| Products > Test Equipment |
| Bode Plot Computational Time for various DSOs |
| << < (6/10) > >> |
| 2N3055:
When at 100Hz, one period is 10ms. You need many of those for calculations.. 60 points in 9 seconds from 100Hz to 100kHz, not very likely.. |
| BillyO:
--- Quote from: nctnico on November 08, 2022, 12:33:19 am ---When I'm tweaking a circuit, I don't want to wait for over a minute to see the results of the changes. --- End quote --- Fair enough. I imagine though that if you're tweaking a circuit you could limit the sweep to around the area of concern. Back in the stone age, that's how we did it, especially since it was usually done with pen and paper. Still, it would behoove Siglent to let the user select the number of averaging readings. I wonder how difficult that would be? |
| BillyO:
--- Quote from: 2N3055 on November 08, 2022, 01:20:59 am ---When at 100Hz, one period is 10ms. You need many of those for calculations.. --- End quote --- True, but at 10KHz one period is 100us so that last decade goes pretty quick compared to the first one .. 100 times faster .. theoretically. So, if the first decade took 8s, then the following 2 decades would easily be done in the next 1s. |
| nctnico:
--- Quote from: 2N3055 on November 08, 2022, 01:20:59 am ---When at 100Hz, one period is 10ms. You need many of those for calculations.. 60 points in 9 seconds from 100Hz to 100kHz, not very likely.. --- End quote --- A real network analyser does the same sweep in less than a second. The same network as used in the 'torture test' thread measured using an Anritsu MS4630B: |
| Someone:
--- Quote from: BillyO on November 08, 2022, 01:27:52 am --- --- Quote from: 2N3055 on November 08, 2022, 01:20:59 am ---When at 100Hz, one period is 10ms. You need many of those for calculations.. --- End quote --- True, but at 10KHz one period is 100us so that last decade goes pretty quick compared to the first one .. 100 times faster .. theoretically. --- End quote --- Nctnico is simultaneously claiming fast capture and good noise rejection (pointing to the other thread) which is inherently impossible. As you say it would be nice to have a richer UI for the user so they can select the trade-offs for their particular application, but this is a minor feature with few real practical uses so it hasn't seen that much investment. Which is why I keep pointing back to the obvious answer, if you want more control just script/code it to suit your situation. Instrument automation is easy and accessible these days. But I'm sure we'll see yet another endless blah blah blah from people wanting to promote XXX brand and say YYY brand is no good by picking their favourite corner case uses, rather than any real progress in helping people do things better. |
| Navigation |
| Message Index |
| Next page |
| Previous page |