...
New issue:
How can i measure last rising edge of blue to last falling edge of red?
Suggestion:
When choosing a new measurement (clicking on an existing one) there is one selected, that is already used. One would think that you actually could deselect this, or changing the sources would affect this very measurement. (see picuture).
It can be activated, if you select the one that you actually opened.
Suggested solution:
Differentiate between measurments that are used for the particular channel/s, and the measurement that will be currently changed/activated.
1) There is a way to "embed" the small floating measure track window in the main display like a math trace ?
2) There is a way to export measure track window data ?
I think you need to work with the trigger to grab the starting edge of interest for such measurements. Then position your measurement gate cursors relativ to the trigger point, such that the starting edge becomes the first edge within the gate window.
This is actually the "range" ?
But now i want to measure the same thing on other channels at the same time... what can i do now? (see pciture - yellow last falling edge to green first rising edge)
If the Min and Max values are correct, then yes, that appears to be their difference. Is there reason to assume it is incoprrect?
In statistics google told me, that "range" would be the adequate term.
I dont see how i could measure "last rising edge". I can not set the gate differently, because i need to measure them at the same time. Why is there just no LFxx or LRxx measurement?
Have you tried the low-pass filter, and checked what the FFxx measures on the filtered signals give you? I think you should be alright.
Still i dont know how i should capture that last falling edge, since i cant not move the gate there, wenn i want to measure both delays at the same time.
But why do you still need the gate cursors at all now?
With the fast PWM pulses gone, you can now measure the time between any CH1 falling edge and the next CH4 rising edge which follows that, right? And likewise for the other timing measurements you want to take in parallel. I think you can just disable the gating function entirely.
Oh -- I did not realize that these delay measurements can also go backwards in time. I only played with them briefly and had not run into this situation.
What do others say?
I have another issue:
I set up a qualified trigger, but the edge trigger is not stable.
The deviation gets worse, if i set the trigger level lower.
Has anyone else turned on their SDS800X to find a fixed DC offset (~700 mV) on CH1 and CH1 only?
Pictures! You have to take pictures, because some will never believe you. And you may consider, that some aspects of it a very confusing, so you take your time and try to figure out if its a problem with the setup.
Anyone else seen this?
Has anyone else turned on their SDS800X to find a fixed DC offset (~700 mV) on CH1 and CH1 only?
Anyone else seen this?
Not.
There is mention of offset issues in beta FW release notes but not this exact issue it seems.
It is customary when reporting an issue to state the FW version in use.
Not.
There is mention of offset issues in beta FW release notes but not this exact issue it seems.
It is customary when reporting an issue to state the FW version in use.
Point taken.
Software Version 1.1.3.1
UBOOT-OS Version 2.8.10
FPGA Version 2023-12-29
HW Version 00
Thank you. While the release notes don’t mention offset issues, it does mention "Solve the problem that Bode Plot cannot control sdg1000”. I do have a SDG1062X, so I’m up for a firmware update.
Another thing in the manual that does not add up:
Again...
The X2 is whereever you set it up. So it can also be on the left side. The same problem is with the Y1/2.
Contradictory findings:
Either the manual is wrong or the scope shows wrong values. I can only count like a few dozent of points.
The timebase also does not show all the time 50Mpts if you zoom out its sometimes 20 or 40 Mpts.
Another thing in the manual that does not add up:
Again...
The X2 is whereever you set it up. So it can also be on the left side. The same problem is with the Y1/2.
I take "left (default)" to mean that by default -- i.e. before you set it up differently -- X1 is on the left. Makes sense to me?
Contradictory findings:
Either the manual is wrong or the scope shows wrong values. I can only count like a few dozent of points.
The timebase also does not show all the time 50Mpts if you zoom out its sometimes 20 or 40 Mpts.
Should be exactly 20 points, right? 200 ns total sweep time, 100 MSa/s, so 20 Samples in 200 ns. You can see the individual data points when you switch the display mode to "Dot".
