New GW Instek GDS-2000E oscilloscope released

[Hydrawerk]

http://www.gwinstek.com/en-global/products/Oscilloscopes/Digital_Storage_Oscilloscopes/GDS-2000E
As usually, there is no fine vertical or horizontal setting AFAIK. I think there is also no Trigger out BNC.
There is no price specified yet.

[Hydrawerk]

 

[Hydrawerk]

Videos made by GW Instek staff. They still use that old VGA camera with 480p lines.

[rf-loop]

Fixed GW advertising image. Added Siglent image in accordance with the way that GW use.
When one reads  Rigol ad...
When one reads  GW ad...
What can I say about Siglent after I read these ads... Siglent have NORMAL noise level and nothing else.
I have no superlatives because Rigol and GW have consumed them to the end without any true reason.

[Hydrawerk]

GDS-2000E looks like a simplified version of GDS-2000A. The logic analyzer, function generator and training signals were removed, but some new features were added.
PROS:
+Standard 10Mpoints per channel and VPO Waveform Display Technology (but unspecified number of colors)
+Waveform Update Rate of 120,000 wfm/s (unspecified conditions, probably one channel at certain time/div)
+FFT with Maximum 1M points to Provide Higher Frequency Domain Resolution Measurement
+Low Background Noise (probably)
+29,000 Sections of Segmented Memory and Waveform Search Functions
+I2C/SPI/UART/CAN/LIN Serial Bus Trigger and Decoding Function as standard probably
+Data Log Function Tracks Signal Changes Up To 100 hours
+Position and trigger knobs are pushable
CONS:
-No auto record length
-No fine vertical or horizontal settings
-No plugin module rear slot, no VGA or DVI monitor output
-Small cooling fan
-No high resolution acquire mode
-No color gradation feature (not a big deal for me)
-Serial decoding event table overlays waveforms
-No Trig Out BNC, therefore no easy way to measure the waveform update rate. This is strange. I think that all scopes with great waveform update rate have the Trigger Output.
 (But there might be another method.)

See the user manual.

[EEVblog]

They really do need a good industrial designer to improve the looks of their scopes. They are just so, bland 

[Hydrawerk]

The front panel is apparently inspired by Tektronix scopes. But I do not like the position of Autoset button on GDS-2000E. I think I would be accidentaly pushing that.

On Tektronix scopes the Autoset button is lower and less likely to be pressed accidentaly.

[JohnnyBerg]

Is this scoop suposed to be a competitor for RIGOL DS1054Z?

[Hydrawerk]

Well, I am not sure what this means.

1GSa/s Real-Time Sampling Rate for Each Channel (2ch model) ; 1GSa/s Maximum Real-Time Sampling Rate (4ch model)

http://www.gwinstek.com/en-global/products/Oscilloscopes/Digital_Storage_Oscilloscopes/GDS-2000E
Probably 4×500MSa/s??
The price is still unknown. I do not think it is suposed to be a competitor for RIGOL DS1054Z. GW Instek is a bit weird, but it is not a hobby brand. The quality and lifespan is probably good, but it is not a bang per buck and not very modern design.

[tautech]

But I do not like the position of Autoset button on GDS-2000E. I think I would be accidentaly pushing that.
On Tektronix scopes the Autoset button is lower and less likely to be pressed accidentaly.

This problem was addressed very well with the Siglent SDS2000 series were they recessed both the Autoset and Default setup buttons.
Very little chance of any activation other than deliberate.

[Hydrawerk]

Here are the prices. http://www.testequity.com/products/24190/
It is a bit more expensive than Rigol DS1000Z. Although the GDS-2000E does not have a  WOW factor and the front panel is boring, I think that it might be a valuable instrument. Probably no other scope in this cathegory has I2C/SPI/UART/CAN/LIN Decoding and Analysis as standard. If you do not need a function generator, logic analyzer or fine vertical settings, this might be the right scope for you.

[dadler]

4 channels+CAN decoding could be quite useful. To get that combination you have to move way up the Rigol line.

[Hydrawerk]

Not a surprise for me but I still wonder why there is no warranty on the LCD. Come on, most LCDs last more than three years. Picture taken from the brochure.
GDS-2000A is the same. Picture

[gildasd]

They really do need a good industrial designer to improve the looks of their scopes. They are just so, bland 

I'm an industrial designer (studying other stuff now, be yes, I am one, did mostly furniture for shops and the shops themselves for over 10 years):
And I think they have a design partner, but the priorities are wrong.
Let me explain:
A scope is a tool; you wire up, do things, mod a setting, do things, repeat Xn times.
For that result, the designer must conceive something that is intuitive, simple, logical.
If a "normal" user has to get the manual out for simple tasks, the designer has lost.
All the while also making sure that:
- Marketing/sales can sell it.
- Is in the budget, can be scaled.
- Engineers can make it happen, even if the designer needs to push them outside their comfort zone.
- Will fit within the tools set for production (injection, fabrication to assembly) - even if by using standard tools in a novel way.
- The form factor, the shape must be an added value, even if it's just a tool. People like nice tools.
- Make sure that it has the big bosses pet peeve sorted so that it gets rubber stamped ASAP.
- etc...
A good designer is an interface between selling, buying, penny counting, aesthetics, usage, industrialisation and decision takers. Not an artist, not an engineer.
So if I analyse this "object", this is what I see:
- The first "error" I see is the lack of contrast: those greys are neat and non offensive, but the eye has to search.
Solution, ditch the medium grey and use black or very dark grey, make the light grey medium.
- Colour coding of the channels, the reminder around the scale buttons is insufficient. If your two hands are at the top making a fine adjustment and you have a instant of confusion (it happens even to highly trained fighter pilots, so it happens to all of us), you need to peek under your hands or take one of the instrument to be sure.
A line that goes from the "Position" to the connector is needed. Or coloured knobs. Something.
- The big fat name on top of the screen. Why? The costumer has bought the scope, does he really need to be reminded of the brand ALL the time? Selling is done, now costumer satisfaction must take over.
Plus that's valuable work space that should be left flat and just the width of masking tape to write stuff (all good mixing desks have this).
Furthermore, the real estate between the power button and the USB is taller, so marketing can put a big arsed logo and lots of wank words that will give them hard ons during hour slong meetings about, er, what do they do in those meetings?
- Lack of reference points on the knobs, even if the pots are 10 turns, put a black dot on them for visual reference FFS!
- Power button MUST BE CONTRASTED, black or red for those "OHFAKOHFAKOHFAK" moments we all have had.
- I don't get the bottom of the scope; it seems to be designed by somebody else.
- Punch the dude who thought it was good idea to put 28% grey text on a 30% grey back ground. Seriously, punch him.
- Why do the vents have to be 1980's IBM bland? It costs the same, and they are as efficient (or more) with shapes lifted from aircraft's or F1 cars.
- An yeah, the side/rear mouldings are not aligned with anything in the front... My 1st boss would have slapped me and made me wash his car for this.
- Could go on and on...

The crux of the problem is that this kind of product MUST be designed with the premise of; "I'm drunk and I've lost my glasses, could I still use this tool? Does it still look good? Or do I want to spew all over it?".

A good designer will solve these issues, while playing the aesthetic chess to stay ahead.
A bad designer will solve these issues, then attempt to "prettify it" at the end. This is how 90% of products are made and why they look like crap or/and are bland.

Rant over.

[Wuerstchenhund]

As someone who's not a designer but has experience in HMI design and Human Factors (and dealing with product designers!) I have to disagree with some of your conclusions:

- Colour coding of the channels, the reminder around the scale buttons is insufficient. If your two hands are at the top making a fine adjustment and you have a instant of confusion (it happens even to highly trained fighter pilots, so it happens to all of us), you need to peek under your hands or take one of the instrument to be sure.
A line that goes from the "Position" to the connector is needed. Or coloured knobs. Something.

No, it's not. Aside from the fact that the individual channel controls are clearly visually separated, the color labels are certainly big enough to be recognizable even when twiddling the knob. In addition, the input connectors are even below the related controls, so in reality there's really very little chance to get confused.

- The big fat name on top of the screen. Why? The costumer has bought the scope, does he really need to be reminded of the brand ALL the time? Selling is done, now costumer satisfaction must take over.

As a product designer you should know that such labeling is critical for brand recognition, which doesn't suddenly stop when the customer has forked over the money for the product. First, you want to remind the customer every time he uses your product (which he probably will do often if he likes it) that it is your brand and not someone else's who made it so that he will consider your brand again for future purchases. Second, you also want others to see who made that product the owner will probably talk positively about, so that your product and your brand show presence in the market space and raise brand awareness with others (which might remember your brand when they shop for a scope themselves). Furthermore, a large market presence also raises the perceived brand status.

That's why everything that's made today is carrying large brand labels, no matter if it's scopes, computers, TVs, industrial machines, clothing whatever.

In addition, for a scope it often helps when the basic parameters like analog bandwidth and sample rate are printed on the device so that occasional users know the primary limitations of the scope without having to check sales brochures or the manual (or finding out after hours of fault finding that the bandwidth was just too low for the task).

Plus that's valuable work space that should be left flat and just the width of masking tape to write stuff (all good mixing desks have this).

Well, the thing is that this is a scope, not a mixing desk, and scopes are rarely used as surfaces to write stuff down.

And frankly, if you really consider the fascia above the display of a scope as "work space" then I'd have to say you have no idea how a scope is actually used.

Furthermore, the real estate between the power button and the USB is taller, so marketing can put a big arsed logo and lots of wank words that will give them hard ons during hour slong meetings about, er, what do they do in those meetings?

What relevance has what's going on in these meetings for the design and usability aspects of the product? Exactly, nothing.

- Lack of reference points on the knobs, even if the pots are 10 turns, put a black dot on them for visual reference FFS!

Certainly not. Like in most scopes made in the last 25 years or so these knobs are very likely encoders, not pots (again, it's NOT a mixing desk!), and with encoders it's the turning direction and speed that decides how a parameter changes, not the knob position. Putting a position marker on a reference less control is confusing (as it implies referencing where there is none).

Things like that are actually a pretty basic 'Don't!' in UX design and Human Factors.

- Power button MUST BE CONTRASTED, black or red for those "OHFAKOHFAKOHFAK" moments we all have had.

Aside that a bright large round button surrounded by a dark area is pretty well contrasted, there's no reason why the button needs to be colored. In Electronics, red as a color also has certain established associations, i.e. positive voltage input on a DMM. As a product designer you have to be very careful with using colors that have established associations.

The other thing is that accidentally pressing the power button isn't really a 'OMG' moment. Just press it again and the scope will very likely be in the same state as before you pressed the button.

And BTW, that button is already well separated from all the other controls so it's unlikely to cause confusion.

- Punch the dude who thought it was good idea to put 28% grey text on a 30% grey back ground. Seriously, punch him.

I'm not sure what you're up to as based on the image the readability of the labeling seems to be fine.

- Why do the vents have to be 1980's IBM bland? It costs the same, and they are as efficient (or more) with shapes lifted from aircraft's or F1 cars.

And what exactly is the association of a bench top scope with aircraft or F1 race cars? Right, there is none.

And it's not that bland vents stopped IBM from being the largest computer vendor in the 1980's. In fact, what you call "bland" was a pretty clear design language which was instantly recognizable and became somewhat of IBM's trade mark.

Really, I can't see any the problem with the vents on that scope. They are designed in clear lines, which might be a bit boring, but as long as they are sufficient to provide adequate ventilation their shape is a non-issue.

- Could go on and on...

I'm sure you could. But in my opinion some of your comments show what's often wrong with product design, especially those where you showed a complete disregard for basic interface design and HF principles, or product usage (not that you're alone with that amongst product designers). It reminds me on the Simpsons episode where Homer is tasked to design a car, which inevitably ended in an overpriced train wreck.

A good designer will solve these issues, while playing the aesthetic chess to stay ahead.
A bad designer will solve these issues, then attempt to "prettify it" at the end. This is how 90% of products are made and why they look like crap or/and are bland.

A good product designer actually learning how similar products are used and what the established expectations and associations are before starting to design a new product. A good designer knows about the importance of usability and regularly consults with a UX/Human Factor specialist for usability assessments to make sure the new product is not another 'form follows function' debacle that looks great in a design museum but is crap for use. That means a good designer is well aware that aesthetic style should never trump functionality, and that design without a relation to the product (i.e. F1 car vents) is soul-less.

