Forum Replies Created
- AuthorPosts
jjoonathanParticipantsticker
Attachments:
You must be logged in to view attached files.
jjoonathanParticipant- This reply was modified 2 years, 8 months ago by
jjoonathan. Reason: New link with correct permissions
- This reply was modified 2 years, 8 months ago by
jjoonathan. Reason: New download link
The forum software murdered the attachments, here they are on Dropbox:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/40xcq1pmlu41tsz/setup_sh_and_aux_files.zip?dl=0
jjoonathanParticipantThat’s fair, thanks for clarifying.
jjoonathanParticipantSo I was doing some customs paperwork (unrelated to my SM200B) and ran across a familiar bandwidth rating. It struck me that disabling the 160MHz IF filter might not be the most casual feature to toss in there — it looks like export controls might kick in at 170MHz and require licenses for Missile Tech and National Security if you want to export to anywhere but Canada. I’m sure you have a handle on the exact details, I just thought I’d drop a reminder in case they need to be reviewed.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/15/appendix-Supplement_No_1_to_part_774
3A002
c.4.a. ‘Real-time bandwidth’ exceeding 170 MHz; and
jjoonathanParticipantDisabling IF filter: If the only tradeoffs were gnarly rolloff and uncalibrated amplitude, sure, but antialiasing is a considerable foot-gun, especially for swept signals like mine. I would probably not opt to disable IF filters for my application. After all, I was able to obtain a stable trigger with the filter in place, it was just in an unexpected location. It might be useful for other purposes… but it’s definitely a foot-gun and not motivated by this particular application so I wouldn’t mind if you kept the option restricted to the API layer.
As for independently controlling FMT FFT size, I think that’s worth the effort to expose. In a perfect world, it would do its own FFTs for the purposes of the preview, but since FMT configuration already happens in a separate dialog, you could probably get away with hijacking the RBW setting while the dialog was open if that’s significantly easier. In any case, a slider akin to a multimeter “resolution / speed” tradeoff slider (but with frequency resolution / time resolution) would be an elegant way to expose this setting and intuitively communicate both the “50% overlap” architecture from the manual and the 512-16384/power-of-2 nuance that you’ve mentioned in this thread. Of course, once that tradeoff is communicated you’ll have people like me asking for time resolutions finer than 512/2 but every step forward is worthwhile even if they can’t all be made at once.
Cheers,
JAttachments:
You must be logged in to view attached files.
jjoonathanParticipantThanks for the details! Knowing the architecture really does help. Living with 40MHz of bandwidth is relatively easy in this application and if that buys me a relatively precise match between triggers and the traces I see on screen, it’s a worthwhile tradeoff.
I made a separate post to brainstorm about frequency triggers, but hysteresis is probably in scope for this thread. The use case happens whenever signal risetime significantly exceeds (reciprocol) IF bandwidth. As the slowly rising signal reaches the threshold, noise causes it to wander up and down across the trigger threshold, creating both rising edge and falling edge events. The falling edge events are undesired and prevent the user from achieving a stable trigger. Ditto for attempts to trigger on a falling edge being frustrated by spurious triggers on a rising edge. Depending on (edge rise/fall time, noise, IF bandwidth) this is either not a problem at all or it’s a severe enough problem to completely negate any ability to selectively trigger on rising or falling edges.
In terms of FPGA resources and configuration architecture the requirements are fairly modest (I wouldn’t be terribly surprised if it already existed in the FPGA and just hadn’t been brought all the way up into the GUI) but it leads to a substantial quality of life improvement. Some especially keen interfaces put a band around their trigger threshold line to visualize hysteresis (I have a Rohde & Schwarz oscilloscope that does this) but having a stable trigger is desirable enough that the feature doesn’t have to be pretty to deliver its core value.
Thanks again for your detailed reply!
jjoonathanParticipantThanks for the detailed answer! 512/2 sample trigger resolution is definitely better for this application than 1638/2 sample trigger resolution. I still want to toss in a vote for additional trigger capabilities that might drive that down towards 1 sample 🙂
You’re right that I’m inevitably going to need the API, but for one-off debugging and quick checks it’s nice to stay in the GUI.
Is there a way to control the FMT resolution independently of the spectrogram in Spike since it also uses Zero-Span>FFT Settings>RBW?
jjoonathanParticipantjjoonathan February 8, 2021 at 1:58 pm in reply to: SM200 Preselector option in Spike //php bbp_reply_id(); ?>
Makes sense, thanks!
- This reply was modified 2 years, 8 months ago by
- AuthorPosts