Siglent SDS1000X HD Display Update Rate + Web Interface
Вставка
- Опубліковано 27 кві 2024
- Some extra testing the Siglent SDS1000X HD Display Update Rate + Web Interface
If you find my videos useful you may consider supporting the EEVblog on Patreon: / eevblog
Web Site: www.eevblog.com
Main Channel: / eevblog
EEVdiscover: / eevdiscover
AliExpress Affiliate: s.click.aliexpress.com/e/c2LRpe8g
Buy anything through that link and Dave gets a commission at no cost to you.
T-Shirts: teespring.com/stores/eevblog
#ElectronicsCreators #Siglent @oscilloscope - Наука та технологія
I can go through this video frame by frame with the < > keys. The scope on the left displays something different in every frame of video, the one on the right displays something different every 2 or 3 frames of video. This video is 30 Hz, meaning the scope on the right updates around 10-15 hz.
Would need to shoot at higher frame rate to be sure, otherwise it could be missing updates.
frame rate is visually different for sure, putting probes on the display ribbon cable would be the best way know for sure ehy
It's nice to have a faster actual waveform rate for measurements and all, but the display update rate is equally important to me. There's just something about a screaming fast visual update that makes it more appealing.
+1 for more comparison vids! (obviously a rabbit hole…) but throwing in the little 800X would be cool too!
Screen updates are not equivalent to waveform updates. The new SDS1000X-HD is updating the screen fast enough for Canada.
I think the update rate of the graph on the 2000 series matches the counter; but on the 1000 series, as the counter updates at a faster rate, the display could't keep up with that fast rate and it was programaticaly defined to update the graph one time per two counter cycles. As is, the couter is faster but the graph seems to be (and it is) slower.
Dave I would love an SDS800x teardown/review video.
yep & not surprised as it is tied up to do the capture leaving display as secondary.
Check the camera frames to compare what happens per frame.
I wonder what other artifacts are caused by the cost cutting.
Yes, another way is to shoot high speed footage and compare frames.
Perfect thinking
yes even wit the video framerate it really looks faster e.g. more update and more changing waveforms, would be cool to use a special test signal, maybe a pulse occuring at some interval so its maybe also adjustable. . SO use one generator with a fixed pulse rate to trigger and a 2nd with a synchron but adjustable rate, where you can have a seldom pulse... maybe a small programm with a fpga can do. Dont remember a pulse generaator which can do this measurement directly. Even a arduino gemerated pulse sequence might help (you need two outputs then) maybe its posible with an arbitraty funktion generator
The frame rate is double on the 2000. Use a phone camera with a high frame rate and see how many fps they are doing. But I’d say it’s twice as fast. 30fps vs 15-20fps.
does the display and/or display chip not having an latch thing for each update frame ?, thinking that maybe can be used to count the display real update rate and not just what the softwares says.
The display is going to be 60-75Hz and may be completely unrelated to the waveform update on the screen. Which is clearly less than 30Hz.
So the new siggy vs the riglol. Which is the bestest choice?
that is really interesting
i dont think having a slower display would have any actual negative impact on my use of a scope
but i suspect it would bug me nonetheless lol
I got the SDS800X HD, and measurements just getting missed. You can easily check this by running measures with triggers that involve edges (2 channels in my case), and run those again through with history playback. I got a 70% loss there when not using history, when the recording of the very same frames happend. You might want to go for just 1000 frames, as it takes a long time for measurements to run through history. Measurements happen in software, so the maximum wave rate does not apply. Still it is quite a bad value for measurements.
May i ask where you got it from? Ive only seen it listed on Tequipment or the Siglent North America website. How long did it take from time of order to shipping?
I’d love to know as well
I guess the "mouse scroll" functionality is restricted by the browser and not a problem or lack of functionality of the webapp.
A right click would probably also not work and show the right click menu of the browser.
But it would have been nice if they added small up/down arrows in the text box.
Maybe the up/down or +/- keys do something?
It's definitely possible in a browser, we have full VNC clients working just fine. They didn't even handle the right click menu, it just offers to save the image by the browser.
By the look of it, they're just not expecting people to use that all that often, that UI is very barebones and not set up to be really comfortable to use with that left menu and stuff. They probably expect you to use this occasionally like your overnight test is misbehaving and you want to check a few things and maybe a few quick adjustments.
Waveform persistence is the key, it was good to see you note the distinction between waveform update rate and screen refresh rate. It would be interesting to do a test with a runt pulse generator. I predict that they will both perform practically identically (because 120kHz is so close to 100kHz). It doesn't matter how lively the fuzz on your signal looks, as long as a runt pulse or a rare spike or whatever gets put on the screen eventually, you will see it. I'm not sure I buy it, but some might even argue that the slower screen is better, because your runt pulse will stay visible on the screen for longer! TL;DR: I think it's important here to distinguish between the scope that *feels* spritely and fast, vs actual performance in real world scenarios (e.g. runt pulse etc).
