Your videos are excellent, I'm a fan of your work. The point I was getting at though, is that (probably) nobody is going to take a mortgage out to buy a scope if they don't know how to use it. 😉😉
On a side note, it probably helps your video production quality that none of your gear competes in price range with the scopes in this thread (which are excellent in their own right).
I'm still wondering how accurate the time keeping would be on these units once the clock is set?
For example, say I needed to monitor for an intermittent communications fault (ie: data bus) at an industrial plant over a weekend and needed event timestamps but could not run a network cable for the NTP sync. I wonder if the time was manually set on the oscilloscope how well it could maintain its accuracy after say a 24 or 48 hour period in a stand alone application.
I'm still wondering how accurate the time keeping would be on these units once the clock is set?
For example, say I needed to monitor for an intermittent communications fault (ie: data bus) at an industrial plant over a weekend and needed event timestamps but could not run a network cable for the NTP sync. I wonder if the time was manually set on the oscilloscope how well it could maintain its accuracy after say a 24 or 48 hour period in a stand alone application.
I'd guess there are two possibilities.
1) The clock is run from the internal timebase which is accurate to 25ppm. In that case given that there are 172,800 seconds in 48 hours it would be accurate to less than +/- 4.4 seconds.
2) The clock is run from a standard 32,768 Hz watch/clock crystal. They've been making these for eons and they are at the heart of every quartz watch made today. So possibly even better than the internal timebase and certainly not significantly worse.
What sort of accuracy do you need over 2 days?
Another opportunity to ask why modern oscilloscopes don’t come with or offer an option for a 10 MHz reference input….?
I've seen some scopes (don't recall the brands) that offer multiple references outputs, but never in less expensive models.
I just love the fact that you can control the scope with VNC or Remmina, even though the screen-update is slighly more laggy than observing it on the scope itself, quite noticeable in XY-mode.
I've seen some scopes (don't recall the brands) that offer multiple references outputs, but never in less expensive models.
With the capabilities of these new scopes it would really be nice if they added a ref. input. Until now it didn’t really make sense, but with the new measuring capabilities it becomes more needed.
BTW, I just love the fact that you can control the scope with VNC or Remmina, even though the screen-update is slighly more laggy than observing it on the scope itself, quite noticeable in XY-mode. Still another way to control the scope remotely.
I've seen some scopes (don't recall the brands) that offer multiple references outputs, but never in less expensive models.
With the capabilities of these new scopes it would really be nice if they added a ref. input. Until now it didn’t really make sense, but with the new measuring capabilities it becomes more needed.
BTW, I just love the fact that you can control the scope with VNC or Remmina, even though the screen-update is slighly more laggy than observing it on the scope itself, quite noticeable in XY-mode. Still another way to control the scope remotely.
Saying something would be nice without explaining why is not something we can learn from.
I can also make a point that I estimate that out of millions of scopes sold and used around the world very few in percentage are connected to external references even if they have the input.
For majority of use only parameter that is important is that scope has low internal clock jitter, and funny enough, not so much because scope timing measurements but because of performance of ADC.
What is your scenario where you think you would need scope disciplined to laboratory frequency standard, could you please elaborate?
I've seen some scopes (don't recall the brands) that offer multiple references outputs, but never in less expensive models.
With the capabilities of these new scopes it would really be nice if they added a ref. input. Until now it didn’t really make sense, but with the new measuring capabilities it becomes more needed.
BTW, I just love the fact that you can control the scope with VNC or Remmina, even though the screen-update is slighly more laggy than observing it on the scope itself, quite noticeable in XY-mode. Still another way to control the scope remotely.
Saying something would be nice without explaining why is not something we can learn from.
I can also make a point that I estimate that out of millions of scopes sold and used around the world very few in percentage are connected to external references even if they have the input.
For majority of use only parameter that is important is that scope has low internal clock jitter, and funny enough, not so much because scope timing measurements but because of performance of ADC.
What is your scenario where you think you would need scope disciplined to laboratory frequency standard, could you please elaborate?FFT with an accurate reference, for one.