I haven't seen this scope in reality, so all I say is based on the above picture (and of course I haven't seen the UI which still could be horrible), but I'd say that the scope's design, while indeed being bland and boring, is perfectly fine from a functionality point of view. And for T&M kit, the latter is what counts, not some construed association with aircraft or race cars. Could it have been less ugly? Certainly. But it's not a sales stopper for a scope.

[andersm]

Furthermore, the real estate between the power button and the USB is taller, so marketing can put a big arsed logo and lots of wank words that will give them hard ons during hour slong meetings about, er, what do they do in those meetings?

Doing that would force the UI of the LA and non-LA models to be very different, and that's no good. It would probably also mean significant extra tooling costs.

[gildasd]

 (I won't quote - it would make the darn thing too long)
- About the colour coding:
I think we can agree to disagree, I think what the Instek is well aligned and organised (compared to the Tek above) but I still think in a stress situation, one could get confused. Humans "read" things by contrast colour and shape, little blobs of colour look childish and are insufficient - in my opinion.
- The name thing.
I designed a few things for a big name optics company a few years back, and did this on a product (lens case), and the CEO explained to me that high viz logos are a must for shopfronts, advertising, packaging BUT once the client has the product, it should be more subtle and fade to the second level, Leica does this famously with a single red dot, Canon with a red band on their lenses, Pentax with a Green one, Apple with just an apple. These firms have collectively sunk hundreds of millions making sure of this, so there must be some truth to it.
- The tape thing:
When I was a kid, I visited a few factories with my dad (who worked for Vishay at the time) and noticed that some labs did this (but others did not). I thought it was brilliant and why the hell had I not thought of it before for my tools. In my design career, when I was working with machines, I did it all the time, much faster/more efficient than putting it on a Post-it that's going to fall off and get lost. It was not for writing a novel, but more putting a mark for something. Once again, I just like to give the costumer the option to do so. If they don't use it, that's fine.
- The logo space.
This is not usability related (except getting rid of some visual clutter around the screen). This industry seems to have, more than some others, marketing executives who love having a play space. I'd rather not fight this, and give it to them there BUT ask for the important specs (for marketing AND the client in the lab) to be readable at 150cm by an 8/10 adult. This is how I would do it, your way is also valid.
-Black dot.
You're right, but I like having that, it just gives me more situational awareness. So I'm wrong, but I'd put a small blob of black epoxy on each knob if that scope was mine, it does not mean anything, it's just visual reference.
- Power button.
You're right.
-Grey stuff.
I can't read what's under the vertical position knobs and what's around the trigger. Well, I can, if I put my nose on my screen. I think that you are wrong here. But this is a common design error; it probably is perfectly readable during design both in 2D 3D but is not in real life. I have made this mistake myself.
- Vent shape (and general design).
I totally disagree with you. It costs the same to make something pleasing to the eye as it is to make it ugly.
It should not, of course be all swooshing curves, but subtle touches that make it more desirable and maybe even make it better in the process (venturi cone on the fan inlet would make it more efficient and quiet for example).
- The on and on part.
I don't think we understand each other here; interface design is the CORE of my rant, I love working on physical interaction (oh the arguments I would get into about key slot position and ease of use - and cleaning - work furniture), I'm just thinking of how to do this better - and make the product more aesthetic at the same time, as a BONUS.

In the last part we are in agreement, this is exactly how i would do it. But on top of this, I would do a fact finding mission on equipment with similar interface, BUT a different usage. In this case, I would look at civilian aircraft cockpit of Boeing 777 or later and ask a few pilot if they have problems with the interface. Then take this info and add it into my product IF relevant. I've proposed hinges for massive museum displays cases based on the ones used on Seafury folding wings, it's not stupid to look outside your industry for inspiration - especially where hundreds of millions have all ready been spent. Modesty about maybe not having the best solution is paramount.

I was not your regular product designer, I always thought of everything as a "machine to do", not as something to please my art and/or self promotion. So I'm pretty crap at designing stuff that just meant to please the eye. It's not my thing.
Furthermore, I conceived my position as an "interface", to make something that all departments can agree on, yet make it as aesthetic and saleable as possible.

[gildasd]

Furthermore, the real estate between the power button and the USB is taller, so marketing can put a big arsed logo and lots of wank words that will give them hard ons during hour slong meetings about, er, what do they do in those meetings?

Doing that would force the UI of the LA and non-LA models to be very different, and that's no good. It would probably also mean significant extra tooling costs.

You're right. Point taken. Another solution would need to be found.

[Wuerstchenhund]

- About the colour coding:
I think we can agree to disagree, I think what the Instek is well aligned and organised (compared to the Tek above) but I still think in a stress situation, one could get confused. Humans "read" things by contrast colour and shape, little blobs of colour look childish and are insufficient - in my opinion.

I'm not saying it doesn't look a bit childish (well, the whole scope looks to me like a toy) and couldn't be improved, but usability-wise I think it's fine.

- The name thing.
I designed a few things for a big name optics company a few years back, and did this on a product (lens case), and the CEO explained to me that high viz logos are a must for shopfronts, advertising, packaging BUT once the client has the product, it should be more subtle and fade to the second level, Leica does this famously with a single red dot, Canon with a red band on their lenses, Pentax with a Green one, Apple with just an apple. These firms have collectively sunk hundreds of millions making sure of this, so there must be some truth to it.

Yes, but the difference is that Apple and Leica already have a very strong brand, something they have built up in several decades. But they are an exception, not the norm, which has been clearly shown everytime someone else tried to copy Apple's success. Even when the products are equal in terms of design and performance, they will never sell as well as the Apple equivalent. Leica has a similar reputation in the photography world.

Going back to the scope in question, none of this applies to GW Instek. They are not exactly a young brand but even today many engineers don't know them. You might even find that Rigol and Siglent have a stronger brand awareness than Instek. All three have in common that, unlike Apple and Leica, they can't rely on their logo being widely recognized. Even the big brands (i.e. Agilent/Keysight) can't rely on its logo alone for a product being recognized as an Agilent/Keysight product. In fact, the same is probably true for the majority of brands out there.

As to the "aggressiveness" of the branding itself, it's easy to see why customers of optical products don't want the logo screaming in their face, especially when kit is later on exposed to consumers (i.e. optical gear for a ophthalmologist). For test gear however I want the branding (with model number) to be clearly visible even from a few meters away. Again, the T&M market is different than other markets in these things, also because it's one of the least aesthetics-conscious markets in existence. To be successful in that market, aesthetics are essentially at the bottom end of the list of relevant criteria (as long as certain lines aren't crossed). I'm not saying it doesn't help if the instrument doesn't look like crap, but it's not a market where customers would generally pay extra for nicer aesthetics or choose a product over another because of looks. The main things for success in T&M are performance, usability and price, followed closely by external factors like support.

- The tape thing:
When I was a kid, I visited a few factories with my dad (who worked for Vishay at the time) and noticed that some labs did this (but others did not). I thought it was brilliant and why the hell had I not thought of it before for my tools. In my design career, when I was working with machines, I did it all the time, much faster/more efficient than putting it on a Post-it that's going to fall off and get lost. It was not for writing a novel, but more putting a mark for something. Once again, I just like to give the costumer the option to do so. If they don't use it, that's fine.

I often see (and do myself!) something similar where especially with racked kit where people put tape or stickers on to label connectors et such. But that works perfectly fine without having a large white empty space above the screen. If needed people just tape over the manufacturer's branding. It's essentially a non-issue for more than half a century.

-Black dot.
You're right, but I like having that, it just gives me more situational awareness. So I'm wrong, but I'd put a small blob of black epoxy on each knob if that scope was mine, it does not mean anything, it's just visual reference.

The point (ha!) is that it does not give you a reference to anything. For encoders the knob position is absolutely irrelevant, and putting markers on reference-less controls is a violation of well established UX science.

-Grey stuff.
I can't read what's under the vertical position knobs and what's around the trigger. Well, I can, if I put my nose on my screen. I think that you are wrong here. But this is a common design error; it probably is perfectly readable during design both in 2D 3D but is not in real life. I have made this mistake myself.

I guess photos are always a bit difficult for assessing these things, and again, I'm not suggesting that it can't be improved.

- Vent shape (and general design).
I totally disagree with you. It costs the same to make something pleasing to the eye as it is to make it ugly.
It should not, of course be all swooshing curves, but subtle touches that make it more desirable and maybe even make it better in the process (venturi cone on the fan inlet would make it more efficient and quiet for example).

I'm not against different vents, however changes should always have the usability in mind (i.e. the venturi cone which certainly is a good idea) and not to create a perceived association with other things (like F1 cars). My point is that 'bland' vents aren't necessarily a bad thing.

- The on and on part.
I don't think we understand each other here; interface design is the CORE of my rant, I love working on physical interaction (oh the arguments I would get into about key slot position and ease of use - and cleaning - work furniture), I'm just thinking of how to do this better - and make the product more aesthetic at the same time, as a BONUS.

That's commendable, but my experience is that focus on design alone usually ends up in a bad product. And again, this is T&M kit we're talking about, not desks or photographic gear, and the T&M market has certain expectations that don't exist in other markets. There's nothing wrong with making a product aesthetically pleasing but this must never come at the cost of reduced functionality or usability.

I think a good example of design overdone are Rigol scopes like the DS2000, the sharp edges make the front panel feel very cluttered (even though it's actually well grouped together). For me it's design for design's sake, not because it improves the product.

In the last part we are in agreement, this is exactly how i would do it. But on top of this, I would do a fact finding mission on equipment with similar interface, BUT a different usage. In this case, I would look at civilian aircraft cockpit of Boeing 777 or later and ask a few pilot if they have problems with the interface. Then take this info and add it into my product IF relevant.

Well, as a jock I'd have to tell you that there isn't a lot overlap in the cockpit controls of a modern airliner and T&M kit like the scope in question. The problems in a multi-crew cockpit environment are completely different from the challenges an EE faces when using a scope, aside from the fact that, unlike with scopes, a lot of stuff in an aircraft is standardized.

It's of course always commendable if you brighten your horizon outside the box but don't underestimate the danger of focusing on the wrong priorities or concepts instead of what's actually relevant for the product in question.

[Hydrawerk]

Yes, Rigol scopes have an unique design that is not similar to any other brand. While GW Instek seems to be inspired by Tektronix.

[Loboscope]

I would call the design of the GDS-2000E simple, plain, objective, in an unexcitedly manner reduced to the essentials. Smooth and I would guess easy to use (but I do not know the UI). I like this design and the unobtrusive colouring, by this, the user will not be diverted like he would be perhaps by an overcrowded design. Old-fashioned antiquated may be, but in my eyes correct and good adapted for its purpose: technical use.
Freak out design may be good for trendy gadgets or for fashion, but is not so good for professional tools (also not for mixing-consoles).
In my opinion the Logo is not oversized. And the fact, that the Logo is repeated on the screen, is due to the fact that you want  to know the origin of screenshots.

Greetings, Jürgen

[Josh0027]

Hi everyone! Any news about anyone testing this scope, particularly the Serial and I2C decoding? If it is true that this feature comes as standard then this scope is a very good buy indeed.

[Hydrawerk]

Now available at http://www.newark.com/gw-instek/gds-2072e/oscilloscope-70mhz-2-ch-1gsps/dp/39Y8839?ost=GDS-2072E

[AG6QR]

- Colour coding of the channels, the reminder around the scale buttons is insufficient. If your two hands are at the top making a fine adjustment and you have a instant of confusion (it happens even to highly trained fighter pilots, so it happens to all of us), you need to peek under your hands or take one of the instrument to be sure.
A line that goes from the "Position" to the connector is needed. Or coloured knobs. Something.

No, it's not. Aside from the fact that the individual channel controls are clearly visually separated, the color labels are certainly big enough to be recognizable even when twiddling the knob. In addition, the input connectors are even below the related controls, so in reality there's really very little chance to get confused.

Against my better judgment, I'll jump in and make just one point:  The color coding isn't so much to correlate the knobs with the BNC jacks on the scope; those are already correlated by their position, as you point out.  The color coding is to correlate the knobs with the colored traces on the screen, and sometimes with the colored probe ends (that would only work if you put those colored rings on each end of your scope probes.)  Is the color coding adequate?  Maybe.  Could it be made more prominent?  I think so.

