Products > Test Equipment
Trying to display bandwith via Math on Siglent SDS2k+/2kHD/800X HD
Martin72:
By request, img10 shows F2 with 20xinterp, img11 all together.
I am currently trying to find out for myself what is still missing in contrast to the result of the 2504X HD, at the moment these are the same inputs.
Martin72:
I haven't done it yet, it would make things "nicer", but in principle it should look like this without averaging:
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/math-problems-on-sds2k-(trying-to-display-bandwith)/msg4971457/#msg4971457
2N3055:
--- Quote from: ebastler on March 18, 2024, 01:57:58 pm ---Hmm... I can't try and replicate, unfortunately, since I don't have a fast pulse generator (yet...).
One loosely related question if I may: How do I use two nested functions in the formula editor, if both functions have additional parameters? E.g. if I want to calculate Interpolate(Average(C1)), both functions have an additional parameter. But I only seem to see the Averaging parameter in the Math dialog. Am I overlooking something, or does this situation require the use of two separate Math functions?
--- End quote ---
Use the scroll Luke...
It is below..
Performa01:
Unfortunately, this isn’t unproblematic. The frequency of affordable pulsers is usually fixed at 10 MHz. The resulting pulse train generated in software would be even twice this frequency – but we don’t want that. We rather want a low frequency, like 1 MHz or even lower, so that we can get better frequency resolution and enable frequency response measurements down to the single-digit megahertz.
A while back I’ve done it with the SDS2504X HD, it didn’t work well, but enabling Average acquisition mode helped. Today I’m inclined to consider the results back then more as a coincidence than anything else.
I have now taken the time to investigate this a little bit more, step by step.
I’m starting with the obvious: the spectrum of a 1 MHz pulse train should reveal the frequency response of the SDS824X HD. Since I don’t have an ultra-fast pulse generator, I had to make do with 1 ns wide pulses from the SDG7102A:
SDS824X HD_FFT_FR_Pulse_W1ns_M1us
That doesn’t look too far off. The deviations are as follows:
100 MHz: -0.376 dB
200 MHz: -0.961 dB
244 MHz: -1.093 dB
I would attribute this to the non-ideal pulse shape – with this signal, the generator is already working outside its specifications.
I’ve once measured the pulse spectrum with a 2 GHz DSO and found the bandwidth to be ~378 MHz, so it is perfectly plausible to have about 1.1 dB amplitude drop at 244 MHz (unfortunately, I didn’t measure any other frequencies between 100 and300 MHz):
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/siglent-sdg7000a-350-500-mhz-and-1-ghz-awgs-coming/msg5101176/#msg5101176
So while the “real pulse” method might not be accurate (at least not as long as there are no perfect pulses available), it is certainly good enough for a quick overview.
The next step would be to make our own pulses, at least mathematically, by numerical differentiation of a 500 kHz square wave. It’s only 500 kHz because now we get two pulses per signal period, and I wanted to stay as close as possible to the previous conditions.
Since the polarity of the resulting pulses depends on the direction of the signal edges, I’ve added the abs() function to get only positive pulses like with the real pulse generator – once again, this is for best conformity with the previous test.
SDS824X HD_Math_Square_2ns_abs_diff_dx4
For this screenshot, I’ve changed the square wave with a duty cycle of 50% to a 10 ns wide pulse, just to show both edges at high time resolution in one screenshot. They are absolutely identical and the measurements hint on pulse width of ~1.65 ns and ~1 ns rise and fall times.
Here is the FFT with the pulses – this time from a 50% duty cycle square wave again:
SDS824X HD_FFT_FR_Square_1us_abs_diff
That’s significantly worse than before. The deviations are as follows:
100 MHz: -1.557 dB
200 MHz: -3.727 dB
244 MHz: -5.035 dB
We have already looked at the generated pulse from the differentiation, now let’s compare with the generator pulse from the first test:
SDS824X HD_PR_W1ns_RT500ps
It’s funny; the original pulse as it was seen by the SDS824X HD was almost 1.8 ns wide and had 1.2 ns rise-time. The software generated pulse was clearly faster, yet the FFT-results are so much worse?
Now for the (20 times) interpolation – which shouldn’t be strictly necessary, as the initial test with the pulse train has proven.
SDS824X HD_FFT_FR_Square_1us_abs_diff_int20
As expected, that’s only marginal better than without interpolation. The deviations are as follows:
100 MHz: -1.527 dB
200 MHz: -3.675 dB
244 MHz: -5.016 dB
Also as expected, the pulse shape and measurements are almost exactly the same as without interpolation.
We can select a faster time-base in order to get a smoother graph, yet at least at high sample rates this is not recommended as it significantly increases the frequency step of the FFT, thus reducing the frequency resolution, shifting up the lowest measurable frequency and finally compromising the measurement accuracy (if there was any in the first place, that is). For the original 2 GSa/s, it works reasonably well, even though the measurement accuracy has yet suffered even further:
SDS824X HD_FFT_FR_Square_200ns_abs_diff
Martin72:
And why can't it be reproduced with the previous formula, as with the 2000X HD?
What I have just seen when looking at the old screenshots of the 2000X HD:
While the 800X HD shows a sample rate of 40GSa/s with 20xint, the 2000X HD shows 400GSa/s.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version