Did you acquire that data with a much slower time base, then stop and zoom in? In that case, the number of number of samples indicated in the info box might be the number of samples acquired in the sweep, rather than the number of samples shown on-screen at the moment? (I don't have access to my scope at the moment.) The manual would be incorrect in that case.
If the above hypothesis is right, I would probably prefer the scope to behave like stated in the manual, i.e. always tell me how many data points are behind the trace I see on-screen at the moment. In which case this would be a bug or improvement request.
Contradictory findings:
Either the manual is wrong or the scope shows wrong values. I can only count like a few dozent of points.
The timebase also does not show all the time 50Mpts if you zoom out its sometimes 20 or 40 Mpts.
It means left as being first on the time axis when doing subtraction. Diff will be X1-X2.
If you set X1 left and x2 right, diff will be 10 ns. If you set them the other way around then it will be 10ns.
X1-X2
It means left as being first on the time axis when doing subtraction. Diff will be X1-X2.
If you set X1 left and x2 right, diff will be 10 ns. If you set them the other way around then it will be -10ns.
X1-X2You are dead wrong! It gives -10ns. Even more, when X1 is sometimes on the left, and sometimes on the right, there is a huge risk of confusion, which really bothers me, as electronics can be confusing enough already.
This is not meant to be rude: but i really get frustrated of people saying things that are wrong with an quite a high assurance (in general). Arent we all interested in having a good product?
And for instance, with 2 ch on as you go through timebases once you reach 50Mpts, it will start alternating between 40 and 50 MPts.
I'm guessing you know why but he doesn't understand that if you multiply time on screen with sampling rate you get what sample numbers are possible....
Off course it is meant to be rude... The hint is in a tone and actual rude words you use...
Read occasionally your own signature...
Hint it was a typo... I wasn't wearing glases and didn't notice there is no minus sign.. Fixed now.
And for instance, with 2 ch on as you go through timebases once you reach 50Mpts, it will start alternating between 40 and 50 MPts.
I'm guessing you know why but he doesn't understand that if you multiply time on screen with sampling rate you get what sample numbers are possible....
I can proove you wrong again:
at 20ms/div i got 20Mpts, but above and below i get 50Mpts... (see attached setup)
Are talking about me not understanding? I might miss some things, as i have a few projects ongoing, but if one is able to explain it, i will quickly grasp it.
Off course it is meant to be rude... The hint is in a tone and actual rude words you use...
Read occasionally your own signature...
Hint it was a typo... I wasn't wearing glases and didn't notice there is no minus sign.. Fixed now.You may have gotten that tone wrong. But what is the actual "rude" word? I just expressed my feelings, and just why its is so.
If you have made a typo, it should be clear, that this sentence does not apply anymore, and there is no need of further discussion...
We said and said repeatedly: nobody is going to solve your puzzles.
Explain yourself better or you get what you get.
You could have explained that at 20ms/in particular you get this shorter length.
At 20ms/div it seems that scope organizes data as if all 4 channels are on even when they are not.
It might be necessary because of how internal data pump works at that sample rate or maybe it can be optimized.
Will ask.
But you still need to work on your communication....
Off course it is meant to be rude... The hint is in a tone and actual rude words you use...
Read occasionally your own signature...
Hint it was a typo... I wasn't wearing glases and didn't notice there is no minus sign.. Fixed now.You may have gotten that tone wrong. But what is the actual "rude" word? I just expressed my feelings, and just why its is so.
If you have made a typo, it should be clear, that this sentence does not apply anymore, and there is no need of further discussion...
Let me try to explain, and now I ask you to not get offended.
To me it seems you can't hardly wait to see something that can used to argue to start arguing.
If someone corrects you and then writes same as you it is either a mistake or the other side didn't take their meds.
Both are good reason not to react with "AHAAAAA I have you now!!!!!!".
That kind of reaction is not truth seeking but an effort to embarrass somebody.
This is not a competition.
If in doubt, clarify...
Contradictory findings:
Either the manual is wrong or the scope shows wrong values. I can only count like a few dozent of points.