And kudos to the scope maker for providing a separate set of knobs for each channel, rather than one single set which is switched by a mode button!

[Mark_O]

Now available at Newark...

It's also available at TEquipment, at a price that's lower than I've seen anywhere else.  And that's before the EEVBlog discount.

[ali80]

I have bought this oscilloscope recently, GDS-2074E to be exact,
As a digital storage oscilloscope, its functionality is not that bad and the software has improved a lot over GDS-2000A series but there are still a few bugs and I think this model is actually slower than the previous model (GDS-2000A) at least in some of the settings, for example if you turn all channels on and set the memory depth to 10MPts the display update rates gets below 1Hz! I have also worked with GDS-2000A series and that's not the case at all.
As the logic analyzer functionality goes this model is pretty much useless, nothing works right, believe me I have tested UART, CAN and SPI and its just awful, full of bugs and not at a working condition. I mean the options are good but I wish they worked!
I have the latest version of firmware at the moment (Version 1.2) and I hope they fix their bugs cause I have payed a lot more to get the analyzer functionality and its just useless at the moment.
If you don't want the logic analyzer functionality go with GDS-2000B series, they have almost the same functionality and a lot cheaper.
If you want logic analyzer functionality go buy something else...

p.s. I updated the device firmware twice as suggested by nctnico, the blanks screen which was driving me nuts seems to be fixed, also the CAN decoding problem was duo to 5% baud rate error and my fault,it actually decodes and triggers very well. The SPI mandatory CS pin which is annoying is also reasonable because how can the SPI detect the beginning of the packet.(although they could simply add a timeout, not too fancy, even a user settable timeout on SPI would have been better than having a mandatory CS pin)

[nctnico]

Sure you got the thresholds and samplerate right? I recently played with a GDS-2204E (200MHz model) for a couple of hours and the CAN (500kbit/s) and I2C protocol decoding / triggering works fine with firmware version 1.2. Decoding 10Mpts is going to be slow because it is all done in software but at least it decodes the entire memory so you can zoom in on partial messages to look at each bit. There is only so much processing power you can get for this price.

[ali80]

Sure you got the thresholds and samplerate right? I recently played with a GDS-2204E (200MHz model) for a couple of hours and the CAN (500kbit/s) and I2C protocol decoding / triggering works fine with firmware version 1.2. Decoding 10Mpts is going to be slow because it is all done in software but at least it decodes the entire memory so you can zoom in on partial messages to look at each bit. There is only so much processing power you can get for this price.

Yeah, I'm pretty sure I got the settings right.
I tried SPI and it didnt work without CS pin, even a stupid 8-bit microcontroller can decode SPI wihtout CS pin, all you need is data and clock, in many of my designs I dont use CS pin and even if  I did, I dont have three hands to hold the probes
I tried UART and it had occasional wrong decodings, I tested it with my logic analyzer and everything was fine,
I tried CAN, It didnt decode the ID right and sometimes the 8th packet was missing!
if you decode in 10Mpts, it is very very slow, Ok I will try single shot and using the event table to see the packet, as soon as I enable the table the device gives me blank screen and you need to manually restart the device 
 

[nctnico]

Did you upload the firmware twice as the firmware update manual says? Maybe there is a combination of old and new firmware in your scope.

I just tried CAN decoding on mine (I decided to keep/buy the GDS2204E) and it works just fine. I can decode 500kbit/s CAN with 2MS/s or higher samplerates. UART seems to need much more oversampling. At 38400 baud I needed to use at least 500ks/s (13x) for the decoding to work. I agree the SPI decoding needing the CS line is a bit of a bummer.

[ali80]

Did you upload the firmware twice as the firmware update manual says? Maybe there is a combination of old and new firmware in your scope.

I just tried CAN decoding on mine (I decided to keep/buy the GDS2204E) and it works just fine. I can decode 500kbit/s CAN with 2MS/s or higher samplerates. UART seems to need much more oversampling. At 38400 baud I needed to use at least 500ks/s (13x) for the decoding to work. I agree the SPI decoding needing the CS line is a bit of a bummer.

The twice fimware upgrade thing is for gds-3000 series,
well decoding on CAN works partially, I see some of the data but the can ID isn't decoded properly, do you have any screenshot of you decoding?
also can you turn on the event table when the record length is 10Mpts? if I do so the device gives me blank screen!

[nctnico]

Regarding the firmware: I did some updates and I have the distinct feeling the firmware also needs to be loaded twice on the GDS2000E series.

I only get a blank event table if I set the time/div so the samplerate is below 100Ms/s with a 10Mpts record length. In my setup (continous stream of repeated messages) it seems there is not enough memory to decode all the messages. I attached some screendumps.

Edit: the missing ack was due to the CAN interface to the PC being off. In the last 2 screendumps it is on so the messages get an acknowledge.

[nctnico]

By the way: I think the GDS2000E is a pretty good scope for it's price and certainly better than Rigol's or Siglent's offerings becuase it actually works. There are still some issues with the version 1.20 firmware but I have received a beta firmware version from Gw Instek which already solved most of them. When I get a final firmware version I'll write up a more detailed review (I did a lot of testing before deciding to keep it).

[ebastler]

By the way: I think the GDS2000E is a pretty good scope for it's price and certainly better than Rigol's or Siglent's offerings becuase it actually works.

Your impression from reading the forum may be somewhat distorted. The more popular a scope is, the more people will use it and will come across issues (or will just keep talking about the same issues). For me the Rigol DS1000Z certainly "actually works".

I have never used a GW Instek scope, but the issues mentioned in this thread alone -- despite the much smaller user base -- do not give me a warm fuzzy feeling about it...

[nctnico]

Which issues are you referring to? Decoding works fine on the one I have so it must be some kind of firmware update gone wrong on ali80's scope or I'm doing something different.

Sure there are differences in features between the various oscilloscopes but there is a big difference between features working as advertised or not at all. Just look at the list of problems in the Rigol 1000Z! I used to own a Siglent SDS2204 myself and compared to the GDS2204E the Siglent SDS2204 is a total piece of crap!

Having learned from mistakes I have tested the GDS2204E thouroughly by going through a test plan with about 20 items before committing to buying it. Currently I'm waiting for GwInstek to fix one last minor issue. Feature wise it actually has some very strong points compared to my Agilent DSO7104A! It doesn't mean it will replace my DSO7104A but it does mean I'll use the GDS2204E for certain measurements because it is better equiped for the circumstances. For example: the GDS2204E has a much better math function, longer memory (especially with 4 channels enabled), longer FFT (1Mpts versus 128k), signal filtering, reference traces which can be moved,zoomed & scaled afterwards, etc. BTW I wanted an extra oscilloscope to bring along to customers which is why I ended up with the GDS2204E.

Edit: I agree about being sceptic about GwInstek. They have been in business for a long time but this oscilloscope is the first piece of GwInstek gear I own and probably used. They where also the last manufacturer I looked at because I could not find anything which fitted the budget and requirements from the other manufacturers.

[ali80]

I somehow agree with nctnico that gds-2000e has a lot of potential.
A lot of good and new features, I have also worked with rigol 2000 and agilent 2000 series and agree that it could beat rigol 2000 or even agilent 2000 series but only If they fix the bugs, some of the bugs you can deal with until the hopefully get fixed but some of them especially in decoding made the device unusable for me in that department.
I had previously worked with gds-2000A from gwinstek and that was a solid device and I dont remember any bugs or problems with that device, so I went ahead and bought this new gds-2000e model and wasn't expecting these type of bugs,
I think they rushed the product to the market and if they fix the bugs this could be a really good buy for the money,
I'll try to update the firmware twice and see if it fixes some of the issues.

[Mark_O]

I think they rushed the product to the market...

Hasn't this been out now for almost a year?  That doesn't sound like a "rush" to me. 

Or perhaps you're saying they rushed it out a year ago, and just haven't "gotten around to" fixing the problems yet?

[nctnico]

I think they rushed the product to the market...

Hasn't this been out now for almost a year?  That doesn't sound like a "rush" to me. 

Or perhaps you're saying they rushed it out a year ago, and just haven't "gotten around to" fixing the problems yet?

Yes and no. The firmware seems to be a generic one they probably use as a base for all their oscilloscopes so I think most of the firmware as seen a lot testing, feedback and bug fixing. The bugs I have found are more likely to be oversights when adapting the firmware to the new scope. GwInstek is from Taiwan (do they still call themselves Republic Of China?) after all.

[ali80]

I think they rushed the product to the market...

Hasn't this been out now for almost a year?  That doesn't sound like a "rush" to me. 

Or perhaps you're saying they rushed it out a year ago, and just haven't "gotten around to" fixing the problems yet?

I don't know, I'm somehow leaned toward the second one , I just hope that they would be at least trying to fix the bugs,
I updated the firmware for the second time, decoding still doesn't work properly at least on CAN, but I haven't seen the blank screen yet!
The CAN decoding sometimes work and sometimes doesn't work, in the last picture it couldn't decode the first packet but it decoded the second packet correct!
I think when the CAN packets are near each other it cant decode correctly!

[nctnico]

Hmmm. Your CAN signal looks different compared to mine. I'm measuring the CAN-HI wire. Where are you measuring and how did you setup the input?

[ali80]

Hmmm. Your CAN signal looks different compared to mine. I'm measuring the CAN-HI wire. Where are you measuring and how did you setup the input?

CAN_RX, from a can transceiver like mcp2551, its actually better because it removes common mode noise. CANH should also give the same result, only different voltage level

[nctnico]

I can't test using CAN RX but it seems CAN-HI is low when idle and CAN RX is high when idle. That looks suspicious to me however I don't know whether it should be that way or not. Can you test again using the CAN-HI signal?

[ali80]

I can't test using CAN RX but it seems CAN-HI is low when idle and CAN RX is high when idle. That looks suspicious to me however I don't know whether it should be that way or not. Can you test again using the CAN-HI signal?

Its OK, I have tested it with Saleae logic analyzer, the signal is allright, also the oscilloscope sometimes decodes the packets right, it has the option to get CAN_RX.

[Mark_O]

The CAN decoding sometimes work and sometimes doesn't work, in the last picture it couldn't decode the first packet but it decoded the second packet correct!
I think when the CAN packets are near each other it cant decode correctly!

I'd find it hard to understand why proximity would play any role.  Especially when it failed on the first.  I'm wondering if you just changed the time-base, to spread those two packets out a bit more, if the decode would correct itself.  I.e., is it decoding from the screen buffer, or the data buffer?  Any decoder doing the former will run into problems as things get squeezed.

[Mark_O]

Hmmm. Your CAN signal looks different compared to mine. I'm measuring the CAN-HI wire. Where are you measuring and how did you setup the input?

CAN_RX, from a can transceiver like mcp2551, its actually better because it removes common mode noise. CANH should also give the same result, only different voltage level

There's nothing wrong with that, if that's what you're looking for. 

However, my preference, since I'm taking the time to sample with an analog device, is to not only source my signal from the bus that the other devices share (as Nico has), but also to use two channels, to capture both CAN-H and CAN-L, and provide both those signals to the decoder.  Then, if an anomaly appears, I can examine both signals that contribute, in the analog domain.  If I had no interest in that level, I'd just use my USBeeSX logic analyzer (similar to your Saleae) in the first place.  Or the digital channels on my WaveRunner MSO, if I needed correlation with other signals.

[nctnico]

I did some further experimenting with 1Mbit/s but that decodes just fine even with back-to-back messages. However when I set the decoding to 800kbit/s then I get erratic decoding as well and with tweaking my CAN adapter to non-standard bitrates I can reproduce Al80's screendumps. Perhaps the timing of Ali80's CAN bus and the oscilloscope don't match too well. I think he should check the bitrate on the scope using the cursors to see if the scope shows a bitrate which is off.

[ali80]

The CAN decoding sometimes work and sometimes doesn't work, in the last picture it couldn't decode the first packet but it decoded the second packet correct!
I think when the CAN packets are near each other it cant decode correctly!

