Siglent SDS1104X-E and SDS1204X-E Mixed Signal Oscilloscopes

[rf-loop]

Nice feature overall.  But -- do you really trust these images filtered waveforms so that you can really measure something from these. In my eyes they look bit odd. But of course this is nice feature and lot of more than nothing.
I hope if they are implemented they ara also so documented that user know enough exactly these filters detailed data and errors. Most bad thing what can happen with these dsigital side filters is if user come fooled with alias frequencies and then do not know anything what is false and what is true without some further checks. Most danger these are for example possible  unexperienced users who are still in learning curve position where believe all what instrument show - but truth is that all what can see in DSO display is sum of known and unknown errors mixed with unknown input signal.

Then side note. (example images 5 and 6  names ) Fundamental frequency == 1st harmonic! Yesterday, now and forever.
 If someone name harmonics wrong like this then all goes wrong. This error swap also odd and even harmonics and if who ever make this error then just all goes wrong when he think anything bit more complex.  More I thing this was just typing error (example your images 5 and 6).  I note it because I have seen this error (not only typing error but also thinking error) many times and this error is not very rare.

[Mortymore]

@rf-loop

Thanks for all your observations and corrections.
The idea is to clarify and not to mislead anyone. Accordingly, the name of the pictures attached was changed, and also correct my bad habit to write the multiple x1000 with the capital 'K' instead of the lower case 'k', that I recall as something you also point as a mistake (and rightfully).
Never stop pointing mistakes, I always appreciate that.
I think it's all good now.

[2N3055]

Nice feature overall.  But -- do you really trust these images filtered waveforms so that you can really measure something from these. In my eyes they look bit odd. But of course this is nice feature and lot of more than nothing.
I hope if they are implemented they ara also so documented that user know enough exactly these filters detailed data and errors. Most bad thing what can happen with these dsigital side filters is if user come fooled with alias frequencies and then do not know anything what is false and what is true without some further checks. Most danger these are for example possible  unexperienced users who are still in learning curve position where believe all what instrument show - but truth is that all what can see in DSO display is sum of known and unknown errors mixed with unknown input signal.

Then side note. (example images 5 and 6  names ) Fundamental frequency == 1st harmonic! Yesterday, now and forever.
 If someone name harmonics wrong like this then all goes wrong. This error swap also odd and even harmonics and if who ever make this error then just all goes wrong when he think anything bit more complex.  More I thing this was just typing error (example your images 5 and 6).  I note it because I have seen this error (not only typing error but also thinking error) many times and this error is not very rare.

So you are  still on your crusade to prove that filters are stupid because Siglent doesn't have them..
And you criteria is that after you filter the signal it doesn't look the same as original and it is confusing and it can confuse somebody.
So can inverting channel and scopes have that. So can all other math that does precisely  that: it makes signal on screen  look completely different than input signal. That's confusing too.

Filters on a scope are just another math operation where we want to make some mathematical transformation because we are interested in what a signal would look like if we do that.

People gave you few scenarios where it is useful. One is extracting modulation from PWM  signal. Second one might be measuring RMS in specific bandwidth. Or simply suppressing 50 Hz hum in a signal.Etc, etc.

In order to be useful, naturally, it has to be implemented correctly, with defined characteristics.. So I prefer no filter to some crap.
Also you have to setup input signal correctly and know what are you doing, otherwise you will get crap. GIGO, as always.

But well implemented, filtering is powerful tool.

[plurn]

Does  SDS1104X-E have digital filters like band pass, low pass , high pass and band gap?
I want a scope upgrade but i need those filters, since i do power electronics work.
Thanks 

Does not have those filters as far as I know.

According to the extensive review by Performa01, in the second file "SDS1104X-E Review 26-50.pdf" found here:
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/siglent-sds1104x-e-in-depth-review/msg1371771/#msg1371771

There is a section on ERES and in this Performa01 indicates "... Eres acts as a low-pass filter with somewhat obscure parameters. ...". There is more info there on how it behaves and best to read about it there in context rather than my likely misinterpretation. I don't think Performa01 is suggesting we use this as a low pass filter. Maybe it can be to a limited extent.