The timebase also does not show all the time 50Mpts if you zoom out its sometimes 20 or 40 Mpts.
Should be exactly 20 points, right? 200 ns total sweep time, 100 MSa/s, so 20 Samples in 200 ns. You can see the individual data points when you switch the display mode to "Dot".
Did you acquire that data with a much slower time base, then stop and zoom in? In that case, the number of number of samples indicated in the info box might be the number of samples acquired in the sweep, rather than the number of samples shown on-screen at the moment? (I don't have access to my scope at the moment.) The manual would be incorrect in that case.
If the above hypothesis is right, I would probably prefer the scope to behave like stated in the manual, i.e. always tell me how many data points are behind the trace I see on-screen at the moment. In which case this would be a bug or improvement request.
User manual need some correction.
RTFM they said...
What you saying is not improvement or bug.
Scope shows sampled, acquired points, not current screen points.
What is purpose of useless metric of current screen?
Contradictory findings:
Either the manual is wrong or the scope shows wrong values. I can only count like a few dozent of points.
You are dead wrong!
This is not meant to be rude: but i really get frustrated
You are dead wrong!
Rude.This is not meant to be rude: but i really get frustrated
It was rude, and your frustration is the result of your lack of understanding (in combination with some errors in the manual 😉). It doesn't matter that he made a typo. You don't need to be a dick about it. Your behavior here is quite abrasive.
Contradictory findings:
Either the manual is wrong or the scope shows wrong values. I can only count like a few dozent of points.
The timebase also does not show all the time 50Mpts if you zoom out its sometimes 20 or 40 Mpts.
Should be exactly 20 points, right? 200 ns total sweep time, 100 MSa/s, so 20 Samples in 200 ns. You can see the individual data points when you switch the display mode to "Dot".
Did you acquire that data with a much slower time base, then stop and zoom in? In that case, the number of number of samples indicated in the info box might be the number of samples acquired in the sweep, rather than the number of samples shown on-screen at the moment? (I don't have access to my scope at the moment.) The manual would be incorrect in that case.
If the above hypothesis is right, I would probably prefer the scope to behave like stated in the manual, i.e. always tell me how many data points are behind the trace I see on-screen at the moment. In which case this would be a bug or improvement request.
User manual need some correction.
...
You are dead wrong!
Rude.This is not meant to be rude: but i really get frustrated
It was rude, and your frustration is the result of your lack of understanding (in combination with some errors in the manual 😉). It doesn't matter that he made a typo. You don't need to be a dick about it. Your behavior here is quite abrasive.I used google to translate, and i didnt find the translation rude at all.
Its quite easy to say someone has a lack of understanding, but i asked you in other posts why you would think that, but then there was just silence. No arguments... just insults.
Fine, I'll bite.
Rude: "You are dead wrong!"
Not rude: "I don't agree with your answer..." or "That doesn't make sense to me."
You have a habit of pointing attacks at people, rather than asking appropriate questions to better help you understand what's happening.
How am i supposed to set up a level and edge at the same time?
How am i supposed to set up a level and edge at the same time?
I got the trigger only to work when setting CH2 to high and edge to falling. I guess after high there is probably a falling edge following anyway?
I find it confusing that the "Source A" setting for the Delay trigger comprises an edge polarity selection at all. I understood Source A to be purely state-dependent (and there is the dialog you show, which allows to set the state.)
Are you looking at the scope directly or the webserver control ?
There are 2 adjustment methods but only 1 can be used from the webserver.
Hint, one is a virtual keypad.
I find it confusing that the "Source A" setting for the Delay trigger comprises an edge polarity selection at all. I understood Source A to be purely state-dependent (and there is the dialog you show, which allows to set the state.)I am confused too. But i think it can be combined with states of other channels, but the manual just lacks this information?
An Edge on the channel specified as "source B" will only be detected if one or more channels specified as "source A" are in a certain State (and have been in this state for a defined time). That is my understanding of the functionality.