I'd find it hard to understand why proximity would play any role.  Especially when it failed on the first.  I'm wondering if you just changed the time-base, to spread those two packets out a bit more, if the decode would correct itself.  I.e., is it decoding from the screen buffer, or the data buffer?  Any decoder doing the former will run into problems as things get squeezed.

Tried it, if you zoom out or in it wont decode the second packet either way,
I'm pretty sure if you saturate the CAN bus it can't decode, for example in my first test CAN automatic retrasmission was on so if the receiver couldn't get the ack, it would send the same packet indefinitely, the decoder couldnt decode anything in this case although SALEAE decoded the packets correctly.

[ali80]

I did some further experimenting with 1Mbit/s but that decodes just fine even with back-to-back messages. However when I set the decoding to 800kbit/s then I get erratic decoding as well and with tweaking my CAN adapter to non-standard bitrates I can reproduce Al80's screendumps. Perhaps the timing of Ali80's CAN bus and the oscilloscope don't match too well. I think he should check the bitrate on the scope using the cursors to see if the scope shows a bitrate which is off.

I dont think my CAN baud rate is off since I have tested it with 2 other decoders (Saleae and Rigol 2000 series decoder), and also I never had problems in my CAN communication between my boards.
The scope's oscillator is also spot on, this only leaves me with software bug on the scope's side.

[nctnico]

Please check the CAN bus bitrate with the oscilloscope to be absolutely sure! It could be the other decoders are more forgiving when the bitrate is slightly off; either way it helps to know how where the problem is so GwInstek can fix it.
BTW My GDS2204 decodes a saturated CAN bus in a similar situation (no ACK) just fine although there is a limit on the number of packets which can be stored. The bus decoding will show 'overflow' when that happens.

[ali80]

Please check the CAN bus bitrate with the oscilloscope to be absolutely sure! It could be the other decoders are more forgiving when the bitrate is slightly off; either way it helps to know how where the problem is so GwInstek can fix it.
BTW My GDS2204 decodes a saturated CAN bus in a similar situation (no ACK) just fine although there is a limit on the number of packets which can be stored. The bus decoding will show 'overflow' when that happens.

Seems that you are right and I was wrong , I tested it on a different board and everything decoded right, I investigated the first board and the baud rate was off by 5%, so as you said all the other board and decoders that were decoding the packet right were more forgiving and the problem were on my side and not the scopes fault,
After my second update I haven't seen the blank screen yet, so that seems to be fixed too also by your suggestion, so double thanks to you nctnico.
Since my major problems with this device are fixed (giving blank screen and decoder not working), I'm now beginning to really like this scope, I think this scope deserves much more attention and I highly recommend this device,
There is still some bugs and problems I am wondering if there is anywhere to inform GWInstek for example,
1. My device gives me audible (between 1k~10k Hz) noise that changes with scopes operating condition (apart from fan noise which is typical and not bad), I am not sure if that is a power supply noise or anything else , the amplitude of the noise is not that much but if you are in a quite room, it is annoying, how to reproduce it: turn all channels on, connect channel one to scopes 1khz calibration output, go to 1us time division and change record length to see the audible noise change, It is audible in other settings but its amplitude may be less.
2. The scope doesn't show the waveform right! how to reproduce it: same settings as above just change time base to 500ns and record length to 100k, and you see the 1khz calibration signal jumping around although the trigger settings are right.

[nctnico]

Mine also has the whining noise; the problem is likely poor regulation / feedback stabilisation in the PSU. Maybe I'll hack that some day when the warranty has expired. The beta version in my scope has some fixes for signal display problems. I'll test what you describe with my scope in a few days.

[wraper]

Mine also has the whining noise; the problem is likely poor regulation / feedback stabilisation in the PSU. Maybe I'll hack that some day when the warranty has expired. The beta version in my scope has some fixes for signal display problems. I'll test what you describe with my scope in a few days.

I think it's not psu. Considering what causes the noise to change, I suspect ceramic capacitor(s) singing in the DC/DC converter.

[ali80]

Mine also has the whining noise; the problem is likely poor regulation / feedback stabilisation in the PSU. Maybe I'll hack that some day when the warranty has expired. The beta version in my scope has some fixes for signal display problems. I'll test what you describe with my scope in a few days.

Yeah it is likely in the PSU since when the backlight of the device turns off after some idle time, the noise increases a lot,
I'm guessing it is fixable even by simply adding a power resistor on the supply rail.
Also can you provide me with the beta version of the firmware, or would the final version release anytime soon?

[ali80]

Mine also has the whining noise; the problem is likely poor regulation / feedback stabilisation in the PSU. Maybe I'll hack that some day when the warranty has expired. The beta version in my scope has some fixes for signal display problems. I'll test what you describe with my scope in a few days.

I think it's not psu. Considering what causes the noise to change, I suspect ceramic capacitor(s) singing in the DC/DC converter.

Different sampling rates and memory depth could change the power consumption of the main processor.

[billfernandez]

They really do need a good industrial designer to improve the looks of their scopes. They are just so, bland 

I'm an industrial designer (studying other stuff now, be yes, I am one, did mostly furniture for shops and the shops themselves for over 10 years):
And I think they have a design partner, but the priorities are wrong.
Let me explain:

I'm a user interface architect and I second your comments 

[nctnico]

2. The scope doesn't show the waveform right! how to reproduce it: same settings as above just change time base to 500ns and record length to 100k, and you see the 1khz calibration signal jumping around although the trigger settings are right.

I have not been able to reproduce this but the firmware I have a newer version which also fixes some signal display issues. I'm wary of handing out this new firmware as it is a beta version.

I also investigated the PSU noise a bit further. The noise is coming from the transformer in the power supply. I measured the output on one of the rectifier diodes on the secondary (safe) side and there is a peak around 5kHz. When looking in the time domain I could clearly see the switching frequency jumping all over the place. The power supply is a standard off-the-shelve unit made by Lytec (a Taiwanese company) : http://www.lytec.com.tw/?avada_portfolio=lp6304

[tautech]

I also investigated the PSU noise a bit further. The noise is coming from the transformer in the power supply. I measured the output on one of the rectifier diodes on the secondary (safe) side and there is a peak around 5kHz. When looking in the time domain I could clearly see the switching frequency jumping all over the place. The power supply is a standard off-the-shelve unit made by Lytec (a Taiwanese company) :

Is the PSU shielding insufficient?

[nctnico]

In this case it is noise you can hear with your ears 

[ali80]

2. The scope doesn't show the waveform right! how to reproduce it: same settings as above just change time base to 500ns and record length to 100k, and you see the 1khz calibration signal jumping around although the trigger settings are right.

I have not been able to reproduce this but the firmware I have a newer version which also fixes some signal display issues. I'm wary of handing out this new firmware as it is a beta version.

I also investigated the PSU noise a bit further. The noise is coming from the transformer in the power supply. I measured the output on one of the rectifier diodes on the secondary (safe) side and there is a peak around 5kHz. When looking in the time domain I could clearly see the switching frequency jumping all over the place. The power supply is a standard off-the-shelve unit made by Lytec (a Taiwanese company) : http://www.lytec.com.tw/?avada_portfolio=lp6304

I think in the case of light loads the power supply may be having some kind of pulse skipping feature, anyway having a switching frequency in audible range is anoying.

[wraper]

If it is quasi-resonant topology, there will be no constant frequency without any skipping. Also skipping is used only for really low output power, usually (almost) zero.

[nctnico]

From what I have measured I see the switching frequency varying a lot. It is definitely not skipping pulses so I guess it is a quasy-resonant PSU. Perhaps adding a capacitor on one or more of the outputs helps to even out the load peaks.

[ali80]

From what I have measured I see the switching frequency varying a lot. It is definitely not skipping pulses so I guess it is a quasy-resonant PSU. Perhaps adding a capacitor on one or more of the outputs helps to even out the load peaks.

Can you give us the controller IC's part number or a high resolution photo of the PSU board?

[markone]

From what I have measured I see the switching frequency varying a lot. It is definitely not skipping pulses so I guess it is a quasy-resonant PSU. Perhaps adding a capacitor on one or more of the outputs helps to even out the load peaks.

Hi nctnico, have you notified the problem to GW Instek and seller ?

If you start to play around the PSU you will lose the warranty leaving soldering signs, plus you will risk to frie everything at the first mistake.

I'm not saying that you have not the capabilities to facing this problem, but for the price that you paid you deserve a decent equipment, if the whining noise is at a boring level i think you have the right to ask for a free fix.

[nctnico]

I agree but since this PSU is clearly an off-the-shelve item GwInstek buys from another company it is very unlikely the issue will be fixable by them without designing a new PSU from scratch. I already have complained about the whining noise. It could also be a combination of the scope's hardware and the PSU since it seems GwInstek uses this PSU in all their scopes.

[markone]

I agree but since this PSU is clearly an off-the-shelve item GwInstek buys from another company it is very unlikely the issue will be fixable by them without designing a new PSU from scratch. I already have complained about the whining noise. It could also be a combination of the scope's hardware and the PSU since it seems GwInstek uses this PSU in all their scopes.

Have you figured out how many voltage lines does it provide ?

[nctnico]

It has 6 outputs according to this PDF:
http://www.lytec.com.tw/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/LP6304.pdf

[markone]

30W total power, most spent on 5V lines, all the rest is quite low current, not a nightmare to rebuild from the scratch at worst, maybe with better ripple specs.

Have you already measured the input power consumption ?

The typical cause of whining noise is underloaded PSU output, but 30W is a quite small amount and i would guess that this device pulls at least 20W from wall socket.

If this part was available directly from east at cheap, buy one and make some "modding" could be a way to proceed, keeping the original in case of repair under warranty.

[markone]

If the whining noise is from inductors and not from transformer, you can try to put some glue on them to damp mechanical vibrations, many DSO's PSU have it from factory, dunno if your is without like i saw in Dave's other GW-Instek videos.

[nctnico]

I fixed the whining noise problem! I have put two ordinary 4700uf / 10V capacitors across the - what I think are- 5V and 3.3V outputs and the noise is gone. I also checked the PSU switching frequency using the FFT function and the harmonics around 5kHz are gone. The fix is easy to implement as well (see the pictures):

[markone]

I fixed the whining noise problem! I have put two ordinary 4700uf / 10V capacitors across the - what I think are- 5V and 3.3V outputs and the noise is gone. I also checked the PSU switching frequency using the FFT function and the harmonics around 5kHz are gone. The fix is easy to implement as well (see the pictures):

Hi, so you dared to surgical operate on the PSU, i guess the acustic noise level was quite boring.

The instrument was already out of warranty ?

I can see that you placed them in place of free PCB position for C31 and CN5, is the jumper wire underside the PCB put by yourself ?

Anyway,  why you say "what I think are- 5V and 3.3V outputs" ... i would assume that you measured that lines  before to insert those capacitore polarized caps.

4700uF is a quite invasive value, they will pull high inrush current during the PSU startup, especially if are low ESR type, take care about that.

[wblock]

Panasonic FR series are very good, but very low ESR.  These seem a bit large for the purpose, both physically and capacitance value.  But then, it's hard to put a scope on a power supply when the power supply is out of the scope...

[nctnico]

I fixed the whining noise problem! I have put two ordinary 4700uf / 10V capacitors across the - what I think are- 5V and 3.3V outputs and the noise is gone. I also checked the PSU switching frequency using the FFT function and the harmonics around 5kHz are gone. The fix is easy to implement as well (see the pictures):

Hi, so you dared to surgical operate on the PSU, i guess the acustic noise level was quite boring.

The instrument was already out of warranty ?

My ears are already producing a high pitched sound by themselves; I really can do without the extra. I hope I don't need warranty ever but I'll cross that bridge when I get there. Sometimes I just can't leave things as they are and I fix them. Oh and I did remove the flux before putting it back together!

I can see that you placed them in place of free PCB position for C31 and CN5, is the jumper wire underside the PCB put by yourself ?

Anyway,  why you say "what I think are- 5V and 3.3V outputs" ... i would assume that you measured that lines  before to insert those capacitore polarized caps.

4700uF is a quite invasive value, they will pull high inrush current during the PSU startup, especially if are low ESR type, take care about that.

