Products > Test Equipment
Sniffing the Rigol's internal I2C bus
ted572:
--- Quote from: Marc M. on December 05, 2013, 11:48:35 am ---
--- Quote from: Teneyes on December 04, 2013, 05:50:41 pm ---...see the values that an Owner with a DG4162 can help as a base line values...
--- End quote ---
I took the time to record the cal values in my DG4162 for the community effort and stuck them in an Excel 97 xls file. I recorded the values for CH1 first then started to do CH2 and realized they were all identical. I then did some spot checking of random values and couldn't find any differences between the 2 channels so I didn't spend the time to finish going thru all of CH2.
I also had a problem reading all the values for LOAD except the first (1-1). I kept getting a dialog box stating that I needed to remove the 50ohm load. Both channels were set internally to HI-Z and there were no loads connected to the generator. I was unable to select any other item under load apart from 1-1.
I also encountered odd behavior under HFLAT. When I initially started recording values, the units were in dBm. At some point I accidentally exited the cal procedure. When I re-entered it I got a warning dialog that the units were in mVrms :o. I power cycled the generator and re-entered the HFLAT cal table and it was back to dBm. I finished recording the dBm values, I jumped out and back in to trigger the mVrms values to record those. It turns out that they are identical to the dBm values :wtf: ?? ?? ??
I hope this helps. If there is anything else I can do to help, feel free to ask.
Marc -
--- End quote ---
Thank you Marc: This excel listing is great and will serve as a nice sanity check when we input our data. If something looks off from what you have, then it will at least put up a red flag to reconsider what we are doing. And your note about HFLAT switching from dBm to Vrms will certainly save us a potential WTF, or worst yet a heart attack. Hi
I asked Clayton (above) if it was necessary to go thu AC and LFLAT settings. You of course thought it was required also. Is it clear that this is required once you get started? I originally assumed it was required, then later that maybe it could be avoided (?), with just possibly HFLAT having to be done. Thanks for your assistance, Ted
bandgap:
--- Quote from: ted572 on December 05, 2013, 02:07:54 pm ---In the meantime it would be nice to see your before/after spreadsheet data. It is encouraging to hear that you were able to successfully complete the process. Thank you for describing your method and offering to share your data with us.
--- End quote ---
I'll clean up my spreadsheet sometime and upload it in the next day or so. You CAN calibrate the HF flat curve without having going through the AC amplitude and LF flat curve. You might want to start with HF flat and see if that flattens everything up on the high end while keeping your low end in tact. I may even restore my preset values and do the same.
I re-calibrated my LF flat curve very carefully and also did a calibration of the DC offset (very easy to do that one.) However, this didn't fix my drop-off below 10 Hz. The fact that I have the same thing for both channel 1 and 2 suggests that it wasn't just a silly error of entering a number incorrectly.
-Clayton
ted572:
--- Quote from: bandgap on December 05, 2013, 05:00:04 pm ---
--- Quote from: ted572 on December 05, 2013, 02:07:54 pm ---In the meantime it would be nice to see your before/after spreadsheet data. It is encouraging to hear that you were able to successfully complete the process. Thank you for describing your method and offering to share your data with us.
--- End quote ---
I'll clean up my spreadsheet sometime and upload it in the next day or so. You CAN calibrate the HF flat curve without having going through the AC amplitude and LF flat curve. You might want to start with HF flat and see if that flattens everything up on the high end while keeping your low end in tact. I may even restore my preset values and do the same.
I re-calibrated my LF flat curve very carefully and also did a calibration of the DC offset (very easy to do that one.) However, this didn't fix my drop-off below 10 Hz. The fact that I have the same thing for both channel 1 and 2 suggests that it wasn't just a silly error of entering a number incorrectly.
-Clayton
--- End quote ---
Clayton: How are you measuring below 10 Hz? Isn't that a little tricky, as in, don't you have to use DC coupling in your O'Scope to see it. And I don't think most DMM's will do very well at this low of a frequency. Excuse me, I'm sure you know all this, but just in case you forgot it. Ted
bandgap:
--- Quote from: ted572 on December 05, 2013, 07:25:22 pm ---Clayton: How are you measuring below 10 Hz? Isn't that a little tricky, as in, don't you have to use DC coupling in your O'Scope to see it. And I don't think most DMM's will do very well at this low of a frequency. Excuse me, I'm sure you know all this, but just in case you forgot it. Ted
--- End quote ---
Yeah, the DMM certainly can't do it very well. I was using the scope to measure it when I was evaluating the before/after. I don't believe any of the calibration points are at frequencies that low, though.
-Clayton
Radardude:
--- Quote from: cybernet on November 26, 2013, 10:59:58 pm ---1ns TB, 200M BW Limit, and correct DS2302 Model type *yeah* ;-)
Orange noticed that the trigger is off by 3divs (lags behind) if u enable the 2nd channel - same happening, but only in 1ns mode.
maybe that is the reason why there is no official DS2302 version - anyhow i can live with that small limitation as it vanishes above 1ns TB
here is the version that will take care of model type string
http://www.filedropper.com/ds2302rilol
the "recalc" of the string is triggered by option un/install - so flush keys, and reapply them and it will become active.
did a selfcal on top of that - everything good.
--- End quote ---
Thanks to everyone who contributed to making the DS2000 series an awesome scope. I was looking at the Hantek until I came across this message board. I'm about to retire from my ATC electronic technician job. So I was in need of a oscope. After reading about DS2072, I purchase one from Tequipment. As we all know that the higher the bandwidth the higher the noise level. So here are some photos confirming the bandwidth increase using cybernet modified firmware ds2302rilol. First photo is using the latest factory firmware and all option installed. The rest of the photos are using cybernet modified firmware. Notice that the DS2202 has 840 uv of noise and the DS2302 has 1.16 mv of noise. :-+
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version