Sorry Muttley the 1kX-E series don't have a RTC.
So, dear Linux based oscilloscope makers.
Having a Linux system inside it would be trivial to add NTP synchronization or, in case you want to avoid having another daemon running (understandable), run ntpdate to adjust the date and time.
It's simple and, assuming it will be ntpdate, you have two options.
First: using the NTP servers provided by DHCP. Some DHCP servers provide that information.
Second: in case DHCP doesn't provide NTP servers, use the NTP Pool project.
NEVER, NEVER, NEVER HARDCODE IP ADDRESSES OF NTP SERVERS. ALWAYS USE THE OFFICIAL NAMEShttp://www.pool.ntp.org/en/use.htmlDoing this, which is really trivial, you can have the option of an accurate timestamp on your screenshots. It only needs the Ethernet plugged.
Yes, that's 1 Gsa/s. It gets interesting when you go to 500 Msa/s.
Pick the difference.....if you can.
Same setup as previously except channels 1 and 2 for 500 Msa/s.
That looks good...
Looking forward to see reports from the field when it gets released..
@ Borjam : NTP is not necesary.
1 USD RTC is good enough to keep time of day. What is complicated and needs effort and resources is nanosecond scale time-stamping at scopes time-base timing resolution. And that is what is needed to be useful. Exact TOD is not that important as is relative time-stamps from beginning of capture at high resolution..
Sorry Muttley the 1kX-E series don't have a RTC.
I thought one of the previous series did have an onboard clock with time stamps for recorded events, it's shame they didn't include one on this series.
You are quite right on both points.
But to add the things the X series have; bigger display, RTC, 50
inputs, etc will lift the price so there is little differential between the 2 series.
You can never please everybody.
@ Borjam : NTP is not necesary.
You avoid the pain of adjusting date and time with the oscilloscope knobs
Maybe a luxury, but a trivial one to implement!
Pick the difference.....if you can.
Same setup as previously except channels 1 and 2 for 500 Msa/s.
But not the same pulse generator as mine, which has a lot of high frequency content.
Do you think DC coupled triggering will make a difference? I'll try later.
Note that I'm not criticizing it, as far as I know this is to be expected due to interpolation in the presence of a lot of high frequency components. Leo Bodnar's pulse generator has a rise time of 40 ps or better.
Pick the difference.....if you can.
Same setup as previously except channels 1 and 2 for 500 Msa/s.
But not the same pulse generator as mine, which has a lot of high frequency content.
Sure but the SDG1000X is the fastest I have ATM.....can't afford the SDG6000X.
Do you think DC coupled triggering will make a difference? I'll try later.
It didn't when I checked, well not for the 1 Gsa/s screenshot.
Note that I'm not criticizing it, as far as I know this is to be expected due to interpolation in the presence of a lot of high frequency components. Leo Bodnar's pulse generator has a rise time of 40 ps or better.
Yep, I've been watching Leo's thread, cool little pulse gen.
Sure but the SDG1000X is the fastest I have ATM.....can't afford the SDG6000X.
It didn't when I checked, well not for the 1 Gsa/s screenshot.
Yep, I've been watching Leo's thread, cool little pulse gen.
I hate how this forum tends to slowly erode away the lack of need for all sorts of things you didn't even know existed. I mean, a fast pulse generator? I couldn't even figure out why I'd want a signal generator two years ago. Now I nearly must have one of these pulse generators to give the oscilloscope a workout.
I hate how this forum tends to slowly erode away the lack of need for all sorts of things you didn't even know existed. I mean, a fast pulse generator? I couldn't even figure out why I'd want a signal generator two years ago. Now I nearly must have one of these pulse generators to give the oscilloscope a workout.
Well, a fast pulse generator can be a nice learning tool. For example you can experiment with TDR. Such a fast pulse generator can be
useful to learn about the limitations of our instruments as well.
And it's not expensive at all.
I overlaid the Rigol waveform on the Siglent waveform in a single image. As you can see they're identical when you view the wave with the same settings.
Identical? This is total false.
Huh? Add a twist of the brightness knob and a tweak of the probe compensation and those two are
identical.
Rigol construction is cheapest possible:
1ADC1MEM/4
Siglent 4 channel construction is semi cheap:
1ADC1MEM/2 + 1ADC1MEM/2
And this is reflected in the price. No official price yet but so far it seems like it will cost about $250 more.
