Breaking News
Design How-To

Oscilloscopes and ENOB

NO RATINGS
Page 1 / 3 Next >
More Related Links
View Comments: Newest First | Oldest First | Threaded View
Page 1 / 2   >   >>
golfguy0101
User Rank
Rookie
re: Oscilloscopes and ENOB
golfguy0101   4/9/2013 9:02:21 PM
NO RATINGS
My name is Ernie, a frustrated R&S employee!

ErnieE
User Rank
Rookie
re: Oscilloscopes and ENOB
ErnieE   3/15/2012 2:38:49 PM
NO RATINGS
I find that interesting and would like to know detail on your measurement setup. When comparing an RTO1024 to the Agilent MSO7104B numbers and procedure outlined in Agilent's app note, the RTO not only outperformed the MSO7K at a 1 GHz BW setting but outperformed it in a full 2 GHz BW setting. Even without correction for the fact that Agilent overlooks that 8 div scopes and 10 div scopes set to the same V/div range are not looking at the same Full Scale digitizer ranges. Even Tek noticed this about the measurements, as there are two places in Agilent's 1 GHz RMS noise tables where the Agilent appears to outperform the Tek MSO4104, but in fact underperforms when comparing noise percent of FS voltage for that range. So I am fascinated by your observations and very interested in how you came to those conclusions.

ErnieE
User Rank
Rookie
re: Oscilloscopes and ENOB
ErnieE   3/14/2012 4:59:25 PM
NO RATINGS
ENOB comparisons can be tricky, especially when coming from competing vendors that will optimise the performance of their own instrument, while glossing over those same procedures on rented instruments from their competitors. You want to know what a vendor truly does, get their representative to actually show you. Agilent will start with their claims, using V/div which is faultly logic when decades old techniques for instrumentation expect equivalent full scale comparisons. Even their app note on this, overlooks the difference between 8 vertical divisions and 10 vertical divisions of competitors. Vertical noise can be manipulated on competitors scopes in vendor comparisons to dispute their own findings. Scopes like the R&S RTO 2 gig and below instruments, don't even interleave digitizers like Agilent and Tektronix, so they are indeed quieter instruments, especially when a self alignment or calibration has not been done. The number of scope users that are not even aware of self calibration and what is does, is astounding. So the potential for any scope to actually reach it's claimed possible performance in day to day operation is minimal. The user will more likely be plagued with DC offset errors than noise errors, for precise small measurments. Also, look at if your scope vendor drops bandwidth, or loses digitizer range by zooming in on a signal to "fake" a smaller vertical range. Think about the big picture of performance and capability, don't let a vendor get you hung up on small details while glossing over how the instrument addresses your application. The field personnel present to you, what their marketing staff sell to them. Make sure they're thinking when they present to you, and not just echoing selective marketing hype.

Tomc34
User Rank
Rookie
re: Oscilloscopes and ENOB
Tomc34   1/8/2012 4:35:59 PM
NO RATINGS
Excellent article, didn't know that scope manufacturers designed their own ADC solutions. I wonder if the technology in ADCs will get to a point where they do not have to expend that effort, but then again, with ever increasing bandwidth requirements design engineers will need from their scopes, the scopes need to be one step ahead of where the technology is. Tom http://www.mitydsp.com

mig78
User Rank
Rookie
re: Oscilloscopes and ENOB
mig78   6/23/2011 7:48:32 AM
NO RATINGS
Good article. Don't mind the "grammatical error" (if there's one in the 1st place) as long as the message is delivered.

rwj2005
User Rank
Rookie
re: Oscilloscopes and ENOB
rwj2005   6/21/2011 2:45:19 PM
NO RATINGS
my goodness, can you get an editor please? reading so many grammatical errors in one article is disconcerting.

seven
User Rank
Rookie
re: Oscilloscopes and ENOB
seven   6/20/2011 4:00:20 PM
NO RATINGS
please note that in figures 5 and 6 the measured ENOB values for the 1 and 2 GHz scopes have a minimum value of 6.5 bits and a maximum 6.75 bits - more than 6.

joel.woodward
User Rank
Rookie
re: Oscilloscopes and ENOB
joel.woodward   6/17/2011 3:17:31 PM
NO RATINGS
The R&S claim of 7 ENOB is for the ADC by itself, and not the ADC in a scope. Since R&S doesn't sell the ADC by itself, users will never experience 7 effective bits on the RTO scope. The RTO series has a measured ENOB that much less: just under 6 at 500MHz, just over 6 bits at 1 GHz, and just under 6 bits at 2 GHz. Agilent 9000 is nearly identical (slightly higher than R&S at 2GHz, same at 1 GHz, and 5% lower at 500MHz).

seven
User Rank
Rookie
re: Oscilloscopes and ENOB
seven   6/17/2011 1:26:11 PM
NO RATINGS
Actually, there is an applicatioin note that can be found on the R&S web site: www.rohde-schwarz.us (1ER03) that describes, in detail how the ENOB is measured and shows measured ENOB values for both 1 and 2 GHz scopes

GREAT-Terry
User Rank
CEO
re: Oscilloscopes and ENOB
GREAT-Terry   6/16/2011 2:28:03 PM
NO RATINGS
We need more data in order to choose a good scope. However, more often we just can't see those chart or graphs. It reminds us some more details should be checked when considering a new scope.

Page 1 / 2   >   >>
Most Recent Comments
Radio
NEXT UPCOMING BROADCAST
How to Cope with a Burpy Comet
October 17, 2pm EDT Friday
EE Times Editorial Director Karen Field interviews Andrea Accomazzo, Flight Director for the Rosetta Spacecraft.
August Cartoon Caption Winner!
August Cartoon Caption Winner!
"All the King's horses and all the KIng's men gave up on Humpty, so they handed the problem off to Engineering."
5 comments
Top Comments of the Week
Like Us on Facebook

Datasheets.com Parts Search

185 million searchable parts
(please enter a part number or hit search to begin)
EE Times on Twitter
EE Times Twitter Feed
Flash Poll