I put the jumper wire there myself so I could place capacitor into existing pads. For determining which rail is which I looked at the outputs providing the highest current (most pins on the connector) and decided to put the capacitors on those. Maybe smaller values might do as well but since my guess is that the load just varies too much for the PSU to regulate properly I opted for bigger=better. The output capacitors are already in the order of 330uf so a significant amount of extra capacitance is needed to make a real difference. The large capacitors smooth the current and therefore (should) improve regulation. The rush-in current should be handled properly since most PSUs have soft start and current limiting so it should be fine. After all this is a general purpose PSU which should be able to deal with various kinds of loads.

[ali80]

I fixed the whining noise problem! I have put two ordinary 4700uf / 10V capacitors across the - what I think are- 5V and 3.3V outputs and the noise is gone. I also checked the PSU switching frequency using the FFT function and the harmonics around 5kHz are gone. The fix is easy to implement as well (see the pictures):

Nice Fix, Happy to see it and know that an easy workaround is available, forward it to GWINSTEK
I dont know if I should void my warranty, lets see how much more I can keep up with that noise.
I'm still waiting for that firmware update, since the beta is out, hope that it would be sometime soon.

[markone]

I fixed the whining noise problem! I have put two ordinary 4700uf / 10V capacitors across the - what I think are- 5V and 3.3V outputs and the noise is gone. I also checked the PSU switching frequency using the FFT function and the harmonics around 5kHz are gone. The fix is easy to implement as well (see the pictures):

Nice Fix, Happy to see it and know that an easy workaround is available, forward it to GWINSTEK
I dont know if I should void my warranty, lets see how much more I can keep up with that noise.
I'm still waiting for that firmware update, since the beta is out, hope that it would be sometime soon.

There is a warranty sticker on the scope's cover ?

If not, you can build a caps filter wired board with flat cable connectore and put it in series between the PSU and the scope mainboard, so you can reverse the mod in case of warranty repair.
A bit of work, but would worth if the noise is actually boring for you (usually they are a lot...).

You can consider to use a PI C-L-C filters to lower a lot the cap values and reduce space and PSU startup stress.

[nctnico]

I doubt filters will work because the problem is obviously loop stability in the PSU. The in-between-cable could be an option but you'll have to find a good mounting point for it. In case of issues it isn't hard to put the PSU back into it's original state but I doubt the service techs will even notice the extra capacitors. It would be interesting if someone experimented with the values and see if only the 5V needs extra capacitance or only (what I think is) the 3.3V line.

[wraper]

IMO this could be solved without any big caps. Feedback loop could be modified a bit, for example, by adding some small capacitor somewhere before the optocoupler.

[markone]

IMO this could be solved without any big caps. Feedback loop could be modified a bit, for example, by adding some small capacitor somewhere before the optocoupler.

Yep, but it's seem risky, testing should be done on dummy load 

It's weird that GW-Instek does not take care about that, i was considering the GDS-2072E purchase but this detail it's a deal breaker for me, i too hate high pitch noise as nctnico do.

[markone]

I doubt filters will work because the problem is obviously loop stability in the PSU. The in-between-cable could be an option but you'll have to find a good mounting point for it. In case of issues it isn't hard to put the PSU back into it's original state but I doubt the service techs will even notice the extra capacitors. It would be interesting if someone experimented with the values and see if only the 5V needs extra capacitance or only (what I think is) the 3.3V line.

So there is not warranty sticker on the cover ?

[wraper]

IMO this could be solved without any big caps. Feedback loop could be modified a bit, for example, by adding some small capacitor somewhere before the optocoupler.

Yep, but it's seem risky, testing should be done on dummy load 

It's weird that GW-Instek does not take care about that, i was considering the GDS-2072E purchase but this detail it's a deal breaker for me, i too hate high pitch noise as nctnico do.

Don't forger that Rigol and other scope fans are not noiseless too. The worst device on my bench is Agilent 34461A multimeter, the fan sound have so horrible pitch that it just drives me nuts.

[nctnico]

IMO this could be solved without any big caps. Feedback loop could be modified a bit, for example, by adding some small capacitor somewhere before the optocoupler.

In theory I agree and that was my first intention but since this is a multi-output power supply I found that too tricky.

It's weird that GW-Instek does not take care about that, i was considering the GDS-2072E purchase but this detail it's a deal breaker for me, i too hate high pitch noise as nctnico do.

I have send a video file with the high pitched whining noise clearly audible to Gw Instek several weeks ago so they are aware this is an issue. BTW there is no 'warranty void' sticker on the case and it is easy to open (just watch Dave's recent teardown of a GW Instek scope).

[markone]

I have send a video file with the high pitched whining noise clearly audible to Gw Instek several weeks ago so they are aware this is an issue. BTW there is no 'warranty void' sticker on the case and it is easy to open (just watch Dave's recent teardown of a GW Instek scope).

Perfect, thanks.

[markone]

I have send a video file with the high pitched whining noise clearly audible to Gw Instek several weeks ago so they are aware this is an issue. BTW there is no 'warranty void' sticker on the case and it is easy to open (just watch Dave's recent teardown of a GW Instek scope).

Ok, so they do not care a lot about this things.

I have a question about the FFT implementation in this scope: is it possible to change the number of FFT points, or they change as a function of freq. span setting (or something like that).

[nctnico]

The number of FFT points depends on the acquisition length (maximum 1Mpts) so it is 1kpts, 10kpts, 100kpts en 1Mpts.

[markone]

The number of FFT points depends on the acquisition length (maximum 1Mpts) so it is 1kpts, 10kpts, 100kpts en 1Mpts.

Ok, after a long suffered decisional process, i just pulled the trigger for the SDG-2072E, trusting in your positive feedback 

I guess also mine will come with "whining noise acoustic sound source" factory installed and i know that i will have to get used to its UI "philosophy", but i'll manage that in some way.

Sadly my beloved DS1074Z's screen is too much fatiguing for my eyes so i was looking for a cheap 2CH scope with big easy to read screen, uart serial decode, responsive UI and decent FFT function (update speed & frq. resolution), this one seems to meet all these requirements and thanks to Zynq SOC inside it looks innovative and powerfull (computing power wise).

"Zynq Inside", sounds well !

I bet also Rigol will go that way (FPGA SOC inside Zynq or Cyclone V) with next generation scopes.

In the same price league i considered also the SDS1102X, but it too seems to have small meas text's font and tear down video shows an improvised metal chassis and some soldering "oops"; it's a pity, the rest would have been ok for my need, they have to improve all this stuff.

For instance my Siglent SDG2042X seems made in a different way and works a treat.

The R&S HMO1212 was also under my attention, but it's higher specs and it would cost me 3X with serial protocol decoding function license, too much for my home tinkering.

Let' see what happens ... (i hope no sh*t, finger crossed)

PS :  the beta FW that you are using, is it now available on GW web site for download ?

[nctnico]

Just make sure you can return it if you end up not liking it!

Edit: about the firmware: I think it will take a little while because they just had Chinese new year and they all need to recover from their hangovers first! Remember Taiwan is some kind of China.

[Wuerstchenhund]

... and i know that i will have to get used to its UI "philosophy"

In my opinion the eye sore factor would go down a lot if the Asian brands would stop using serif fonts which look cheap and are more difficult to read, especially at smaller sizes.

[nctnico]

... and i know that i will have to get used to its UI "philosophy"

In my opinion the eye sore factor would go down a lot if the Asian brands would stop using serif fonts which look cheap and are more difficult to read, especially at smaller sizes.

GW Instek seems to use a mixture of both. Some say a serif font actually looks more classic but I agree it can be difficult to read when made small (I really hate MS Word uses the 'Times new roman' font by default). Also many commandline consoles like plain DOS and the Windows' DOS box uses a serif font.

[markone]

... and i know that i will have to get used to its UI "philosophy"

In my opinion the eye sore factor would go down a lot if the Asian brands would stop using serif fonts which look cheap and are more difficult to read, especially at smaller sizes.

I agree, someone has to convince them one time for all, but i understand that using a complete different written (and spoken) language system does not help.

Talking about Rigol they should remove something from the screen of DS1000Z scopes,  two fixed lateral menu bars plus top & bottom header shrinked down a 7 inch screen to 5 inch, WTF !
Come on, those f****g small fonts are RIDICULOUS, no sh!t 

Otherwise one has to think that the system is not able to fill the screen with live waveform's graph.

[Wuerstchenhund]

... and i know that i will have to get used to its UI "philosophy"

In my opinion the eye sore factor would go down a lot if the Asian brands would stop using serif fonts which look cheap and are more difficult to read, especially at smaller sizes.

GW Instek seems to use a mixture of both. Some say a serif font actually looks more classic but I agree it can be difficult to read when made small (I really hate MS Word uses the 'Times new roman' font by default). Also many commandline consoles like plain DOS and the Windows' DOS box uses a serif font.

Serifs are not that bad if you sit on a high resolution display but there's a reason why pretty much all big brand test gear uses san serif fonts on their displays. Especially on smaller screens readability suffers a lot with serif fonts.

It's funny though that Chinese are often accused of copying stuff from established brands, but for some reason that never extends to the UI or the fonts. I guess the supposed "classic" look is the reason that the Asian stuff comes with it. But these days it's pretty much synonymous for "cheap" and "low quality kit" because that's where its predominantly found.

[markone]

Just make sure you can return it if you end up not liking it!

Edit: about the firmware: I think it will take a little while because they just had Chinese new year and they all need to recover from their hangovers first! Remember Taiwan is some kind of China.

Yes, under some aspect are similar but a lot different in all the rest.

I was hoping that TME didn't  make mess with the my order but probably they did,  they shipped all the order parts BUT the scope, WTF!

When i placed the order on web shop system there were five pieces available ready to ship, now only one, no one shipped to me.
Now i'm wondering if they dropship it from external warehouse.

[markone]

Just make sure you can return it if you end up not liking it!

Edit: about the firmware: I think it will take a little while because they just had Chinese new year and they all need to recover from their hangovers first! Remember Taiwan is some kind of China.

Dunno if possible with TME, i think they accept only broken goods refunds, anyway i usually keep what i purchase if it's working and in good shape.

They managed a second shipping with the scope today,  the parcel is on the way.

In the mean time i download everything related the SDG2000E GDS from GW website, IMHO the thing is very well documented, there are also certified Labview drivers, i will check them.

The published firmware is the version 1.20 (2015/11/17), if your beta FW is more recent as i think, i would be glad to ask you for your release 

[markone]

I have the scope i my hand a few hours, as first impression i would say : very good.

luckily no high pitch noise from internal PSU  ... but hummy FAN, i guess some far east cheapo model, it will not last long there 

It came with FW 1.06, i flashed it with FW 1.20 taken from GW web site,  the first thing i noticed is the UI responsivity,  almost real time, under this aspect it's way better than my Rigol DS1074Z, also the screen panel waveform update looks  smoother, especially with 1ms or slower time base and last but not the least, the autoset function is lighting fast and effective.

The lcd screen panel image put  to shame the DS1074Z : very sharp pixel, good color tone, good vision angle,  backlight intensity control (thank you very much GW), high readibility text fonts.

I can read most important settings (measures, time base, acquisition rate, acquisition number of point etc etc) at first glance with no more eyes sore, so my goal was achieved !

Yes, i can confirm Dave's impression, some scratchy control knobs (the smaller ones) but i can leave with it, i guess will get better after some break in.

The front panel style is sure not latest fashion but apart some odd text/backgroung coupling i consider it "fair".

UI wise i would change a couple of mechanisms but  it's a lot better than expected, the only real gripe is the absence of fine vertical amplitude scale adjustment.

It's my first GW Instek product, for the price seems good.

[Muxr]

UI wise i would change a couple of mechanisms but  it's a lot better than expected, the only real gripe is the absence of fine vertical amplitude scale adjustment.

Ugh, that could be a pretty big deficiency imo. Depending on how fine the default stepping is. I mean if it's similar to other scopes there is no way I could live without their fine adjustment. But hopefully GW-Instek at least accounts for this by having finer adjustments to begin with, this would mean a lot of knob spinning but it's better than the lack of resolution, because you can't fit the waveform on the screen perfectly.

As far as other stuff is concerned, doesn't sound too bad. Most scopes in that category have noisy fans. My DS2072a is audible as well, but not overly annoying. R&S on the other hand is dead silent, by comparison.