There are some filters available for triggering, eg LF-Reject and HF-Reject. Also mentioned in the same review document.

I doubt this post helps you at all, but it is what it is.

[4x1md]

FEATURE REQUEST

A possibility to fix the horizontal 0 point (the blue marker) on a certain position on the screen and not on the specific time.

Often I'd like to set the triggering point of the waveform at the beginning of the timeline and not at the middle. No problem to set it, but the 0 point moves each time I change the time base.

[rf-loop]

Nice feature overall.  But -- do you really trust these images filtered waveforms so that you can really measure something from these. In my eyes they look bit odd. But of course this is nice feature and lot of more than nothing.
I hope if they are implemented they ara also so documented that user know enough exactly these filters detailed data and errors. Most bad thing what can happen with these dsigital side filters is if user come fooled with alias frequencies and then do not know anything what is false and what is true without some further checks. Most danger these are for example possible  unexperienced users who are still in learning curve position where believe all what instrument show - but truth is that all what can see in DSO display is sum of known and unknown errors mixed with unknown input signal.

Then side note. (example images 5 and 6  names ) Fundamental frequency == 1st harmonic! Yesterday, now and forever.
 If someone name harmonics wrong like this then all goes wrong. This error swap also odd and even harmonics and if who ever make this error then just all goes wrong when he think anything bit more complex.  More I thing this was just typing error (example your images 5 and 6).  I note it because I have seen this error (not only typing error but also thinking error) many times and this error is not very rare.

So you are  still on your crusade to prove that filters are stupid because Siglent doesn't have them..
And you criteria is that after you filter the signal it doesn't look the same as original and it is confusing and it can confuse somebody.
So can inverting channel and scopes have that. So can all other math that does precisely  that: it makes signal on screen  look completely different than input signal. That's confusing too.

Filters on a scope are just another math operation where we want to make some mathematical transformation because we are interested in what a signal would look like if we do that.

People gave you few scenarios where it is useful. One is extracting modulation from PWM  signal. Second one might be measuring RMS in specific bandwidth. Or simply suppressing 50 Hz hum in a signal.Etc, etc.

In order to be useful, naturally, it has to be implemented correctly, with defined characteristics.. So I prefer no filter to some crap.
Also you have to setup input signal correctly and know what are you doing, otherwise you will get crap. GIGO, as always.

But well implemented, filtering is powerful tool.

And you jump over my main phrase in my answer,    where from this selective blindness is coming?
Also these filters are in Siglent many older models and thousands of times I have told them as useful. But not at all without also some cons and also traps.

But well implemented, filtering is powerful tool.

Yes. Of course.

Then need define what is well implemented. Have you seen these filters detailed specifications. As long as they are "something" they are for nice images. "Adjust and look if you like image is nice".

[2N3055]

Nice feature overall.  But -- do you really trust these images filtered waveforms so that you can really measure something from these. In my eyes they look bit odd. But of course this is nice feature and lot of more than nothing.
I hope if they are implemented they ara also so documented that user know enough exactly these filters detailed data and errors. Most bad thing what can happen with these dsigital side filters is if user come fooled with alias frequencies and then do not know anything what is false and what is true without some further checks. Most danger these are for example possible  unexperienced users who are still in learning curve position where believe all what instrument show - but truth is that all what can see in DSO display is sum of known and unknown errors mixed with unknown input signal.

Then side note. (example images 5 and 6  names ) Fundamental frequency == 1st harmonic! Yesterday, now and forever.
 If someone name harmonics wrong like this then all goes wrong. This error swap also odd and even harmonics and if who ever make this error then just all goes wrong when he think anything bit more complex.  More I thing this was just typing error (example your images 5 and 6).  I note it because I have seen this error (not only typing error but also thinking error) many times and this error is not very rare.

So you are  still on your crusade to prove that filters are stupid because Siglent doesn't have them..
And you criteria is that after you filter the signal it doesn't look the same as original and it is confusing and it can confuse somebody.
So can inverting channel and scopes have that. So can all other math that does precisely  that: it makes signal on screen  look completely different than input signal. That's confusing too.

Filters on a scope are just another math operation where we want to make some mathematical transformation because we are interested in what a signal would look like if we do that.

