thanks for reporting and your effort to trace it down!
I'm wondering if, beside LIN and CAN error detection and decoding issues, the 1553B is also affected?
Can someone check this?
If I would take my scope at work, I could decode 1553 - But causing an error on the bus...Must talk to our software guy.
Couldn´t do that immediately, so have patience everyone.
How about recording a piece of 1553 data with a scope, edit the waveform to add errors and transfer it to an AWG? Or skip the recording part and create a waveform using a script and load that into an AWG. You can create all kinds of errors and bit time variations that way.
How about recording a piece of 1553 data with a scope, edit the waveform to add errors and transfer it to an AWG? Or skip the recording part and create a waveform using a script and load that into an AWG. You can create all kinds of errors and bit time variations that way.
You can search as long as you could, you won´t find it...
None of the siglent models have these functions and I´ve added them to my wishlist "long time ago" too.
Small question for the SDS experts
These instruments allow the user to set the horizontal reference strategy (Utility > Menu > Reference position). It is described in the manual on page 337.This is a welcome function indeed.
- You can choose between a "Fixed Delay' (simply called 'Delay' on the screen of the device). Then the reference point is simply in the middle of the screen, and when the horizontal timebase scale is changed, the waveform expands/contracts around the center of the display.
- Then there is "Fixed Position" (simply called 'Position' on the screen of the device). Here the user can select a reference position from 0% (outer left of the screen) to 100% (outer right of the screen). Then the waveform expands/contract from that chosen position.
Now the question... In the current FW 1.3.9R6, when ‘position’ is selected (i.e., the button turns blue), the position entry field disappears, and if you select “delay”, the horizontal entry field re-appears.
Could it be that the labels on these two buttons are accidentally switched in the user interface?
(Also, I find the terminology position vs. delay used kind of confusing. It would be more intuitive calling this "Centre Position" and "Adjustable" Position", or simply a single parameter that is default at 50% and can be changed. Just my two cents.)
You can search as long as you could, you won´t find it...
None of the siglent models have these functions and I´ve added them to my wishlist "long time ago" too.Pity.
Measuring low level, low frequency signals was (almost) impossible on Siglent due to hf excessive noise. Rigol did it without a problem. Even it's noisy front-end was not a problem.
Well, at last I have good excuse for not selling my second, sorry, third... Sorry. Just not selling this little scope.
You can search as long as you could, you won´t find it...
None of the siglent models have these functions and I´ve added them to my wishlist "long time ago" too.Pity.
Measuring low level, low frequency signals was (almost) impossible on Siglent due to hf excessive noise. Rigol did it without a problem. Even it's noisy front-end was not a problem.
Well, at last I have good excuse for not selling my second, sorry, third... Sorry. Just not selling this little scope.You’re not serious, are you?
Siglent’s SDS2000X Plus of all things should not be able to measure low level low frequency signals (within the constraints of a general purpose oscilloscope), whereas a noisy Rigol is? And the excellent HF noise of the Siglent, which is somewhere between 2.4 and 3.5 nV/sqrt(Hz) should be a problem for LF measurements?
It’s not the first time that I’ve demonstrated low level, low frequency measurements with a Siglent DSO.
This setting alters the function of the horizontal position knob, and everything is labelled correctly.
Can't help though to think that even if there is no mistake, this could all be much more intuitive. Leaving out on the screen the word fixed for the Fixed Delay mode and the Fixed Position mode creates unnecessary confusion. (I mean, if I read Position on a menu item then I kind of expect that here I can change the position. if I read Fixed position then I understand I cannot change the position...)
You can search as long as you could, you won´t find it...
None of the siglent models have these functions and I´ve added them to my wishlist "long time ago" too.Pity.
Measuring low level, low frequency signals was (almost) impossible on Siglent due to hf excessive noise. Rigol did it without a problem. Even it's noisy front-end was not a problem.
Well, at last I have good excuse for not selling my second, sorry, third... Sorry. Just not selling this little scope.You’re not serious, are you?
Siglent’s SDS2000X Plus of all things should not be able to measure low level low frequency signals (within the constraints of a general purpose oscilloscope), whereas a noisy Rigol is? And the excellent HF noise of the Siglent, which is somewhere between 2.4 and 3.5 nV/sqrt(Hz) should be a problem for LF measurements?
It’s not the first time that I’ve demonstrated low level, low frequency measurements with a Siglent DSO.
There are so many measures to ensure proper measurements under challenging conditions, including the trigger noise rejection function and HF-rejection coupling.
For the acquisition we have 10 bits mode, 20 MHz bandwidth limiter and average and ERES math functions. ERES is a lowpass filter by the way.
In the attached screenshot you can see a 10 Hz, 1.1 mVpp sinewave directly captured with 10 bits and 20 MHz bandwidth limit. Perfectly usable already, no further measures required. Is that not low frequency low level? Can you demonstrate how the Rigol does it so much better?