(And given that the Rigol is currently selling for $328, that's a
lot more...)
If compare Siglent 100MHz 4 channel model and Rigol 100MHz 4 channel model:
Are you allowed to do that, given the price difference?
Maybe a comparison with a similarly priced Siglent would be more relevant:
Rigol 1Channel on, 1GSa/s max mem 24M (officially without option 12M)
Rigol 2Channel on, 500MSa/s 12M both channels. (without option 6M)
Siglent 1Channel on, 1GSa/s max mem 14M
Siglent 2Channel on, 500MSa/s max mem 7M for all channels.
So...
identical.
Except with the Rigol I have a bit more memory and
another two channels when I need them.
(which I often do)
Well, a fast pulse generator can be a nice learning tool. For example you can experiment with TDR. Such a fast pulse generator can be
useful to learn about the limitations of our instruments as well.
And it's not expensive at all.
There are a lot of not very expensive nice to haves, but added up it's still a lot.
Add a twist of the brightness knob and a tweak of the probe compensation and those two are identical.
Results are pretty similar, indeed, showing the artifacts of the interpolation.
No probes here, I have used a BNC "T" adapter. One of the ends is directly connected to the pulse generator (no cables, the PCB has a male BNC connector) and the other one to a 50 ohm SMA terminator via a BNC-SMA adapter.
(Corrected, at 500 Msa/s it's not jitter, but an artifact of reconstruction). However, I think there is a problem at 250 Msa/s, probably due to aliasing.
I would say that the Rigol has a serious aliasing problem at 250 Msa/s.
No because the fundamental frequency is way below the Nyquist frequency (a factor 12.5 to be precise) and that shouldn't be a problem at all for properly implemented sin (x)/x reconstruction. Aliasing artefacts may distort the edges but it shouldn't distort the fundamental frequency of the signal. At 250Ms/s the Nyquist frequency is 125MHz. That means you can display the fundamental, 3rd, 5th, 7th, 9th and some of the 11th harmonic of a 10MHz square wave. A DSO should have no problem showing a decent square wave in these conditions.
Well, a fast pulse generator can be a nice learning tool. For example you can experiment with TDR. Such a fast pulse generator can be
useful to learn about the limitations of our instruments as well.
And it's not expensive at all.
There are a lot of not very expensive nice to haves, but added up it's still a lot.
One small advantage of being a distributor......oh, that's for stock dear.
Not sure how long that will continue to work.
Well, a fast pulse generator can be a nice learning tool. For example you can experiment with TDR. Such a fast pulse generator can be
useful to learn about the limitations of our instruments as well.
And it's not expensive at all.
There are a lot of not very expensive nice to haves, but added up it's still a lot.
One small advantage of being a distributor......oh, that's for stock dear.
Not sure how long that will continue to work.
I'm talking about Leo Bodnar's pulse generator.
http://www.leobodnar.com/shop/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=124&products_id=29550 pound sterling didn't make me poorer!
(Corrected, at 500 Msa/s it's not jitter, but an artifact of reconstruction). However, I think there is a problem at 250 Msa/s, probably due to aliasing.
I would say that the Rigol has a serious aliasing problem at 250 Msa/s.
No because the fundamental frequency is way below the Nyquist frequency (a factor 12.5 to be precise) and that shouldn't be a problem at all for properly implemented sin (x)/x reconstruction. Aliasing artefacts may distort the edges but it shouldn't distort the fundamental frequency of the signal. At 250Ms/s the Nyquist frequency is 125MHz. That means you can display the fundamental, 3rd, 5th, 7th, 9th and some of the 11th harmonic of a 10MHz square wave. A DSO should have no problem showing a decent square wave in these conditions.
It seems to be something to do with the way it aligns the (reconstructed) signal with the trigger point. Remember that one sample period is 80% of a square on screen in that image (about the same as the width of the "jitter") so they must be doing some sort of fiddling to align the waves on the trigger point to make it look pretty.
I don't know why the "jitter" only happens with 3+ channels. Could be a firmware bug.
(Corrected, at 500 Msa/s it's not jitter, but an artifact of reconstruction). However, I think there is a problem at 250 Msa/s, probably due to aliasing.