People gave you few scenarios where it is useful. One is extracting modulation from PWM  signal. Second one might be measuring RMS in specific bandwidth. Or simply suppressing 50 Hz hum in a signal.Etc, etc.

In order to be useful, naturally, it has to be implemented correctly, with defined characteristics.. So I prefer no filter to some crap.
Also you have to setup input signal correctly and know what are you doing, otherwise you will get crap. GIGO, as always.

But well implemented, filtering is powerful tool.

And you jump over my main phrase in my answer,    where from this selective blindness is coming?
Also these filters are in Siglent many older models and thousands of times I have told them as useful. But not at all without also some cons and also traps.

But well implemented, filtering is powerful tool.

Yes. Of course.

Then need define what is well implemented. Have you seen these filters detailed specifications. As long as they are "something" they are for nice images. "Adjust and look if you like image is nice".

I believe I finally understand what you mean. It seems that we are both suffering from a problem of communicating trough a (to us) foreign language.

So we are saying the same: Well implemented filters would be great addition to current Siglent production line. But only done well and well specified, otherwise they are gimmick.

I'm sorry if I wronged you by my misunderstanding. My apologies.

Regards,
Sinisa

[rf-loop]

Nice feature overall.  But -- do you really trust these images filtered waveforms so that you can really measure something from these. In my eyes they look bit odd. But of course this is nice feature and lot of more than nothing.
I hope if they are implemented they ara also so documented that user know enough exactly these filters detailed data and errors. Most bad thing what can happen with these dsigital side filters is if user come fooled with alias frequencies and then do not know anything what is false and what is true without some further checks. Most danger these are for example possible  unexperienced users who are still in learning curve position where believe all what instrument show - but truth is that all what can see in DSO display is sum of known and unknown errors mixed with unknown input signal.

Then side note. (example images 5 and 6  names ) Fundamental frequency == 1st harmonic! Yesterday, now and forever.
 If someone name harmonics wrong like this then all goes wrong. This error swap also odd and even harmonics and if who ever make this error then just all goes wrong when he think anything bit more complex.  More I thing this was just typing error (example your images 5 and 6).  I note it because I have seen this error (not only typing error but also thinking error) many times and this error is not very rare.

So you are  still on your crusade to prove that filters are stupid because Siglent doesn't have them..
And you criteria is that after you filter the signal it doesn't look the same as original and it is confusing and it can confuse somebody.
So can inverting channel and scopes have that. So can all other math that does precisely  that: it makes signal on screen  look completely different than input signal. That's confusing too.

Filters on a scope are just another math operation where we want to make some mathematical transformation because we are interested in what a signal would look like if we do that.

People gave you few scenarios where it is useful. One is extracting modulation from PWM  signal. Second one might be measuring RMS in specific bandwidth. Or simply suppressing 50 Hz hum in a signal.Etc, etc.

In order to be useful, naturally, it has to be implemented correctly, with defined characteristics.. So I prefer no filter to some crap.
Also you have to setup input signal correctly and know what are you doing, otherwise you will get crap. GIGO, as always.

But well implemented, filtering is powerful tool.

And you jump over my main phrase in my answer,    where from this selective blindness is coming?
Also these filters are in Siglent many older models and thousands of times I have told them as useful. But not at all without also some cons and also traps.

But well implemented, filtering is powerful tool.

Yes. Of course.

Then need define what is well implemented. Have you seen these filters detailed specifications. As long as they are "something" they are for nice images. "Adjust and look if you like image is nice".

I believe I finally understand what you mean. It seems that we are both suffering from a problem of communicating trough a (to us) foreign language.

So we are saying the same: Well implemented filters would be great addition to current Siglent production line. But only done well and well specified, otherwise they are gimmick.

I'm sorry if I wronged you by my misunderstanding. My apologies.

Regards,
Sinisa

Yes, it is pity. Some times really confusing. But still better than no discussion. As long as neither really wants anything bad or wrong. And I've never seen it between us.

[rf-loop]

FEATURE REQUEST

A possibility to fix the horizontal 0 point (the blue marker) on a certain position on the screen and not on the specific time.

Often I'd like to set the triggering point of the waveform at the beginning of the timeline and not at the middle. No problem to set it, but the 0 point moves each time I change the time base.

