Author Topic: EEVblog 1630 - Micsig MDP700 HV Differential Probe Review  (Read 250 times)

FxDev and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline EEVblogTopic starter

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 38051
  • Country: au
    • EEVblog
Micsig MDP700 High Voltage Differential probe review and comparison wit the older DP10007 and the EEVblog HVP70 probe.
https://s.click.aliexpress.com/e/_DnNvolN



00:00 - Micsig MDP700 High Voltage Differential probe unboxing
08:50 - Basic differential probe measurement test
12:00 - Noise measurements
15:20 - CMRR measurement using FRA
21:43 - Spot frequency CMRRR measurement technique
24:51 - Measuring Unicorn farts at 100MHz
26:45 - Conclusion

CMRR measured and explained:
GaN MOSFET Experiemnts with fibre optic high voltage probe:
Reverse engineering the DP10007:

 

Online FxDev

  • Regular Contributor
  • *
  • Posts: 51
  • Country: tr
Re: EEVblog 1630 - Micsig MDP700 HV Differential Probe Review
« Reply #1 on: Yesterday at 08:25:53 pm »
@EEVblog Dave I think you are wrong  :-DMM
They fixed the DP series  :-DD

Joking aside, I recently ordered the Micsig DP10013 model from the link below. Later, I actually received the DP10013 but with a difference—it's actually from the DP1500 series :)

https://www.amazon.com.tr/dp/B074K4XPW3?psc=1&ref=ppx_yo2ov_dt_b_product_details

I don't know why they did this, but getting the DP1500 series instead of the DP10013 made me happy :)

I guess they named it DP10013 to avoid issues with the place I bought it from; otherwise, a clueless customer might have returned it saying that they didn't receive this brand.

I compared with Tektronix THDP0200 and Micsic DP1500 series with 350V. As you can see, there is no difference.





Offline Kleinstein

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 14488
  • Country: de
Re: EEVblog 1630 - Micsig MDP700 HV Differential Probe Review
« Reply #2 on: Today at 07:21:41 am »
For the noise comparison it may have made more sense to set the BW to 20 MHz at the scope (most scopes offer this). I don't think they have specs for this, but this would be the same BW for all 3 probes and very reasonable setting for real life use too.

The spot measurement at 10 MHz should not use the AC-RMS, but ideally would compare FFT components. The RMS includes quite some noise from other frequencies.

Not having averaging in the frequency response function is a bit disappointing. It does not need to be explicite averaging as with the scope. Just a longer timer per point and this lower speed would do it as well or even better. With the very high attenuation one may have to check that there is no scope internal coupling. The isolation between the channels may not be that much bettter on some scopes.
 


Share me

Digg  Facebook  SlashDot  Delicious  Technorati  Twitter  Google  Yahoo
Smf