[markone]

Ugh, that could be a pretty big deficiency imo. Depending on how fine the default stepping is. I mean if it's similar to other scopes there is no way I could live without their fine adjustment. But hopefully GW-Instek at least accounts for this by having finer adjustments to begin with, this would mean a lot of knob spinning but it's better than the lack of resolution, because you can't fit the waveform on the screen perfectly.

It wasn't a surprise because i read twice the user manual before to pull the purchase trigger, personally i can live without, of course if they fix this in the exact way you described it would be better.
However i have other scopes, just in case.

The thing that  i really cannot live with (no more) is the DS1074Z screen low readability and under this aspect i got a huge improvement, anyway this is the main reason for this purchase.

As far as other stuff is concerned, doesn't sound too bad. Most scopes in that category have noisy fans. My DS2072a is audible as well, but not overly annoying. R&S on the other hand is dead silent, by comparison.

My Rigol's scope is clearly louder, here we have a different problem, the GDS207E's fan has the typical humming noise of low quality (or damaged) motor's shaft ball bearings / sleeve, but the cure is simple & cheap.

I still have to make a serious tests on this new toy, but as far as i saw things are quite promising.

[nctnico]

I don't think I have ever used variable vertical scaling. For me variable horizontal scaling would be much more important.

[markone]

I don't think I have ever used variable vertical scaling. For me variable horizontal scaling would be much more important.

I use it often when i want to maximize signal/noise ratio with math function, but as i already said, it's not a deal breaker for me.

Anyway one of the reason that lead me to buy this scope is the presence of Zynq SOC, i smell lot of potential, and the first touch seems to confirm that.

Take a look to this Xilinx presentation picture :

[wraper]

My Rigol's scope is clearly louder, here we have a different problem, the GDS207E's fan has the typical humming noise of low quality (or damaged) motor's shaft ball bearings / sleeve, but the cure is simple & cheap.

That not necessarily means cheap fan or damaged bearing. I guess you hear the buzz noise from the motor, many expensive fans suffer from it too. From my experience, Delta fans very often are just horrible in this aspect and they are not cheap at all.

[ebastler]

Anyway one of the reason that lead me to buy this scope is the presence of Zynq SOC, i smell lot of potential, and the first touch seems to confirm that.
Take a look to this Xilinx presentation picture :

Xilinx have actually published a brief "case study" flyer on the GW-Instek scopes:
http://www.xilinx.com/publications/prod_mktg/zynq7000/goodwill-casestudy.pdf

Although I don't think there is that much value and information in the case study, and in the presentation photo you shared. Not a big surprise that Xilinx thinks the Zync FPGAs are great 

[markone]

I know what you mean, but in this particular case i would vote for cheap or damaged.
Ball bearing fans last more than sleeve ones and have better perfomance, provided that you handle them properly, avoiding mechanical shocks that usually lead to this particular hum.

High power Delta fans produce a different, higher pitched, noise mainly due to high tourque ripple applied to motor's shaft, i have some experience with induction heating cooktop cooling device from made by them, much more powerfull than the inFamous Delta Black label cpu cooler fan.

I do not remember if in Dave's GW Instek tear down video appears the fan brand, but it was about a 1000B scope, the 2000E line is made in complete different way, take a look to the picture in attachment at my previous post, actually is the mainboard inside these new scopes.

[markone]

Although I don't think there is that much value and information in the case study, and in the presentation photo you shared. Not a big surprise that Xilinx thinks the Zync FPGAs are great 

Specs raw numbers are telling that, if you put the Zynq 7000 CPU computing power in straight comparison to what you find inside DSOs of the same price league you will find a huge difference.

Overview sheet in attachment.

[ebastler]

Specs raw numbers are telling that, if you put the Zynq 7000 CPU computing power in straight comparison to what you find inside DSOs of the same price league you will find a huge difference.

Overview sheet in attachment.

Hmm - so what, specifically, are the significant performance advantages over a 2-chip architecture using a conventional SoC and FPGA? The listed attributes all sound fine, but not qualitatively beyond what ARM SoCs and FPGAs would offer.  The one area where I would have expected a qualitative difference is described in rather sketchy terms in the spec sheet: "High-bandwidth connectivity ... between Processing System and Programmable Logic". Or is the Zynq mainly aiming at a price advantage over a 2-chip solution?

If someone has more information on Zynq vs. 2-chip architectures -- preferably from an independent source, not from Xilinx themselves -- I would appreciated a link. I dont want to put Xilinx or Zynq down; honestly trying to learn more!

[wraper]

High power Delta fans produce a different, higher pitched, noise mainly due to high tourque ripple applied to motor's shaft, i have some experience with induction heating cooktop cooling device from made by them, much more powerfull than the inFamous Delta Black label cpu cooler fan.

I didn't mean high power fans. Also this kind of noise is usually heard at low speeds because on higher speed it is masked by the noise from air movement. its like few tens of pulses per second maximum, usually significantly less. IIRC I've read this was caused by fast rising current in the motor coils.

[markone]

I didn't mean high power fans. Also this kind of noise is usually heard at low speeds because on higher speed it is masked by the noise from air movement. its like few tens of pulses per second maximum, usually significantly less. IIRC I've read this was caused by fast rising current in the motor coils.

Maybe "high power" is not the exact definition  anyway they were 35W 12V DC FAN,  loud as hell at full speed, photo of similar device in attachment.

I just spotted through case grids the fan model that's mounted in the opposite way that we saw in Dave's 1000B tear down, here it's sucking air from the inside, blowing outside.

It's an ADDA AD0612DX-C70GL, 60x60x20 3000rpm 10cfm, declared 18.5 dBa  (bullshit, otherwise broken)

Datasheet in attachment.

The humming noise from motor surpass air movement sound by a good factor,  Rigol is exactly the opposite case, both are boring but in a different way.

I will for sure replace the fan here, i should have some 60mm Sunon around but i have to check  airflow / air pressure specs, plus obtain the connector that lands on PSU board.

@nctnico : humming fan also for you or only high pitch sound (fixed, i know)  ?

[nctnico]

There is some fan noise. I don't know if a different fan will make things much better. Perhaps putting the fan in a rubber suspension may improve things more than a different fan.

[wraper]

ADDA fans are more expensive than similar spec fans made by Sunon, and this is very respectable brand. 18.5 dBa is no bullshit, check how that is measured. This kind of noise is just very annoying, and yes the fan with low noise spec can have this annoying sound component which will drive you nuts while being perfectly within spec.

[markone]

Specs raw numbers are telling that, if you put the Zynq 7000 CPU computing power in straight comparison to what you find inside DSOs of the same price league you will find a huge difference.

Overview sheet in attachment.

Hmm - so what, specifically, are the significant performance advantages over a 2-chip architecture using a conventional SoC and FPGA? The listed attributes all sound fine, but not qualitatively beyond what ARM SoCs and FPGAs would offer.  The one area where I would have expected a qualitative difference is described in rather sketchy terms in the spec sheet: "High-bandwidth connectivity ... between Processing System and Programmable Logic". Or is the Zynq mainly aiming at a price advantage over a 2-chip solution?

If someone has more information on Zynq vs. 2-chip architectures -- preferably from an independent source, not from Xilinx themselves -- I would appreciated a link. I dont want to put Xilinx or Zynq down; honestly trying to learn more!

The shared CPU/FPGA bus memory architecture offers higher data exchange bandwidth simplifying a lot PCB design, being able to push bus interconnection at much higher freq. than PCB wired connection between two separate device.

And even if you look only to raw CPU computing power, here we have a dual core processor running @1Ghz (TBC), 2.5DMIPS/Mhz yield, plus 512KB L2 shared cache memory, i would say a lot superior to, for example, you can find inside Rigol, Siglent or R&S HMO1200.

[wraper]

Maybe "high power" is not the exact definition  anyway they were 35W 12V DC FAN,  loud as hell at full speed, photo of similar device in attachment.

I bet you have not heard 92x92x38 mm usual type high speed fans (12000 rpm)  in the 2.2 kW server PSU. It's like a fighter jet on your bench.

[markone]

ADDA fans are more expensive than similar spec fans made by Sunon, and this is very respectable brand. 18.5 dBa is no bullshit, check how that is measured. This kind of noise is just very annoying, and yes the fan with low noise spec can have this annoying sound component which will drive you nuts while being perfectly within spec.

I can assure you that this one sounds bad, it's like a power transformer,  for an 3000 rpm 0.6W 10cfm fan is not justified, even if the direct coupling with metal chassis does not help in this regard.

I just checked the specs for the Sunon that i should have somewhere, the MB60201V3-A99 : 16CFM @ 23dBa

dBa BS apart, for what i remember compared to this one is dead silent.

 

[markone]

Maybe "high power" is not the exact definition  anyway they were 35W 12V DC FAN,  loud as hell at full speed, photo of similar device in attachment.

I bet you have not heard 92x92x38 mm usual type high speed fans (12000 rpm)  in the 2.2 kW server PSU. It's like a fighter jet on your bench.

I heard smaller fans in 1U rack chassis server, ridiculously noisy.

[wraper]

dBa BS apart, for what i remember compared to this one is dead silent.

You can judge how silent it actually is only when it is put in the case. In the free air (in which measurements are made BTW) they are much more silent than in real use conditions, unless are hidden deep inside the box.

[markone]

dBa BS apart, for what i remember compared to this one is dead silent.

You can judge how silent it actually is only when it is put in the case. In the free air (in which measurements are made BTW) they are much more silent than in real use conditions, unless are hidden deep inside the box.

The current one for sure sux 

[markone]

Putting in comparison original ADDA fan to Sunon MB60201V3-A99, ADDA SUX also on the paper.

About air pressure unit of measure :  1 InchH20 = 25.4 mmAq

[markone]

By the way: I think the GDS2000E is a pretty good scope for it's price and certainly better than Rigol's or Siglent's offerings becuase it actually works. There are still some issues with the version 1.20 firmware but I have received a beta firmware version from Gw Instek which already solved most of them. When I get a final firmware version I'll write up a more detailed review (I did a lot of testing before deciding to keep it).

Hi nctnico,

could you please PM me the Beta FW ?

[wblock]

Is the fan in this scope variable-speed?

If the fan is PWM-controlled, that switching can induce a mechanical noise.  My Instek power supply does this.  In the case and at full power, the fan is nearly silent.  At lowest power, it makes a buzzing that sounds somewhat like a bushing wearing out.  I thought I posted about that in this thread, but maybe not, sorry.  Anyway, there is a Microchip app note about it: http://ww1.microchip.com/downloads/en/AppNotes/00771b.pdf.  Make the cap big enough, and it defeats the PWM entirely, which might be quieter overall.

[markone]

Is the fan in this scope variable-speed?

I do not think, at least i do not notice any speed variation from cold state and warmed-up state, and looking at PSU shots i do not spot active components for PWM driving, but i could be wrong of course.

Anyway, interesting application article, i'll save it in my doc server.

[ebastler]

Hmm - so what, specifically, are the significant performance advantages over a 2-chip architecture using a conventional SoC and FPGA? The listed attributes all sound fine, but not qualitatively beyond what ARM SoCs and FPGAs would offer.  The one area where I would have expected a qualitative difference is described in rather sketchy terms in the spec sheet: "High-bandwidth connectivity ... between Processing System and Programmable Logic". Or is the Zynq mainly aiming at a price advantage over a 2-chip solution?

If someone has more information on Zynq vs. 2-chip architectures -- preferably from an independent source, not from Xilinx themselves -- I would appreciated a link. I dont want to put Xilinx or Zynq down; honestly trying to learn more!

The shared CPU/FPGA bus memory architecture offers higher data exchange bandwidth simplifying a lot PCB design, being able to push bus interconnection at much higher freq. than PCB wired connection between two separate device.

And even if you look only to raw CPU computing power, here we have a dual core processor with running @1Ghz (TBC), 2.5DMIPS/Mhz yield, plus 512KB L2 shared cache memory, i would say a lot superior to, for example, you can find inside Rigol, Siglent or R&S HMO1200.

Thanks for the additional detail. The difference in CPU power does boil down to a cost argument, I think (in contrast to an architectural advantage of the Zynq). The other scope manufacturers could have used faster dual-core ARMs, but decided against it for budget reasons. Not sure whether there is an actual price difference, by the way: When comparing the GW Instek with the Rigol DS1000Z series, one should consider that these scopes are in different price ranges, so GW Instek probably did spend more on the Zynq than what Rigol spent on their CPU plus FPGA.