There is no edge on source A involved, as far as I understand. And that's the part which confuses me, because I can set one in the UI. I am not ruling out the possibility that I misunderstand the UI; it's getting late here...
An Edge on the channel specified as "source B" will only be detected if one or more channels specified as "source A" are in a certain State (and have been in this state for a defined time). That is my understanding of the functionality.
There is no edge on source A involved, as far as I understand. And that's the part which confuses me, because I can set one in the UI. I am not ruling out the possibility that I misunderstand the UI; it's getting late here...The manual "shows" an edge of source A, and only one single source for source A.
Pattern trigger....
From the manual i would translate: "triggers when the set conditions are gone".
Well that trigger would be kinda late then, wouldnt it?
What you saying is not improvement or bug.
Scope shows sampled, acquired points, not current screen points.
What is purpose of useless metric of current screen?
I don't know about "useless". When showing interpolated traces (as I normally do), I appreciate the hint how many datapoints are actually used to generate the curve I see. Yes, I know I can calculate them by multiplying sample rate * sweep time, but an obvious number is helpful.
But I can also see the value in displaying the total number of acquired points, even if I have zoomed in and see just a fraction of them. Gives me a better idea about what to expect from measurements, for example.
In any case, either the firmware or the manual need to be changed. At the moment they are inconsistent, as the manual claims that the data points indicate the number of points shown on-screen. And that inconsistency is what eTobey had pointed out.
Let me first explain the conclusion: This information is useful, but whether it needs to be added to the UI requires discussing some details
[...]
Additionally, the description in the manual that may be misleading should be revised.
Another thing in the manual that does not add up:
Again...
The X2 is whereever you set it up. So it can also be on the left side. The same problem is with the Y1/2.
What you saying is not improvement or bug.
Scope shows sampled, acquired points, not current screen points.
What is purpose of useless metric of current screen?
I don't know about "useless". When showing interpolated traces (as I normally do), I appreciate the hint how many datapoints are actually used to generate the curve I see. Yes, I know I can calculate them by multiplying sample rate * sweep time, but an obvious number is helpful.
But I can also see the value in displaying the total number of acquired points, even if I have zoomed in and see just a fraction of them. Gives me a better idea about what to expect from measurements, for example.
In any case, either the firmware or the manual need to be changed. At the moment they are inconsistent, as the manual claims that the data points indicate the number of points shown on-screen. And that inconsistency is what eTobey had pointed out.
You are dead wrong!
Rude.This is not meant to be rude: but i really get frustrated
It was rude, and your frustration is the result of your lack of understanding (in combination with some errors in the manual 😉). It doesn't matter that he made a typo. You don't need to be a dick about it. Your behavior here is quite abrasive. That's not acceptable, especially when you're seeking help and understanding from people that owe you nothing. Errors in the manual or not, makes no difference. Don't treat people that way.
You are dead wrong!
Rude.This is not meant to be rude: but i really get frustrated
It was rude, and your frustration is the result of your lack of understanding (in combination with some errors in the manual 😉). It doesn't matter that he made a typo. You don't need to be a dick about it. Your behavior here is quite abrasive. That's not acceptable, especially when you're seeking help and understanding from people that owe you nothing. Errors in the manual or not, makes no difference. Don't treat people that way.
Language is a barrier. I translated it using Google and then modified the English. Before sending it, I thought about how others felt when they saw these words and whether they could understand.
People should not deny others first, and spend more time understanding the logic behind other people's discussions.
With note that user manual is reference document. It is not tutorial or introduction to scopes.
Just out of curiosity and because I might be able to learn something: What do people use the "total data points in the acquisition" information for?
Here is my issue:
- Change the manual (red) so it is easier to understand.
- My actual issue (pink):
I would expect that when a condition (an edge happens, a delay has run out, ...) occures, the trigger triggers. But with pattern its inconsistent (again). Whats the point of triggering when a set up condition is not met anymore? Just think of it with a red light at a traffic light: i want to trigger the brake when the red light or yellow light is on. With the patter trigger logic, i would be braking when it is green.