Look utility menu page 4/4 !  Thanks belongs to  Santa Claus or Siglent.

And sidenote: with fixed horizontal position other than middle of screen...and if you then use horizontal splitted screen zoom ... well it can say: I hope FW programmers have even some real experience about using oscilloscopes for working... yes it can use but using with splitted window zoom it is not nice (look how it show zoomed position delay)

There in utility meny page 4 can find:
Reference Pos.
Under it can find:

Vertical
-Fixed Position (default)
-Fixed (voltage)Offset

Horizontal
-Fixed Position  << You want this.
-Fixed (time)Delay (default)

[4x1md]

rf-loop, thank you very much! It made my work much more comfortable.

[rf-loop]

This User Manual is...   

This feature is hided to page 187 in User manual version E03A .
Press Utility and then...and then:  What "Expand setting"...


I do not know what oscilloscope this User Manual writer have used or is this just fictional story book.

[exe]

micsig tablet scopes (I think it is the plus model that includes all the options) ... have digital filters.

FWIW the representative of micsig here claimed the low-pass filter is implemented in hardware. I'd expect a varicap. I found this feature very handy to remove unwanted noise when only fraction of full bandwidth is needed.

[rf-loop]

micsig tablet scopes (I think it is the plus model that includes all the options) ... have digital filters.

FWIW the representative of micsig here claimed the low-pass filter is implemented in hardware. I'd expect a varicap. I found this feature very handy to remove unwanted noise when only fraction of full bandwidth is needed.

Variable freq LPF filter? How steep? 

[2N3055]

micsig tablet scopes (I think it is the plus model that includes all the options) ... have digital filters.

FWIW the representative of micsig here claimed the low-pass filter is implemented in hardware. I'd expect a varicap. I found this feature very handy to remove unwanted noise when only fraction of full bandwidth is needed.

I doubt he meant analog hardware filter. DSP filter running on FPGA would also be called hardware filter, as opposed to one running on application processor.

[nctnico]

micsig tablet scopes (I think it is the plus model that includes all the options) ... have digital filters.

FWIW the representative of micsig here claimed the low-pass filter is implemented in hardware. I'd expect a varicap. I found this feature very handy to remove unwanted noise when only fraction of full bandwidth is needed.

No. Hardware means digital filtering in FPGA in this case. You can't make a variable filter using a varicap with that much frequency range.
However the GW Instek does filtering in software which means it is slower but I think the filters GW Instek is using are steeper compared to the ones MicSig is using. Either way for power electronics freely adjustable input filters are very handy for two reasons: a) get rid of switching noise and b) turn a PWM signal back into an 'analog' signal.

[exe]

Variable freq LPF filter? How steep?

Idk, don't a generator at hand atm, not even ad2 . I think it wasn't steep last time I checked (more than year ago). Looked like a roll-off of an rc-filter, but can't confirm this.

[rf-loop]

Due to some times pop up question about frequency response with different input sensitivity settings.

One example here (there was also Siglent measured):

With manufacturers like Rigol producing DSOs with unspecified and variable full power bandwidth, these tests are close to useless without specifying the input sensitivity.  In the past this was not a consideration because the full power bandwidth was always higher than the bandwidth at any input sensitivity which was a result of operating the input stages over a much smaller signal range.

 later in same thread

I am claiming that with a modern oscilloscope, the measurement cannot be replicated without knowing the input sensitivity because many oscilloscopes now have wildly varying bandwidth with different input sensitives.  This has shown up repeated on this forum with users making rise time and bandwidth measurements of Rigol DS1000Z DSOs which vary over more than a 2:1 range depending on the test conditions.

Here tiny test. This test is done just with very simply and inaccurate method but still it may give some imagine about situation with different sensitivities.  For accuraacy this kind of test need do using level control in scope BNC using leveled head or using example high grade splitter and power meter etc.

But because this is not scientific work and need only give rough image about how it is.

I can not measure scope voltage Band III as can measure other bands. My Signal generator is just barely ok for measure 2V/div and even this, with reduced amplitude. Most tests I have made so that reference level (10MHz) is around 6 vertical div p-p.  But other observations with 5 and 10V/div tell that it follow least roughly this same what can see in table.