But there are two additional math traces. F1 is ERES 3.0, boosting the total resolution up to 16 bits. By limiting the record length to only 200 kpts the ERES lowpass has a corner frequency of just 7 kHz. Since its not the HF noise, but the 1/f noise that is a problem with all general purpose oscilloscopes, we still see some significant LF noise at the sensitivity of 500 µV/div. The measurements are pretty close, so neither the resolution enhancement nor the lowpass filter was really required.
F2 shows the result of 16x averaging. Since this is a static signal, it is the more effective measure, because it also reduces the LF noise. Still not a huge difference.
Finally it would be possible to combine ERES with averaging in a single math trace by means of the formula editor.
SDS2354X Plus_1mVpp_10Hz_200kpts(ERES7kHz)
In some cases the signal coming into the oscilloscope has a lot of noise in frequency bands that you are not interested in. It is very handy if the oscilloscope can do digital filtering on the signal to get rid of those unwanted frequencies. It is one of the reasons that I hang on to my GW Instek DSO. Digital filtering is a very handy feature if you develop digital signal processing applications; you can use the filtering in the DSO to get a feel of how well (or not) a signal will clean up in the digital domain.
On the DS1054 I turned math with lpf, set filter's bw to 3kHz and it was done.
Thank You for Your input!
I'm describing below what happened, and why I would like to have filters.
I've set minimal amplitude (2mV pk-pk) @ 1kHz on SDG2042x. This signal was connected to the input of the transformer with ratio about 1:1. There was a reason to keep amplitude of test signal low. The signal on the output was "enriched" with the spikes from a different psu-s around, therefore syncing was troublesome. I tried to average signal, but it started to... dissapear (as syncing was unstable due to "spikes", averaging was approaching to the value of 0). Limiting input bandwith to 20M didn't helped. I was thinking about using ERES, but unfortunatelly I'm not as familiar with my scope as I wish to be, so limiting memory depth wouldn't be solution I might want to try. Thank You for this trick!!!
On the DS1054 I turned math with lpf, set filter's bw to 3kHz and it was done.
In some cases the signal coming into the oscilloscope has a lot of noise in frequency bands that you are not interested in. It is very handy if the oscilloscope can do digital filtering on the signal to get rid of those unwanted frequencies. It is one of the reasons that I hang on to my GW Instek DSO. Digital filtering is a very handy feature if you develop digital signal processing applications; you can use the filtering in the DSO to get a feel of how well (or not) a signal will clean up in the digital domain.I've never said that digital filters can't be useful. Yet when someone complains about"HF noise", then we need a lowpass, right? Consequently I've listed the appropriate features to limit the bandwidth (10-bit mode, bandwidth limit, ERES math-function).
I've also never said that we might not get a filter package eventually. But then folks will most likely complain if they cannot get a 20 kHz lowpass at 1 GSa/s sample rate.
Think having selectable/settable digital filters of various types would be a great asset to the Siglent line of DSOs.
Maybe someone from Siglent is listening
You are not understanding the use case here. My GW Instek can low-pass filter to less than 20kHz with 1Gs/s input data just fine...
On the DS1054 I turned math with lpf, set filter's bw to 3kHz and it was done.
It sounds like the issue here is getting a stable trigger and I'm not seeing how LPF in a MATH function would help that. Why/how did the DS1054 get a stable trigger when the other scopes didn't? Or did you just use a single shot?
Thank You for Your input!
I'm describing below what happened, and why I would like to have filters.
I've set minimal amplitude (2mV pk-pk) @ 1kHz on SDG2042x. This signal was connected to the input of the transformer with ratio about 1:1. There was a reason to keep amplitude of test signal low. The signal on the output was "enriched" with the spikes from a different psu-s around, therefore syncing was troublesome. I tried to average signal, but it started to... dissapear (as syncing was unstable due to "spikes", averaging was approaching to the value of 0). Limiting input bandwith to 20M didn't helped. I was thinking about using ERES, but unfortunatelly I'm not as familiar with my scope as I wish to be, so limiting memory depth wouldn't be solution I might want to try. Thank You for this trick!!!
On the DS1054 I turned math with lpf, set filter's bw to 3kHz and it was done.The user manual UM0102XP-E01B, on page 209, contains a table that lists how to calculate the ERES bandwidth from the number of bits and the sample rate.
With deep memory, the sample rate remains pretty constant of a wide range of horizontal timebase settings, but at slower timebases and by limiting the max. memory in the Acquisition menu you can get an appropriate sample rate for your timebase. A future firware might bring a more convenient constant sample rate setting exactly for these purposes (the SDS6000 already has it).
Even a dedicated filter package will need such tricks, because ressources go through the roof if you want low frequency, high resolution at still high sample rates. Try looking at just the audio band using even an 1 Mpts FFT at 2 GSa/s effective FFT sample rate. And then 1 Mpts certainly isn't an option for a realtime DSP filter...