The other aspect you mention (shared bus between CPU and prorammable logic) is what I also referrred to, as the area where I would expect a qualitative performance difference due to the integrated architecture. Hence I was surprised that the Xilinx sheet does not go into more detail here or give numbers. Maybe this advantage is difficult to quantify, since it depends on the application. I would expect that it helps in a DSO, enabling fast handover of the acquired data to the CPU, and back to the screen. Is it conceptually comparable to classical DMA interfaces (direct memory access), or is there a fundamental difference?

[markone]

Thanks for the additional detail. The difference in CPU power does boil down to a cost argument, I think (in contrast to an architectural advantage of the Zynq). The other scope manufacturers could have used faster dual-core ARMs, but decided against it for budget reasons. Not sure whether there is an actual price difference, by the way: When comparing the GW Instek with the Rigol DS1000Z series, one should consider that these scopes are in different price ranges, so GW Instek probably did spend more on the Zynq than what Rigol spent on their CPU plus FPGA.

The other aspect you mention (shared bus between CPU and prorammable logic) is what I also referrred to, as the area where I would expect a qualitative performance difference due to the integrated architecture. Hence I was surprised that the Xilinx sheet does not go into more detail here or give numbers. Maybe this advantage is difficult to quantify, since it depends on the application. I would expect that it helps in a DSO, enabling fast handover of the acquired data to the CPU, and back to the screen. Is it conceptually comparable to classical DMA interfaces (direct memory access), or is there a fundamental difference?

That Xilinx sheet seems more a "brochure" aimed to high level managers than HW/SW developers, it's purposely not intended to go deep in tech details, anyway on their website you can find tons of docs.

Same thing for Altera's CPU/FPGA SOC like Altera's Cyclon 5.

We do not know (at least i do not) how Zynq or "generic" CPU/FPGAs really cost for medium/high quantity (>>1000), Digikey or similar listing may be quite off comparing its prices against what a brand like Rigol, GW, Siglent could obtain under a trade agreement with Xilinx or Altera, like GW seems to have done.

The GDS-2000E series shows off 120.000 wfms/s waveform update rate against the 50.000 wfms/s from the GDS-1000B series (the one analyzed by Dave), anyway these two scope lines are built in a complete different way (the 2000E in a much better way) so i'm not sure if the Zynq 7000 model inside the "E" series is the same for "B" series (7010CLG400) or if they improved a lot the system efficiency.

If we take Digikey prices in account for a rough cost comparison, the Zynq 7010CLG400 comes for about 85USD (there are several variants, anyway) against the average 50-70USD amount for traditional cheap DSO's CPU+FPGA coupling, where you have yet to deal with additional RAM memory chips, PCB design effort and bigger board size.

Not a huge cost difference, maybe a DSO could be even cheaper if built around Zynq, the reason why right now you can find only GW ones on the market (in this segment, of course) should lie in the fact that it's a relatively recent SOC family, supported by a complete different code toolchain with a steep learning curve, not a joke to deal with.

I could imagine that GW placed it's bet on this SOC benefiting from a "special price", and last but not the least a rilevant development support from Xilinx's specialists and/or external consultants.

Anyway, if you look to FFT performance and overall responsivity of GDS2000E, as i did this night, you soon discover an amount of computing power not common for similar or higher priced DSOs.

I can bet that next Rigol DSOs generation will go for the same path.

[markone]

About FAN replacement, i choose a couple of models :

1) Sunon MagLev MB60201V3-000U-A99 ---> 16.7 cfm / 2.5 mmH2O
2) Scythe SY602012L ---> 12.3 cfm / 1.45 mmH2O

Original growling ADDA (CR@PPA, at least mine)  fan specs : 10.7 cfm / 1.37 mmH2O

The latter (Scythe) comes "ready to fit" out of the box having proper connector already wired and last but not he least it's available on Amazon.

[nctnico]

Why not go for a respectable brand like Papst? IMHO there is no use to replace one cheap crap fan with another cheap crap fan 

[markone]

Why not go for a respectable brand like Papst? IMHO there is no use to replace one cheap crap fan with another cheap crap fan 

This ADDA should be defective, otherwise i do not explain all this growling, you can hear it also when you turn off the scope and the motor is no more energized and slow down.

You are not laming about that so i assume your scope's fan has not same problem.

I actually looked for 60x60x20 Papst fans, no success, only 60x60x15 (like 612F) or 60x60x25 (like 612NME), the first one maybe takes less hot air from inside while the latter comes to close to front end shielding.

PAPST are among the best but also on expensive side,  i had good experiences with Sunon MagLev series, you normally hear air flow sound but not motor buzzing, like happens with Rigol DS1054Z's (Sunon MagLev inside).

Scythe  are usually very good for the price even if targetted for silent PC market , dunno for the 60mm model but @ 7Euro shipping included (Amazon) and right  GW PSU mating connector out of the box  may worth a try.

Which tool have you used to open upper case hood clips without leaving signs ?

[nctnico]

You can see two dents, with the scope standing press those in with a flat screwdriver and the case will pop open.
Regarding the fan in your scope: maybe there is a wire touching the blades.

[markone]

You can see two dents, with the scope standing press those in with a flat screwdriver and the case will pop open.
Regarding the fan in your scope: maybe there is a wire touching the blades.

Just checked, nothing is touching the fan's blades.

[markone]

Original scope's fan (ADDA brand) sound recording in attachment, to me it's definitely crap or faulty.

I would say that scope's fan noise test is not present in factory quality checklist...   

[markone]

Why not go for a respectable brand like Papst? IMHO there is no use to replace one cheap crap fan with another cheap crap fan 

Hi Nico, could you please check your scope's fan orientation watching through the hood's vents and see if you can spot its label ?

I can see the label, the fan is blowing the air out, the opposite of what we saw in GDS-1000B tear down.

One thing i noticed is that the analog front-end metal shielding box it's quite too close to fan's intake tending to suffocate it, the air flow is lower and noise is higher, the correct position should be at least 5mm farther.

Maybe a 15mm deep fan could work better, Papst  612 F/2 return to be a possible candidate.

[nctnico]

In my scope I can also see the green label. I wouldn't be too much upset by the shielding can being close to the fan because a little bit of airflow is enough to provide a lot of cooling.

[markone]

I agree but having to change my scope's fan i would take this opportunity to put the best solution inside and forget the issue forever 

I measured the instrument power consumption, it's around 20Watt, the same for DS1000Z scopes that have better thermal design, although with a lot of moving air noise but at least no growling sound at all.

Right now the scope is making a lot of weird noise (try to listen the recording in my previous post) and back scope's BNC (cal and go/nogo) are getting warm after a while (about 35°C outside body with 20°C room temp) sign that the cooling system is not working good and considering that here in summer i could get 33-35 °C for ambient temp ...

Not a surprise, the fan placement it's clearly not the best, as Dave noted in his tear down video.

I made some tests with the fan on the table, with the current shield distance the air flow is more than halfed respect what you get with additional 5mm.

[Hydrawerk]

I tried this GDS-2000E scope on a trade fair. It is probably OK for the price. There are some quirks. The <- -> buttons work only in Search mode. The scope seems to be responsive.

[PigSpark]

Firmware 1.24 has been released.

[tautech]

Firmware 1.24 has been released.

Welcome to the forum.

FW link please.

[PigSpark]

Can be downloaded from the GW Instek website;

http://www.gwinstek.com/en-global/products/Oscilloscopes/Digital_Storage_Oscilloscopes/GDS-2000E

[markone]

Firmware 1.24 has been released.

Welcome to the forum.

FW link please.

Hi Tautech, do you own a GDS-2000E scope ?

[markone]

A couple of days ago i contacted GW asking information about dual display FFT mode function, they promptly informed me that the related APP was just uploaded under GDS-2000E download page :

http://www.gwinstek.com/en-GB/products/Oscilloscopes/Digital_Storage_Oscilloscopes/GDS-2000E



Just installed, it works good.

[nctnico]

Cool! Scrolling the source channel up or down also works but this is much better! I did not have the time to look for other new features in the firmware. These software apps (plugins) are interesting BTW. It would be great if GW Instek released some kind of SDK and specification so people could write their own. I don't even care whether they provide any kind of support for it; I don't mind a bit of trial and error because the benefit is huge.

[markone]

Cool! Scrolling the source channel up or down also works but this is much better!

It works if the waveform does not touch and go over screen edges, otherwise signal start to clip and harmonics appear on the spectrum.

[nctnico]

Cool! Scrolling the source channel up or down also works but this is much better!

It works if the waveform does not touch and go over screen edges, otherwise signal start to clip and harmonics appear on the spectrum.

That is true. I forgot to add 'when the acquisition is stopped'!

[Vytautas]

The FFT app you downloaded is not available anymore for download. Removed?

[PigSpark]

And the 1.24 firmware update as well 

I have emailed them about a bug I discovered when viewing a simple trace.

3 MHz sine wave 10 Vpp, with intensity set to 0% the waveform is viewable when I set the timebase to 50 ns the trace disappears, you then have to adjust the intensity to 10% to see it.

This happens on all 4 channels.

[nctnico]

I don't think that is a bug but just how the intensity grading works. I have the intensity set to 50% on my GDS2000E.
Still I agree it is weird they pulled the new files from their website. Maybe they want to push out a newer version with some more additions.

[PigSpark]

Just had an email from GW saying they will renew the firmware mid April to resolve the issue I found. 

[Vytautas]

Good. I am waiting my ordered GDS-2072E to replace my old and faulty Rigol DS1052E and wonder what firmware version it will have installed.

[Vytautas]

Correction.
The FFT app and 1.24 upgrade are available for download in the GWInstek page, you just have to login.

[nctnico]

The FFT app and 1.24 upgrade are available for download in the GWInstek page, you just have to login.

I hate needing to login to see/download firmware updates!

[Vytautas]

Just received my GDS-2072E. After playing with it for a short time, I can say I am very happy with the device.
Very responsive. And full of features - segmented memory up to 29000 segments, digital filtering, event search, gated measurement capability, fast FFT (and in a separate window after the update), Autoset extremely fast. Also, 1Gs/s PER CHANNEL, memory 10Ms PER CHANNEL, 120000 wfms/s update. Brilliant. So far, have not found any bugs (though, frankly, have used it for a couple of hours yet). So far, very happy.

[Vytautas]

Here are the screenshots showing visual persistence performance of my GDS-2072E at different levels of intensity. Pretty good.

[Vytautas]

And another, pretty fortunate discovery!
The specification chart published in the manual for the GDS-2072E says that when the vertical resolution is set to 1mV/div, the bandwidth is automatically set to 20MHz. This is not true, fortunately! Here are the screenshots showing that even in 1mV/div full bandwidth is possible! Beauty!

[wraper]

And another, pretty fortunate discovery!
The specification chart published in the manual for the GDS-2072E says that when the vertical resolution is set to 1mV/div, the bandwidth is automatically set to 20MHz. This is not true, fortunately! Here are the screenshots showing that even in 1mV/div full bandwidth is possible! Beauty!

You should check this with some real signal. 20MHz is a bandwidth limiter. I don't think it would be smart to make this setting jumping from 20 MHz to full, while changing the vertical resolution. So your "full" might be only "20MHz + a bit above" at this vertical resolution.

[Vytautas]

Here are two shots, just hooked up to a power supply, showing noise (of course, the ground lead is crap for measuring noise, but anyway, the shots show full bandwidth IS available in 1mV/div.) The older models had full bandwidth simply disabled, when in 1mV/div. It is not disabled in this model. Probably what could have happened, is that they just forgot to delete that note from the manual, which has no doubt been prepared by adjusting a previous version of a manual. I wrote GWInstek an inquiry about this. Lets see, what they will say.

[Vytautas]

I just received an answer from GWInstek. They confirmed my finding. Here is what they said: „Dear Vytautas, Thank you very much for your inputs. You are right, the BW does not limit to 20 Mhz, and we will modify our manual accordingly.“

[PigSpark]

Just been sent a beta 3 release of firmware 1.25 to try and it fixed the problem I had with the waveform intensity. 