BTW, putting the trigger outside the waveform for evaluating waveforms per second makes no sense, because it's in "Auto" trigger, not "trigger as soon as physically possible" mode. There's going to be some sort of holdoff before it resorts to just "auto" triggering, or else it'd never be able to actually trigger off real edges in the signal. This is evidenced by the fact that the count is increasing at, I would estimate, about 5 waveforms per second in your video, not the advertised 120,000 waveforms per second. Not to mention that you're at a 1ms/div timebase, which would necessitate and absolute max possible ~100 waveforms per second.
Yeah, of course the display update rate doesn't matter if you employ techniques like persistance, but I want to know the raw screen update rate.
@@EEVblog2 PWM sweep is the key i guess. But not everything you see on the screen is beeing measured. Read my other post.
I think your wrong, 8:14 If I recall, the Rigol dont rescale the waveform at all, it only enhance text with Android's crude textrescaling algorithm.
but the actual waveform stays the same and are pixelmapped to 600p like the scopes screen, so even if you port it to a higher screen fx 1080p witch I recall is the max res... the actual waveform ain't recsalled to that higher resolution, its still only mapped to 600p... so your not gonna get any better clarity on the thing that matters... as in waveform-resolution-fidelity
its a slippery road to go down to rescale something that needs to be reférenced 100% correct, like waveform data .
I also recall you could see it in your own video Dave,, how blocky the waveform looked on your big secondary screen, as the waveform was still only 600p its only the secondaries like text, UI etc that are being rescalled as it can be done easily on the fly with Androids own native tools to secondary screens.
But I don't own any of these scopes, and I doubt you would run with false info if you haven't validated these things?..so I ask you.. ain't it only text / UI that are being recalled on Rigols DHO-line to a max of 1080p' and your not gonna get any better resolution on the waveform, that will stay 600p, and pixelmapped representation of the scopes screen ?
Yeah that's what I meant to say.
take a look at the waveform update rate on Rigol DHO800 vs SDS800XHD.
If I recall you obtained a max of 27k on Rigol while it claimed 30k, and the siglent SDS800 claims 100k.(std / auto mem)
Both I believe are "auto" memory settings..
They inflated waveform update numbers, where you go into some handicapped seq mode where 95% of the scopes function are removed.. those values, got very little merits they are mainly there to confuse consumers, in a spec race.
Would also be interesting to see a compare of their intensity grading as Rigol whole DHO series.. seems almost defect, and have very limited visual grading, not least on modulated signals.' even though it on paper should have the levels. (maybe its been fixed)
Here a compare to Siglent SDS800X HD grading performance could be helpful.. thx for the vid.
Agreed. Drawing/graphics. It's still quick enough I think. Should not be slower than that though
Yeah, it's not "slow", it's just slower than the 2000 model.
Hi Dave. I have a big question. In your opinion, which one is te best siglent oscilloscope? Under five american bucks. Your videos are really nice, you always have someting intersting. Thanks.
Under $5?!
A stolen one ? lol!
@@andymouse A mistake, $5000 american bucks. Good day.
@@l3p3 $5000 american bucks. 🙂
@@electronicayexperimentos :)
Dig deeper...I want to see the Siglent rust.
Yolo.
They discontinued the rust option.
Is that instant? and what is instant Dave? Gevalia?.. 5fps 10fps 15fps, 30fps or perhaps 60fps, as your screen are likely running at..
the word instant.. what does that meen, as its so relative depending on the user, and the native term would be matched to your screens refreshrate.?
Here is a great example from EEvblog on SS1000XHD web update rate with the scope in screen to compare.
I don't see that as "instant" ua-cam.com/users/shorts92lAS9aj12c but I don't have a FPS-value,.. is that what you meen as instant?
The 2000x has better hamster wheels than the 1000x.
Why 'Super Phosphor Oscilloscope'? More useless marketing mumbo jumbo to deal with.
Would be good for to do a direct compare of the Siglent to the Rigol 12-bit. Right now I'm leaning towards the Rigol - mainly due to HDMI/USBC capabilities. Other than the metal handle, anything on the Siglent that beats the Rigol?
I can say about the 800 series: It does run without crashes. Uses the screen more efficiently. Maybe has less bugs? First i thought it has less bugs, but after a while i found quite a few too. I cant imagine the rigol beeing better than siglent, as it uses android, which is probably not something you want to build a scope upon.
I think you now have an excuse to buy a high speed camera
Or he could pull out his phone…
I have variosu high speed cameras. Even the main camera I shot this on can do 250fps I think.
First!