Siglent SDS800X HD 12 bit DSO's

[CJSouthern]

I don't endorse any post factory HW mods as the cooling has been designed to cope with a wide temperature range however in stable and lower temp environments there is no doubt the fan can be slowed a little.

Behind the PW protected Developers Options menu the main device temps are listed however enter this menu at your own risk and please do not share the PW online.

Other Siglent DSO's use much larger and fully temperature controlled fans however these models are in an entirely different price bracket.

Really? And here I thought that an oscilloscope I’ve purchased is my property—meaning that if I wish, I have the right to modify it, "peek" at its software, alter that software, and share the results. Buying a product doesn't equate to signing a corporate clause regarding confidentiality and the transfer of intellectual property rights over one's own research work to the corporation. And by the way, even with the much-maligned Rigol, access to real-time temperature readings isn't hidden away as a paid extra buried deep within the firmware.

I'm completely baffled by your post; of course you have the right to modify it - cut holes in it - blow it up with a stick of dynamite - stick it in a blender if you wish. @tautech didn't say or suggest otherwise. What he merely said that he doesn't endorse people doing that (in all likelihood because - in his experience - many will regret doing so due to unintended consequences). Advice from someone with the expertise and experience to give that advice credibility in no way impinges on your rights to do whatever you like with it.

And by the way, even with the much-maligned Rigol, access to real-time temperature readings isn't hidden away as a paid extra buried deep within the firmware.

And it's not hidden away as a paid extra on the Siglent either. If you don't agree then kindly point me to a credible reference that documents how much I need to pay to access it. Hint: it's merely in the same password protected area as the individualised calibration data that would invalidate it's certification if altered; data that depends on temperature to be accurate. The scope is designed to give voltage / time / frequency information - not temperature information. It's not inappropriate in the slightest that they put something that's relevant to the certification but irrelivant to most users there - and if Rigol want to make it more accessable (for whatever reason) then that's absolutely their right too.

[CJSouthern]

The older I get the grumpier I get with unnecessary noise. Probably an (undiagnosed but suspect) mild autistic trait; if someone bounces a basket ball a few times I'm about ready to shove it down their throat after about the 3rd bounce ...

Get a Hioki LCR; it will solve all your other TE's noise issues.

I used to fly twin-engine piston props for a hobby; do your worst

That's appropriate since it's basically a jet engine. 

Ah - well there I do have to draw a line; jet's are wonderful

I fondly recall a training video where the legendary John King shut down the right hand engine of their Cessna Citation whilst his wife Martha was flying it - right on rotation. A little rudder ... and a single engine climb rate of around 800 feet per minute. I'd be lucky to get 50 feet per minute with what I flew

So the noise thing is settled; I'm going to disconnect all the fans in the test gear - attach some plastic tubing - and feed it to the inlet of a jet engine I'll mount on the roof. Think I'll run with a GE90-115B.

[Gyagel]

The emulator forced the oscilloscope to display the logic analyzer interface.

[ebastler]

The emulator forced the oscilloscope to display the logic analyzer interface.

I might have missed something earlier in this thread. What are you showing there? A homebrew logic analyzer module, or at least the scope interface part of it?

[tautech]

The emulator forced the oscilloscope to display the logic analyzer interface.

I might have missed something earlier in this thread. What are you showing there? A homebrew logic analyzer module, or at least the scope interface part of it?

Typically the SLA1016 LA module must be connected for the Digital mode to display anything or it will message the module is not connected.
So yes, it seems like a LA module is under private development where 1 of the first things is to have the scope recognize it is connected.
 

[Gyagel]

What are you showing there?

The hardware interface of the logic analyzer is currently being investigated.

[eTobey]

I'm thinking of 3D-printing a duct that would be mounted between inner and outer shells and channels all the air directly out.

Maybe you could build a muffler with it too?

Another idea would be to listen to music, so you wouldnt hear the scope.

[xKertx]

Maybe you could build a muffler with it too?

Another idea would be to listen to music, so you wouldnt hear the scope.

Yeah, why improve anything... 

I wouldn't try to mask the smell of sweat with perfume instead of washing either, so why would I try to mask unnecessary noise with music? Music sounds better without any unnecessary noise.

[KungFuJosh]

I wouldn't try to mask the smell of sweat with perfume instead of washing either

That makes you cleaner than probably 80% of people.

[eTobey]

Yeah, why improve anything... 

I used headphones because of this. For that scope, you just have to adapt, and find workarounds. (See my signature for more workarounds)

[IC_Toaster]

I have bought Testec MX-212 probes for the Siglent SDS800X HD and I realise I am not able to get a clean rising edge without overshoot when I compensate the probes. If I reduce the overshoot, the pulse is not flat anymore.
I noticed it from the beginning, but I thought it was due to the Siglent provided probes. I expected to get a better pulse response with the Testec probes but I see nothing changes.

Is this overshoot normal?
Am I doing it wrong?

[tautech]

Quite common to see when using vertical zoom.

Check the other channels too as the factory tuned step response might be better on the other channels.
Bit fiddly to change as it's normally done with an external source and the scope need be pulled apart to access the channel input trimmers.
I don't have that procedure for the SDS800X HD.

[IC_Toaster]

Quite common to see when using vertical zoom.

Check the other channels too as the factory tuned step response might be better on the other channels.
Bit fiddly to change as it's normally done with an external source and the scope need be pulled apart to access the channel input trimmers.
I don't have that procedure for the SDS800X HD.