Despite everything, my wish is that we could use a better reference. An oscilloscope is specifically a time axis measuring device. The time axis should be as accurate as reasonably possible. Today we have better than initial +/- 25ppm references available for the price of a shirt button. Why leave time axis in the measuring device to the poor accuracy just to save a penny or some jiao?
...................
I'm still wondering how accurate the time keeping would be on these units once the clock is set?
Despite everything, my wish is that we could use a better reference. An oscilloscope is specifically a time axis measuring device. The time axis should be as accurate as reasonably possible. Today we have better than initial +/- 25ppm references available for the price of a shirt button. Why leave time axis in the measuring device to the poor accuracy just to save a penny or some jiao?
...................
My friend, I don't disagree with you, as you know it
Better is better.
But in reality, not many users of this very inexpensive scope would even notice.
That is my point.
(first 30sec: Normal, next 30sec: Eres 3.0, same scenario)
Dear @pdenisowski
I frequently watch the videos on the R&S YouTube channel.
I think they are excellent THEORETICAL videos.
In my opinion, they need to be completed with practical videos, with real instruments, and without cuts and editing in the videos. It's you connecting the cables, the attenuators, pressing the buttons on the signal generators and the DSO/MSO, and showing the results “On Screen” from the DSO/MSO.
The idea is: if @pdnisowski does it, the user can also reproduce the tests step by step. It is in this condition that a “newbie” learns and keeps something in his mind.
About half of the 200+ videos I've made are about how to do things on our instruments. I spent the first 20 years of my career in T&M demonstrating things on real instruments using real DUTs in real labs with real customers, so I like to think I'm pretty comfortable doing that That said, I use the "narrated PowerPoint" method even for the practical videos for a number of reasons, one of which being that the "slides" can be used for in-person, classroom training and reference, whereas a video typically has to stand alone.Who watches your theoretical videos?
Maybe the “newbies” like me. Perhaps an “expert” does not have the patience to watch these videos considered “boring and long” and with lots of details. But “newbies” will really appreciate it. And the R&S concept will become much more popular, beyond the professional market.
The "theoretical" videos (I call them "technology" videos) are literally ten times more popular in terms of views, likes, and comments compared to the "product videos" And as of last week, the "theoretical" videos had over 3 million total views. So somebody is watching them
And again, from my experience working with thousands of T&M customers: even people who are experts in one field often want a brief (~10-15 mins) explanation of a technology or measurement they may be unfamiliar with. And they want it without chit-chat, advertising, jokes, a flashy intro/outro, etc. That's my target audience.This is not a personal criticism of you or R&S, it is a suggestion for consideration.
Not at all! I very much appreciate any and all feedback. Although my "formula" seems to work, I'm always looking for ways to improve and expand, so your post is very helpful. Thanks!
I really like knowing how the DSO/MSO makes its automatic measurements, but using the Cursors to measure the Slew Rate, or the Rise Time, I did it once, I learned how to use the tool, but on a daily basis, I prefer use the Instrument's automatic measurement, as generally the number scales are not whole numbers, and this is bad for locating where the 10% and 90% of the pulse are, it can cause a lot of inaccuracy in the reading and calculations.
I'm still wondering how accurate the time keeping would be on these units once the clock is set?Preliminary results from a 4hr test between SDS814X HD running internal Linux time and SDS1104X-E on interweb NTP time.
SDS814X HD ~-3s
I'll run this overnight to get ~14hrs from start of test which should be accurate enough to indicate 24 and 48 hr accuracy.
SDS814X HD running on Linux time lost 7s vs SDS1104X-E on NTP time.
SDS814X HD running on Linux time lost 7s vs SDS1104X-E on NTP time.That's considerably more than 25ppm. About 6 times. It's also far worse than any watch or clock I have.
Maybe an enquiry to Siglent to find out where the OS timebase is coming from?
That's considerably more than 25ppm. About 6 times. It's also far worse than any watch or clock I have.
Maybe an enquiry to Siglent to find out where the OS timebase is coming from?