this then all goes wrong. This error swap also odd and even harmonics and if who ever make this error then just all goes wrong when he think anything bit more complex. More I thing this was just typing error (example your images 5 and 6). I note it because I have seen this error (not only typing error but also thinking error) many times and this error is not very rare.
So you are still on your crusade to prove that filters are stupid because Siglent doesn't have them..
And you criteria is that after you filter the signal it doesn't look the same as original and it is confusing and it can confuse somebody.
So can inverting channel and scopes have that. So can all other math that does precisely that: it makes signal on screen look completely different than input signal. That's confusing too.
Filters on a scope are just another math operation where we want to make some mathematical transformation because we are interested in what a signal would look like if we do that.
People gave you few scenarios where it is useful. One is extracting modulation from PWM signal. Second one might be measuring RMS in specific bandwidth. Or simply suppressing 50 Hz hum in a signal.Etc, etc.
In order to be useful, naturally, it has to be implemented correctly, with defined characteristics.. So I prefer no filter to some crap.
Also you have to setup input signal correctly and know what are you doing, otherwise you will get crap. GIGO, as always.
But well implemented, filtering is powerful tool.
And you jump over my main phrase in my answer, where from this selective blindness is coming?
Also these filters are in Siglent many older models and thousands of times I have told them as useful. But not at all without also some cons and also traps.QuoteBut well implemented, filtering is powerful tool.
Yes. Of course.
Then need define what is well implemented. Have you seen these filters detailed specifications. As long as they are "something" they are for nice images. "Adjust and look if you like image is nice".
I believe I finally understand what you mean. It seems that we are both suffering from a problem of communicating trough a (to us) foreign language.
So we are saying the same: Well implemented filters would be great addition to current Siglent production line. But only done well and well specified, otherwise they are gimmick.
I'm sorry if I wronged you by my misunderstanding. My apologies.
Regards,
Sinisa
FEATURE REQUEST
A possibility to fix the horizontal 0 point (the blue marker) on a certain position on the screen and not on the specific time.
Often I'd like to set the triggering point of the waveform at the beginning of the timeline and not at the middle. No problem to set it, but the 0 point moves each time I change the time base.
micsig tablet scopes (I think it is the plus model that includes all the options) ... have digital filters.
micsig tablet scopes (I think it is the plus model that includes all the options) ... have digital filters.
FWIW the representative of micsig here claimed the low-pass filter is implemented in hardware. I'd expect a varicap. I found this feature very handy to remove unwanted noise when only fraction of full bandwidth is needed.
micsig tablet scopes (I think it is the plus model that includes all the options) ... have digital filters.
FWIW the representative of micsig here claimed the low-pass filter is implemented in hardware. I'd expect a varicap. I found this feature very handy to remove unwanted noise when only fraction of full bandwidth is needed.
micsig tablet scopes (I think it is the plus model that includes all the options) ... have digital filters.
FWIW the representative of micsig here claimed the low-pass filter is implemented in hardware. I'd expect a varicap. I found this feature very handy to remove unwanted noise when only fraction of full bandwidth is needed.
Variable freq LPF filter? How steep?
With manufacturers like Rigol producing DSOs with unspecified and variable full power bandwidth, these tests are close to useless without specifying the input sensitivity. In the past this was not a consideration because the full power bandwidth was always higher than the bandwidth at any input sensitivity which was a result of operating the input stages over a much smaller signal range.
I am claiming that with a modern oscilloscope, the measurement cannot be replicated without knowing the input sensitivity because many oscilloscopes now have wildly varying bandwidth with different input sensitives. This has shown up repeated on this forum with users making rise time and bandwidth measurements of Rigol DS1000Z DSOs which vary over more than a 2:1 range depending on the test conditions.
Why we need filters (very rudimentary three phase pwm):
one has to play with the integrator and still the reconstructed waveform will not be correct
no, or at least AFAIK the math channel operate on the full memory (in the 5000X. I believe in the 1000X as well).
I have not checked SDS1000X series but I suspect not (least for measurements there is intermewdiate buffer, more than display resolution but less than raw acquisition memory.