• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


zygot last won the day on July 18

zygot had the most liked content!

About zygot

  • Rank
    Prolific Poster

Recent Profile Visitors

1,749 profile views
  1. @JColvin,Thank you for your input.
  2. @D@n, I was just about to edit my last post.... Believe it or not the mandate to avoid any suggestion of conflict of interest is a typical corporate mandate that employees sign all the time; even if they didn't get it from the Holy Word. ( And even when their bosses tell the to do it anyway... ) I don't see the point in anything that your last post says... I've been scratching my head for a while. I apologize if you took my thoughts as a personal attack. That was in no part an intention. Previously, I wrote: "My suggestion is that Digilent have you review products before they are released and all communication be off public forums until you have any issues resolved... then release the product. I'd trust you to do a thorough job of it. I have found the vast majority of your posts to be very helpful and generally technically correct. I respect you. " That's seems like a good place to start. After that, this is not my business. I see a conflict of interest. Apparently, you don't. In the end it's the people who plunk down their hard earned cash who will judge. I hope that you are as dogged in making sure that any "review" used as sales material be taken in the proper context as you are in pursuing my suggestion to do some soul searching. I doubt that very technical people will interested in this particular product anyway. BTW I don't do product reviews, endorsements, marketing, or similar activities for third parties. That's in my own corporate policy. I do point out issues when relevant and I deem necessary. I think that we've beaten that dead horse enough into the hereafter...
  3. @attila, Noise? Talk to me a bit about how you define noise in the sample data.
  4. @D@n, I really don't have anything to add to my suggestion that you rethink doing solicited reviews. If you are guided by divinely inspired works I take you at your word. I know a lot of really unethical crooks who also are guided by a peculiar interpretation of the same sources. I'm unaware of any specific text dealing with the topic under discussion in your source; though there are no doubt plenty of people willing to use as verse or two out of context to justify any conduct. I know what I'd do... I'd avoid any suggestion of conflict of interest. What you do is up to you and your conscience. At least we know how you feel about it. I'm not attacking your personal moral values... just wondering why we are so far apart on one specific issue.
  5. @D@n, Ok, so you are not troubled by this practice. Got it.
  6. @D@n, About the context that wasn't explicitly mentioned until now. Knowing the vastness of your budget for such things I surmised that this was the case. Your general tone bolstered this suspicion. My suggestion is that Digilent have you review products before they are released and all communication be off public forums until you have any issues resolved... then release the product. I'd trust you to do a thorough job of it. I have found the vast majority of your posts to be very helpful and generally technically correct. I respect you. Given the sketchy way that "reputation" is assessed on the Digilent forums and general feedback about how the less technically knowledgeable view your opinions I suggest you take some time to reconsider doing such work. I have grave concerns about solicited " product reviews"; especially when there are payments involved; even if only in merchandise. Just because "everybody" is doing it doesn't mean that it's OK. This concern is especially true when not all pertinent information about the relationship surrounding the people involved in such a review is not explicitly and plainly stated prominently up front. I realize that your post wasn't the review which accounts for the third sentence. I've worked for companies who valued their image so Digilent's philosophy is a puzzlement to me; especially since their main customer base consists of students and educational institutions.
  7. @D@n, Well now that a staff member has weighed in to support your hypothesis I can stop making suggestions about possible issues. I am still interested in your findings. I still believe that the discussion is useful even if it hasn't revealed the nature of what's been causing your confusion. I'd expect this sort of issue to be discovered and fixed prior to releasing a product if it is in fact just an algorithmic issue. Admittedly, I have expectations for products that I purchase that used to be a given and now seem to be high.
  8. @D@n, Yeah, I don't know that it's worth my time trying to figure out what the logic standard is from the device that you are probing. The threshold that you mention is probably OK for most 3.3V logic but it could be interesting to see if an alternate setting has different results. The decision threshold is but one factor in knowing if a signal is operating within specifications.
  9. @D@n, My comments rarely explicitly dive deeply into all of the ideas floating around in my mind. I like to start simply as possibly. I understand that you are having difficulty with my not making the same inferences as you are making. You can ( somewhat ) easily extract the transitions from the data dump for the channel that has the confusing display and see what's there. This should narrow the discussion considerably. Personally, I think that this whole post has been interesting and might be useful to everyone. Anyone reading it who wants to question any of the statements should weigh in. My concern is that your tool might be another poorly supported product that doesn't quite live up to its billing. There are alternatives that are 4-5 times the price but much more robust. I have no problem with the concept as long as it does what it is advertised to do and doesn't over sell its capabilities to the less technically inclined. Using non-staff for technical support just isn't a very good thing for a vendor to be doing.
  10. @D@n, OK. "set to 3.3V digital I/O with a 1.42V threshold.". What device(s) are you probing? For my own version of the "DD" or even for csv formatted dumps from my oscilloscope I've written some simple programs to run through very large data sets to extract transitions. With a scope this is a bit more complicated as I have 8-bit A/D data but everything is timestamped and the analysis program doesn' have to be very complicated.
  11. @D@n, BTW, I got your inference that you believe that the DD software is working on a single contiguous record of sample data the first time; you don't have to emphasize it each time you post here.
  12. @D@n, Yeah, your last set of pictures is a lot better at illustrating what you want to say. As of this moment I don't wish to change any of my previous comments. I still think that you are making incorrect assumptions about what the tools' software is doing. You haven't answered my 2 questions: 1) can you dump data capture samples to a file in a format that you can read with your own program and analyze? 2) Do you have control over what the DD FPGA input IOSTANDARD is set to? regards
  13. @testex, I can help.
  14. @HansV, Not bad observations for someone who claims that the preceding discussion is over your head, You are correct that expensive equipment can mislead you if you aren't aware of its limitations and the physics of good probing. I don't know that crosstalk is @D@n's issue but it is certainly a possibility with a logic analyzer designed the way that the DD is. He is convinced that what he is looking are representations of a complete record of contiguous samples; and he could be correct. I'm not so sure, based on past experience. I've made my own "DD" , without the display software so I'm not totally ignorant about what can go wrong. 35 years of using the expensive equipment hunting down complex electronics misbehaviour probably is guiding my responses.
  15. @D@n, Here's a question. Can the DD allow you to save raw samples to a file? You can then do your own processing to see what the display ought to show. I think that your assumptions about what's going on in sample processing before the display software even gets started might be wrong.