I would say that the Rigol has a serious aliasing problem at 250 Msa/s.
No because the fundamental frequency is way below the Nyquist frequency (a factor 12.5 to be precise) and that shouldn't be a problem at all for properly implemented sin (x)/x reconstruction. Aliasing artefacts may distort the edges but it shouldn't distort the fundamental frequency of the signal. At 250Ms/s the Nyquist frequency is 125MHz. That means you can display the fundamental, 3rd, 5th, 7th, 9th and some of the 11th harmonic of a 10MHz square wave. A DSO should have no problem showing a decent square wave in these conditions.
It seems to be something to do with the way it aligns the (reconstructed) signal with the trigger point. Remember that one sample period is 80% of a square on screen in that image (about the same as the width of the "jitter") so they must be doing some sort of fiddling to align the waves on the trigger point to make it look pretty.
I don't know why the "jitter" only happens with 3+ channels. Could be a firmware bug.
You should increase the frequency. It wouldn't surprise me if the same thing happens with a 20MHz square wave @500Ms/s and a 40MHz square wave @1Gs/s.
I don't know why the "jitter" only happens with 3+ channels. Could be a firmware bug.
You should increase the frequency. It wouldn't surprise me if the same thing happens with a 20MHz square wave @500Ms/s and a 40MHz square wave @1Gs/s.
I don't have the pulse generator but I'm betting it doesn't (the "jitter" would still be there at 10Mhz, just half as wide)
Can anybody try it...?
You should increase the frequency. It wouldn't surprise me if the same thing happens with a 20MHz square wave @500Ms/s and a 40MHz square wave @1Gs/s.
I don't have the means for that. Leo's "pulser" has a fixed frequency of 10 MHz.
I overlaid the Rigol waveform on the Siglent waveform in a single image. As you can see they're identical when you view the wave with the same settings.
Identical? This is total false.
Huh? Add a twist of the brightness knob and a tweak of the probe compensation and those two are identical.
Rigol construction is cheapest possible:
1ADC1MEM/4
Siglent 4 channel construction is semi cheap:
1ADC1MEM/2 + 1ADC1MEM/2
And this is reflected in the price. No official price yet but so far it seems like it will cost about $250 more.
(And given that the Rigol is currently selling for $328, that's a lot more...)
"Huh? Add a twist of the brightness knob and a tweak of the probe compensation and those two are
identical."
False. Period. As told, signals are far away from equal if you compare your image and then this. Perhaps need some basic education.
27th Nov you can see (and surprice) what is real true price for SDS1104X-E what is somehow "comparable" with hacked Rigol DS1054Z if think alone frequency BW and count of channels.
But as told many times. Siglent is far over this Rigol if look measurement performance. Far over.
This is natural. Also Siglent price is higher. Rigol this model is quite old and with very limited brute force for handling signal and features.
In Europe Batronix is one trusted distributor, also with 30 days free return.
DS1054Z offer price, including tax. Most individual citizens need buy with tax here in well developed countries. Offer price EUR 379,- Including 19% VAT.
27th Nov you can look here and surprice. but yes there is still difference in price but this price difference is really tiny if think how much more it give. Of course if user do not need more than Riglol then he buy Rigol and if it meets his needs he can be happy with it, buy cheap and you get cheap. Simple. If have only tiny needs Rigol give lot of scope for playing. If need more, then pay bit more and get more:
https://www.batronix.com/shop/oscilloscopes/Siglent-SDS1104X-E.html
The Siglent distributor says we should buy a Siglent, guys, so we better go with that.
False. Period. As told, signals are far away from equal. Perhaps need some basic education.
Uhuh.
Please, guys, stop the religious war!!
Now.
At 500 MSa/s we don't know wether the Rigol DS1000Z is doing sin(x)/x interpolation or something else. It can only be toggled when the sample rate goes down to 250 MSa/s when enabling more than two channels.
On the Siglent you can enable or disable it regardless of the sample rate. In the examples you are comparing we know certainly (unless they lie) that the Siglent is doing sin(x)/x interpolation.
Is the Rigol doing it or not? We don't know.
So, there are differences between the two eye diagrams indeed. But we don't know wether we are comparing apples to oranges or apples to apples