- My actual issue (pink):
I would expect that when a condition (an edge happens, a delay has run out, ...) occures, the trigger triggers. But with pattern its inconsistent (again). Whats the point of triggering when a set up condition is not met anymore? Just think of it with a red light at a traffic light: i want to trigger the brake when the red light or yellow light is on. With the patter trigger logic, i would be braking when it is green.
Terminology true and false belong to Boolean algebra, a mathematical theory. And software engineering, that is based on it.
We are dealing with signals here, so HIGH/LOW.
Inside FPGA VHDL language it is True/False, on physical pin it is electrical quantity HIGH/LOW digital signal.
As far as electrical engineer is concerned any properly measured quantity is true....
We cannot expect a device/instrument to do abstraction/de abstraction of concepts or conceptual thinking for us.
Here is my issue:
- Change the manual (red) so it is easier to understand.
- My actual issue (pink):
I would expect that when a condition (an edge happens, a delay has run out, ...) occures, the trigger triggers. But with pattern its inconsistent (again). Whats the point of triggering when a set up condition is not met anymore? Just think of it with a red light at a traffic light: i want to trigger the brake when the red light or yellow light is on. With the patter trigger logic, i would be braking when it is green.
The image in the manual is an example. When Channel1 is set to High and Channel2 is set to Low, the “Trigger Position“ indications are triggered under different Logic, such as the Logic AND, trigger Position is in the time triggering from True to False.
Have you understand what i was trying to say with the traffic light?
Have you understand what i was trying to say with the traffic light?
Have you read my post #72 in the meantime, where I think I explained why the Pattern trigger strikes at the end of the pattern's existence? It is a bit annoying at times that you hardly ever comment on attempts to answer a question, let alone confirm an answer.
Would you agree, that a better description would be like "Triggers after a pattern existed for the specified amount of time?
I just went to read about the pattern trigger, because the manual made me to! I just wanted to know the delay trigger.
Just out of curiosity and because I might be able to learn something: What do people use the "total data points in the acquisition" information for?
I have thought about removing the "total data points in the acquisition" and found that it doesn't seem to affect anything, I am more concerned about whether the sampling rate meets the requirements. If anyone else has an idea, could you explain it.
It allows me to know at a glance whether the current record can be used for signal analysis without any further (hidden) decimation (which would cause decoders to fail and measurements to give grossly wrong results...
I have indeed not used the mask editor at all yet. Could you describe what seems to be wrong? Ideally in a simple step-by-step sequence which we can try and reproduce.
I have setup a qualified trigger that does not trigger at all on a 100mv/div scale. The edge trigger does trigger on this signal down to 5mv. Signal is from ~0 - 2.7V
I have setup a qualified trigger that does not trigger at all on a 100mv/div scale. The edge trigger does trigger on this signal down to 5mv. Signal is from ~0 - 2.7V
I start wondering if my scope hase some issues itself, but then many other issues were confirmed by others...
Let's see, analyse and think: ............
Wait for a bit until new FW comes out. Then start first with all the stuff that was reported in release notes that will come with it, then all the stuff that was reported and you don't see them in release notes.
This is my advice to you. You don't have to listen, of course.
What was also confirmed by many others are many false alarms and errors you made and then blamed scope . That is why we say a methodical approach is needed and good detailed explanations are needed.
For instance, you NEVER write what FW you are running at the time you encountered something that is suspicious behaviour or bug.
So in few weeks from now, when stuff is fixed nobody in the world will know if all the stuff you reported is still suspicious or that was some old initial FW that is not relevant anymore.
Like I said before but it fell on deaf ears.
You can stop writing about bugs, looking for them, or investigate them at this moment.
You are wasting your time (and ours if we decide to read).
There is imminent FW release being tested, as we speak.
Wait for a bit until new FW comes out. Then start first with all the stuff that was reported in release notes that will come with it, then all the stuff that was reported and you don't see them in release notes.
This is my advice to you. You don't have to listen, of course.