Conclusion. Not big differences starting from most sensitive 500uV/div  up to least 2V/div if look these 10MHz and 200MHz points  (and betveen these not any mysterious, but due to lack of free time, this give enough info that least there is not any big  differences over whole sensitivity range in frequency response. Nothing like example old Tektronix 2225 what have full BW (50MHz) 5mV/div  but then more or less reduced BW for 2mV, 1mV and finally 500uV/div reduced to 5MHz (based to user manual). Siglent 500uV is full bandwidth, as also all other V/div steps.

[HendriXML]

For those who wish to parse the response of the WF? ALL query, I've found this document, especially the Waveform template section to be very useful.

https://wiki.epfl.ch/carplat/documents/PDF/LC6800A_WM-RCM-E_Rev_D.pdf

With this documentation it was not to hard to get VOffset, VFactor data etc. from the response, instead of having to query them separately.

Also there're some fields with sizes in them, which can be used to get to the waveform data in a robuust way. Also knowing how many bits (1 of 2 bytes) the samples are. I don't think hires and averaging samples can be fetched with extra bits, but if it could these fields would be vital.

I still have the issue that WFSU NP,xx limits the number of point but results in having a single repeating value in the waveform data 

Also would it be nice if segments could be queried separately using WFSU SN,xx. Now I'm using a different approach, which works, but I'm essentially setting gui stuff, with (usable) side effects.

[JPortici]

Why we need filters (very rudimentary three phase pwm):


one has to play with the integrator and still the reconstructed waveform will not be correct

[HendriXML]

Why we need filters (very rudimentary three phase pwm):


one has to play with the integrator and still the reconstructed waveform will not be correct

Is this because math operates on the “GUI data” and not the underlying raw samples data? (So much of the square downs are not “seen”?)

[JPortici]

no, or at least AFAIK the math channel operate on the full memory (in the 5000X. I believe in the 1000X as well).
It's because the integrator and the differentiator are notoriously tricky to set up in many scopes and since the DC component will be integrated over time you have to play with the parameters to get something that tends to be lined up.

This is what it should look like with filters: screenshot taken with ERES at 3bit and lowest memory depth. This is far from an ideal scenario because i have to throw away an acquisition to get a good picture. With properly implemented filters instead i could have the PWM AND the pretty picture

[Rerouter]

The math does work on the entire sample memory, there is an existing "filter" menu for channels, with a "Type", "low limit" and "high limit" however its not obvious to me how to get to it, I suspect its like the EDUMODE menu, where if you get to it, it works, but just lacks a path to get there normally,

My current attack has been trying to find exactly what file they save the last viewed menu to when you power cycle the device,

It seems like its /usr/bin/siglent/usr/config/temp_setting.xml but manually editing this then causing an unexpected shutdown does not seem to over-ride it. equally its not entirely clear to me how the "menu_ID" is mapped, the numbering does not follow what they use for the menu tree text, If we can figure out a way to control what menu the scope starts up in, we can see if the function is available and just hidden, or if its like some of the decoder option SCPI commands where its there but does nothing (some decoder SCPI queries are hard coded to return with no data, the commands work, just find it odd)

[rf-loop]

no, or at least AFAIK the math channel operate on the full memory (in the 5000X. I believe in the 1000X as well).

I have not checked SDS1000X  series but I suspect not (least for measurements there is intermewdiate buffer, more than display resolution but less than raw acquisition memory. 
But then SDS1000X-E series, it is different, as also it use full raw acquisition memory for measurements with full sample resoluition.

Image: SDS1204X-E  5100Hz sqr PWM 50Hz sine. Trig to  (>10ns/<30ns) pulse.

[2N3055]

Differentiation is one of the reasons why you need filters. You filter channel and pipe it into differentiation. Than by fine tuning lowpass filter you can choose how "nervous" the differentiation will be and make it work on signal but not on noise.
Hence need for filtering and math on math..

[JPortici]

I have not checked SDS1000X  series but I suspect not (least for measurements there is intermewdiate buffer, more than display resolution but less than raw acquisition memory. 

Yeah, sorry. I meant X-E