I used zoom because even not using it, it is possible to see a peak at the beginning the hight level.

Channel 2:


When I reduce the overshoot on the channel 2:


Channel 3:


Channel 4:


The behaviour of all channels is very close.
All the screeshots are made with the same probe, but with a different probe the result is quite the same.

[KungFuJosh]

Is this overshoot normal?

A little overshoot is normal. I wouldn't expect a perfect square edge; adjust for what you think is the best/closest to a flat line.

[IC_Toaster]

Is this overshoot normal?

A little overshoot is normal. I wouldn't expect a perfect square edge; adjust for what you think is the best/closest to a flat line.

The closest to a flat line is what I have made because the pulse is flat except for the overshoot. But I think that overshoot means high frecuencies will be amplified slightly

[Martin72]

Hi,

As Josh already pointed out, I wouldn't worry too much about it.
These overshoots are almost impossible to avoid and vary in severity depending on the probe.
For example, the probes I have here:
The Testec TT-HF612RA and LeCroy PP022—both excellent 500 MHz probes that aren’t exactly cheap—have the same impedance values (10 M and 10 pF). And yet, they behave differently when connected to the same input on my SDS3104X HD.
You can reduce the bandwidth to 20 MHz; this doesn't change the overshoot, which is also clearly visible when you use an external calibration signal—which, at less than 5 ns, is lightning-fast compared to the “sluggish” internal one—instead of the internal one. But it doesn't make any difference.
Of course, you could try out dozens of other probes until you find one that works best with the scope's inputs—but I think that's a waste of time, because there's something else to consider:

But I think that overshoot means high frecuencies will be amplified slightly

Probably not; besides, the probe itself throws a wrench in the works with its derating at higher frequencies—and it starts early on.

Martin

[IC_Toaster]

Hi,

As Josh already pointed out, I wouldn't worry too much about it.
These overshoots are almost impossible to avoid and vary in severity depending on the probe.
For example, the probes I have here:
The Testec TT-HF612RA and LeCroy PP022—both excellent 500 MHz probes that aren’t exactly cheap—have the same impedance values (10 M and 10 pF). And yet, they behave differently when connected to the same input on my SDS3104X HD.
You can reduce the bandwidth to 20 MHz; this doesn't change the overshoot, which is also clearly visible when you use an external calibration signal—which, at less than 5 ns, is lightning-fast compared to the “sluggish” internal one—instead of the internal one. But it doesn't make any difference.
Of course, you could try out dozens of other probes until you find one that works best with the scope's inputs—but I think that's a waste of time, because there's something else to consider:

But I think that overshoot means high frecuencies will be amplified slightly

Probably not; besides, the probe itself throws a wrench in the works with its derating at higher frequencies—and it starts early on.

Martin

Are these overshoots produced by the oscilloscope front-end or by the probe? With other probes I get also overshoot, but maybe with slightly diferent amplitude.
The overshoots you get are smaller than mine. To me, your oscilloscope-probe system works right, but as you said, your equipment is not exactly cheap.

Under my lack of knowledge I have not clear what is the souce of this overshoot that happens is all channels, but in spite of the probes are not expensive, I guess it doesn't depend on only the probes.

Thank you Martin.

[ebastler]

Do the Testec MX probes have separate trimmers for LF and HF compensation, or are those only available on the MF series (and better)?

[Martin72]

@IC Toaster:
I'll comment on that later; I have to go now.
But one more thing:
It really bugs me that I don't have the SDS800X HD anymore....

[IC_Toaster]

Do the Testec MX probes have separate trimmers for LF and HF compensation, or are those only available on the MF series (and better)?

MX has both trimmers.
I have adjusted only the LF one because, due to my lack of knowledge, I preferred not touch the HF adjustment. Moreover, I don't have a signal generator.
I thought of doing a cheap TDR, but I feel I don't have enough knowledge on high speed PCB design.

[IC_Toaster]

@IC Toaster:
I'll comment on that later; I have to go now.
But one more thing:
It really bugs me that I don't have the SDS800X HD anymore....

Don't worry Martin, it is not urgent. In fact, probably I won't touch the oscilloscope until next week.

[Martin72]

Are these overshoots produced by the oscilloscope front-end or by the probe?

I think it's a combination of both.
I just tried two other scopes(Magnova BMO350 and Siglent SDS7404A-H12)with the Testec probe—so a total of three different scopes with the same probe—and didn't get three identical results, which, in my opinion, supports the “combination” explanation.

But again, I wouldn't worry about any potential drawbacks when taking measurements.
For example, I never use a probe for high-frequency measurements.

[KungFuJosh]

It's always a combination. Each probe is compensated per channel per scope (probe compensated for CH1 needs to be recompensated for CH4 etc.).

Maybe you can get better combination results having a lab compensate the scope front end and a probe for each channel at the same time...and the resulted difference probably won't matter. Except maybe superficially.

[watchmaker]

It's always a combination. Each probe is compensated per channel per scope (probe compensated for CH1 needs to be recompensated for CH4 etc.).

Maybe you can get better combination results having a lab compensate the scope front end and a probe for each channel at the same time...and the resulted difference probably won't matter. Except maybe superficially.

It is so easy to fall into the rabbit hole of trivial precision.  In many fields.  What is the point of measuring to .001 microns when the bearing tolerance is .001 mm?  (Other than possibly production quality/process control).

Regards,


Dewey