We are blue in the face from telling such, so much so I think ears must be just painted on.
What was also confirmed by many others are many false alarms and errors you made and then blamed scope . That is why we say a methodical approach is needed and good detailed explanations are needed.
For instance, you NEVER write what FW you are running at the time you encountered something that is suspicious behaviour or bug.
So in few weeks from now, when stuff is fixed nobody in the world will know if all the stuff you reported is still suspicious or that was some old initial FW that is not relevant anymore.
Like I said before but it fell on deaf ears.
You can stop writing about bugs, looking for them, or investigate them at this moment.
You are wasting your time (and ours if we decide to read).
There is imminent FW release being tested, as we speak.
Wait for a bit until new FW comes out. Then start first with all the stuff that was reported in release notes that will come with it, then all the stuff that was reported and you don't see them in release notes.
This is my advice to you. You don't have to listen, of course.
You are too harsh with eTobey, I think. Yes, there have been "false alerts", but a surprising number of actual bug findings too. And this thread is titled "is it me or the scope?", so what's wrong about bringing up potential issues where one is confused and wants to ask others for help to clarify the situation?
Firmware version is 1.1.3.3. throughout -- what elese would it be for mere mortal users? But I do agree with you that a bit more detail about the signals and settings would be helpful in many reports.
Regarding the upcoming firmware, you are quite bullish in your advice that "it's likely to change everything, you can stop looking for bugs for the time being". Have you tried with the two most recent bugs (#14 and #15) which eTobey found over the past two days, and which electronics hobbyist has added in the SDS800X HD bug thread?
530+ posts and 4-5 bugs from him.
Any bugs in old FW found postmortem after new FW is available are either fixed already (sometimes one bug triggers a revision of part of design, that reveals some errors in common parts, so one fix fixes several bugs). Bugs that were not fixed will be discovered in new one anyways.
when triying to use the mask feature on the zoom window, i then was not able to get the zoom window back to the state where it was before setting up the mask (see picture).
when triying to use the mask feature on the zoom window, i then was not able to get the zoom window back to the state where it was before setting up the mask (see picture).
Edit: Did you attach the wrong picture maybe?
when triying to use the mask feature on the zoom window, i then was not able to get the zoom window back to the state where it was before setting up the mask (see picture).
Edit: Did you attach the wrong picture maybe?
Yes it was indeed the wrong picture. Since i had the same issues again with a strong indication, that this is not just an issue, i moved over to the bug topic.
Yes, i have to take a step back and analyse more and not ton confuse others. But at the same time i would like to encourage others to be a bit more playful in trying things out that i wrote. Because some might find what i missed. As 2N3055 might have found nothing wrong, he could have tried other things too, like creating a mask by hand, which is probably the difference with this issue. (This sentence has truely only an objective meaning)
Can I ask why are you multiple posting same issues in several different topics?
when triying to use the mask feature on the zoom window, i then was not able to get the zoom window back to the state where it was before setting up the mask (see picture).
Edit: Did you attach the wrong picture maybe?
Yes it was indeed the wrong picture. Since i had the same issues again with a strong indication, that this is not just an issue, i moved over to the bug topic.
Yes, i have to take a step back and analyse more and not ton confuse others. But at the same time i would like to encourage others to be a bit more playful in trying things out that i wrote. Because some might find what i missed. As 2N3055 might have found nothing wrong, he could have tried other things too, like creating a mask by hand, which is probably the difference with this issue. (This sentence has truely only an objective meaning)
Can I ask why are you multiple posting same issues in several different topics?
You started now double spamming.
And as people already said to you multiple times: I'm not going to put in ANY work because you are too lazy to do proper write up.
With bugs you don't accuse and let other side defend themselves.
It is quite the opposite: Unless you can prove a repeatable method to replicate error and demonstrate it step by step,then probably you made a mistake or misunderstand grossly how things work.
Some hints of proper use of Reference waveforms are here:
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/probe-into-probes-whats-up/msg4678768/#msg4678768