DRSBoard::GetTime is declared in DRS.h line 720.
If you want to measure timing down to ps, you need some basic knowledge, especially about signal-to-noise and risetime. This cannot be taught in a few sentenses, needs a full lecture. As a starting point please read that papat:
then you will understand why you measure different resolutions with different peak heights (and different rise times).
Concerning the DRS4 measurement, please be aware that the sampling poings are not equidistant, like not every 200ps for GSPS. They vary bin by bin significantly, from 50ps to 300ps. So you alway have to analyse the X/Y points as an array, not just the Y values assuming deltaX of 200ps. Probably you forgot that. Then, you have to interpolate between bins to find the crossing over your threshold. Linear interpolation is already good, spline interpolation even better. Deep inside Measurement.cpp of the drsosc program you find in the source code:
t1 = (thr*(x1[i]-x1[i-1])+x1[i-1]*y1[i]-x1[i]*y1[i-1])/(y1[i]-y1[i-1]);
which is the linear interpolation (thr is the threshold). You have to use (and understand!) similar code.
I am using the V5 board at a fixed sampling frequency. With the `drsosc` app I have executed the time calibration at 5 GS/s (actually 5.12 GS/s). This is how my setup looks like in the app:
Now I want to replicate this using the C++ API (not the positive width measurement shown, the signal sampling only). I am seting the sampling frequency to 5 GS/s, as I do in the `drsosc` app. Then I get the time information using the `DRSBoard::GetTime(unsigned int chipIndex, int channelIndex, int tc, float *time)` function (which I don't find defined either in `DRS.h` or `DRS.cpp` but somehow it works). How can I know if these times that I get here are being corrected with the time calibration? If so, should I expect the time resolution to be < 3 ps? Are these 3 ps accumulative, such that in the end I end up having a contribution from the evaluation board of 3 ps × 5 Gs/s × 100 ns where 100 ns is the time difference between my two pulses? (This does not seem to be the case because if so I would expect the jitter to be ~ 1 ns, and we see that the "Pos Width" measurement is ~ 0.1 ns std.)
Why am I asking? I want to measure the jitter between the two falling edges. This cannot be done easily with the `drsosc` app I think, so I am acquiring the data and doing this offline. I have done this measurement in the past using a LeCroy WaveRunner oscilloscope with 20 GS/s and 4 GHz bandwidth (offline, same code) and I have seen it vary from ~5 ps → 30 ps when I vary a voltage that I can control. Now if I calculate this time fluctuation using the data acquired with the V5 evaluation board I get a value ~100 ps and independent of this voltage, which leads me to conclude that the limiting factor is being the evaluation board itself. So now I am wondering if I have reached its limit, or if there is some setting that can still improve this result.
For the time of each bin I am using the values returend by `GetTime` without any assumption by my side. I did not notice before that the sampling time is not uniform, but I see that this is already happening. This is an example plot from one of the signals I processed:
The bin at 65.5 ns and the next one are closer than their neighbors. So this seems to indicate that the time calibration is being taken into account when I acquire the time bins using `GetTime`, is this correct?
To obtain the final time resolution I am using the constant fraction discriminator method and the signals are linearly interpolated to obtain the time at each percentage value, as seen in the plot. I have already measured time resolutions in the 5-100 ps range with exactly the same setup but using the LeCroy oscilloscope, which I am using just for data acquisition, and my software for offline analysis as shown in the plot above. Now what I am trying to do is to replace the LeCroy by the DRS4 Evaluation Board basically, so I can use the oscilloscope in a different setup.
Looks like you have the some time calibration, not sure if it's the correct one. Sample the sine wave from the calibration clock, once with and once without the timing calibration, then you will see if all points lie on a smooth line. Left: without timing calibration, right: with proper timing calibration:
If your points do not lie on a smooth line, you might habe a problem such as the wrong channel for calibration, an offset of 1 in the index of the time array or some other software bug. Measure the same signal with the DRSOsc application and then your code. If the results differ, you have a software problem on your side.
Thanks for your help. If I look into the app the behavior for the 4 channels is exactly as you show:
Now, when I sample with my code something strange happens, two of the channels are fine and the other two are wrong:
This is a surprise to me because I acquire the 4 channels in the same way within a `for` loop. To get the time data I use `DRSBoard::GetTime` with the `tcalibrated` argument set to `true`. Is there any aditional step to use the calibration?
Hello, I am Lynsey. now I set A3-A0 to 1001 in ROI mode, but only OUT0 has output, and the other seven channels(OUT1-OUT7) do not output corresponding waveforms.
In ROI mode, can OUT0-OUT7 output sampled waveforms at the same time?
thank you very much
A3-A0 = 1001 should be all you need to activate OUT0-OUT7. It works in our designs. Maybe double check the address lines with an oscilloscope.
Thank you very much for your help!
Hello, I now have periodic spikes in CH0 and CH1 output. How can I eliminate these spikes? I'm sorry I didn't understand your elimination method. Please explain the method in detail. Thank you very much
Dear DRS4 team,
I'm trying to troubleshoot some odd spike behavior. If I run the ADC and SR CLK at 16 MHz (behavior also seen at 33 MHz) we get very noisy data (post-calibration) with periodic spikes.
In the below plot
After I modify some clock settings, things seem to improve dramatically, and the spike behavior changes
Artifacts seem related to clock configuration, but I am sort of in the dark on what might be happening from a first-principles point of view. Any tips?