[4cx10000]

Just a short question that may not belong in this thread. Since there are Europeans here, where would buy the GDS-2000? Got my eyes on an GDS-2204E.

[nctnico]

GW Instek has a European office (located in the Netherlands) so you could ask them to recommend a dealer: sales@gw-instek.eu

[PigSpark]

Try here:

https://www.elfa.se/en/manufacturer/gw-instek/man_gwi

[Carrington]

Just a short question that may not belong in this thread. Since there are Europeans here, where would buy the GDS-2000? Got my eyes on an GDS-2204E.

Also, maybe here?
http://www.tme.eu/en/details/gds-2204e/digital-oscilloscopes/gw-instek/

Usually, for other brands (rigol for example), I recommend this site (great guy): http://www.silcon.cz

[4cx10000]

Thanks all for the tips!  I will check all recommended, suggested distributors tomorrow. I don't know what price range to expect, but Elfa's wasn't exactly what I would say on the low side - I think...

[pascal_sweden]

The processing power of this scope seems really nice.
If I recall correctly it is built on the Xilinx Zynq 7000 series.

The software features look pretty nice too!

However there are 3 things holding me from making a purchase:

1) Design: The design is not inline with Rigol, Siglent, or even Owon.

It really looks like a toy. Come on GW-Instek... you can do much better!
Why don't you look at Rigol, Siglent or Owon?
Note that the new XDS series from Owon looks really nice!

2) PCB construction: Fabricated design using existing prototyping boards lying around

In the video Dave showed that it seems like they were in a hurry and fabricated some existing boards together. This seems very unserious design! Why not one single PCB board like the others are doing?
Even if you use several PCB boards, at least make it in a more structured way, and make sure
the boards are not flapping in the breeze, to use Dave's words.
In his video he showed several weaknesses in the design. Some bigger than others, but I have seen enough to not trust this construction whatsoever.

3) Shielding: They only shielded the front-end. Really?

While Siglent and Rigol have a very sturdy construction and shielding that covers the entire PCB board,
and the power supply, GW-Instek just shields the front-end.

Come on GW-Instek.. get your act together! Your scope is not cheap at all.. so people expect decent shielding. How can you expect such a huge sales price for something that is literally built like a toy.

Obviously GW-Instek has smart engineers in house, as they managed to pull of a very performant design, built on the Xilinx Zynq 7000 architecture. No doubt about that.

But why don't they get the other things correct? Decent PCB board construction, decent shielding.
And please, hire some industrial designer, that can make your scopes look like Rigol, Siglent or Owon.

GW-Instek.. do you really think yourself that this scope looks nice? Really?
How is it possible that taste can differ that much between Asia and Europe?
I don't think it differs that much.... at least all the others know how to do it.

Really... even if you are using a fancy Xilinx Zynq 7000 architecture, it does not weigh up against all the current drawbacks..... the scope looks like a toy! and it is not built to last... the clips that are used to keep those fabricated PCB boards together will certainly not last.. it almost looks like a prototype product, that was put together in a hurry to make it in time for a demo at a tradeshow.

I think it's a shame that in one and the same company, there can be extremely smart engineers who can pull a working scope together that is based on a state of the art Xilinx Zynq 7000 architecture, but that at the same time, the engineers have no clue whatsoever about basic construction, shielding, and design. Honestly, even the software and hardware engineers should recognize that their scope does look like a joke. One does not need expert industrial designer skills to recognize that

[wraper]

The processing power of this scope seems really nice.
If I recall correctly it is built on the Xilinx Zynq 7000 series.

The software seems pretty advanced too!

However there are 3 things holding me from making a purchase:

1) Design: The design is not inline with Rigol, Siglent, or even Owon.

It really looks like a toy. Come on GW-Instek... you can do much better!
Why don't you look at Rigol, Siglent or Owon?
Note that the new XDS series from Owon looks really nice!

, I'm full of that cramped Rigol front panel design that is a pain to control. Nothing to take an example from.

2) PCB construction: Fabricated design using existing prototyping boards lying around

They are NOT prototyping  boards  . They did similar thing in their old scopes too. CPU was a separate board.

While Siglent and Rigol have a very sturdy construction and shielding that covers the entire PCB board,
and the power supply, GW-Instek just shields the front-end.

Rigol  DS2000 case holding on 4 screws which are not even on the corners + not a single hook/clip top of that. Drop it once, and back cover will go flying separately.

3) Shielding: They only shielded the front-end. Really?

While Siglent and Rigol have a very sturdy construction and shielding that covers the entire PCB board,
and the power supply, GW-Instek just shields the front-end.

Means that EMI is low enough that shielding is not essential.

but that at the same time, the engineers have no clue whatsoever about basic construction, shielding, and design

So some shielding automatically gives you a clue?  . You can build some freaking radiating "radio noise transmitter" and then just shield it to death. Read some treads here about how much clue had those DP832, DS1000Z and DS2000 designers. Like oscillating Vregs, improperly designed ADC clock oscillator, improper heatsink size and so on.

[nctnico]

@pascal_sweden:
Regarding the construction: my GDS2204E has a single board which holds all the components so no prototype style boards attached to it. I think Dave got an early engineering sample or prototype. Also some comments Dave made are totally unfounded. For example the flatcable for the PSU. Open up a Tektronix TDS500/600/700 series (around $20k when the dollar still was worth something) and you'll see a flatcable for power distribution as well from a 300W PSU (and not 30W like in the GDS2000E). When properly designed a flatcable is perfectly adequate for power distribution.

Tests with the noise levels have shown the shielding is more than adequate! So why waste the materials? The PSU GW Instek uses produces very little EMI noise so the scope doesn't need much shielding. When compared to a Siglent SDS1000X series the noise on the GDS2000E series is on par (perhaps slightly better but certainly not worse and at the same bandwidth).

About the looks... I rather have a pink hammer which works and gets the job done than a black one from which the head detaches itself every time.

IMHO the GDS2000E is a very good buy at the moment because it is packed with features which work as advertised and if you manage to find a bug it gets fixed quickly. What more do you want from a budget scope?

[pascal_sweden]

Can you make a "take it apart - 2.0" video?

[Vytautas]

The initial testing for a few days shows me that construction of the GDS-2000E brings no worries. They used there what is needed and did not use what would have been superfluous. For example, the back is screwed with metal threaded screws (Rigols, in comparison, - with self tappers).
The noise floor is excellent, under 400 micro volts, so shielding is a no issue.
One thing I do not like - is the fan implementation. When I turn on several devices that have fans, the total of those noises in my tiny lab becomes really annoying.
I paid 532 euros for my GDS-2072E. On the net, I have not found it for this price anywhere, the lowest is something like 680-700. But the company "Lokmita" somehow was able to get it for me that cheap. They have the GDS-2204E now for 1160 euros (plus x1.21 tax = 1403 euros).

[pxl]

, I'm full of that cramped Rigol front panel design that is a pain to control. Nothing to take an example from.

The Rigol desings are just perfect: made by Chinese warriors to Chinese warriors. No kiddin'. Anyone bought here - done by mistake.

[Piccolino]

 I have 2072E and that scope it is almost perfect. It is very fast, superb FFT , low noise , a lot of functions , superb design with no crowded buttons. The fan noise is very low. The display almost perfect too...The only major problem for me it is the power supply noise. That smps it is a really crap, very noiseing.

[Wuerstchenhund]

The processing power of this scope seems really nice.
If I recall correctly it is built on the Xilinx Zynq 7000 series.

The software features look pretty nice too!

Yes, it seems the GDS-2000E is a very solid offer in the entry-level range. Unlike most B-brand scopes it's obviously well balanced feature-wise, i.e. it doesn't just have large memory but can also make proper use of it. Also, it came out in very mature state, and it seems the few remaining bugs are fixed by GW Instek in a matter of weeks instead of months or years with Rigol and Siglent. The use of 'apps' is also interesting, as it opens the scope to the possibility of software expansions. The strong hardware platform should help here, too.

However there are 3 things holding me from making a purchase:

1) Design: The design is not inline with Rigol, Siglent, or even Owon.

Does it have to? If so, why?

It really looks like a toy. Come on GW-Instek... you can do much better!
Why don't you look at Rigol, Siglent or Owon?
Note that the new XDS series from Owon looks really nice!

You're kiddin', right? I mean, pretty much everything OWON made looks like a damn toy. Not saying it's not good gear (I don't know, I have no experience with OWON) but the looks of OWON gear is cheap and toy-ish, much more than anything else I've seen.

Siglent and Rigol have their own design which overall is pretty much slight variations of standard scope looks.

The GDS-2000E does look boring and uninspiring, no doubt about that, but it doesn't look 'toy-like', and from a Human Factors/usability perspective I really don't see a lot to critizize. Yes, the UI is bland as well and reminds me of Tek's awful DSO UI from the old TDSxxx days (*shudder*) but after having a somewhat closer look it seems logically structured and not overly cumbersome to use.

It's no beauty but as an engineer I'l always prefer substance over style. My Siglent SDS2204 may have had better optics but that doesn't help when two years after release the firmware suffered from major bugs. The ugly GDS2kE on the other side seems to have come out in pretty mature state.

3) Shielding: They only shielded the front-end. Really?

Yes, really.

While Siglent and Rigol have a very sturdy construction and shielding that covers the entire PCB board,
and the power supply, GW-Instek just shields the front-end.

Come on GW-Instek.. get your act together! Your scope is not cheap at all.. so people expect decent shielding. How can you expect such a huge sales price for something that is literally built like a toy.

I don't know if the GDS-2000E is built like a toy but shielding should be appropriate to the emissions caused by the circuitry. If the emissions are low then there's no need to stuff the case with shielding that at the end of the day has no impact.

Obviously GW-Instek has smart engineers in house, as they managed to pull of a very performant design, built on the Xilinx Zynq 7000 architecture. No doubt about that.

But why don't they get the other things correct? Decent PCB board construction, decent shielding.

Who says their design is incorrect? You? With what qualification? Just asking because judging a board design on the amount of shielding is pretty silly.

Also, GW Instek has been around long enough to probably know a bit or two about proper board design.

And please, hire some industrial designer, that can make your scopes look like Rigol, Siglent or Owon.

Please, don't. Just don't. OWON's optics are a lot worse and would be two steps back.

GW-Instek.. do you really think yourself that this scope looks nice? Really?
How is it possible that taste can differ that much between Asia and Europe?
I don't think it differs that much.... at least all the others know how to do it.

Really... even if you are using a fancy Xilinx Zynq 7000 architecture, it does not weigh up against all the current drawbacks..... the scope looks like a toy! and it is not built to last... the clips that are used to keep those fabricated PCB boards together will certainly not last.. it almost looks like a prototype product, that was put together in a hurry to make it in time for a demo at a tradeshow.

What makes you think the plastics clips that keep the boards together won't last? Clips like these are used in lots of electronics products, and have been so for decades. They last because they are in a position that doesn't see much use (boards are usually left alone, they're not removed and replaced on a daily basis), and if they crack under force then the impact the device must have suffered from this to occur would have been so strong that the clips are the least of your worries.

I think it's a shame that in one and the same company, there can be extremely smart engineers who can pull a working scope together that is based on a state of the art Xilinx Zynq 7000 architecture, but that at the same time, the engineers have no clue whatsoever about basic construction, shielding, and design.

Again, you say this based on what qualification? Because I'd think you should be a bit more careful about whom you call 'clueless' especially when one of your shining examples include Rigol who managed to screw up the most basic ciruitry:

https://www.eevblog.com/forum/projects/project-yaigol-fixing-rigol-scope-design-problems/


Can you point out specifics where you think more shielding is required in the GDS-2000E, and why you believe that is the case (and no, saying 'because Rigol and Siglent have more shielding' isn't a valid argument)?

Honestly, even the software and hardware engineers should recognize that their scope does look like a joke. One does not need expert industrial designer skills to recognize that

You could say the same about Rigol who obviously can't do hardware properly, or Siglent who has a very long track record of utter incompetence in everything software.

I've owned Rigol and Siglent products, and I have further examples of products from both in my environment. I never had GW Instek, but frankly, if I needed a cheap low-end scope now then GW Instek would be the only one on my short-list, based on its well balanced features and its apparent maturity.

Looks are for posers.

[Vytautas]

Speaking shortly, IMHO:
Design and layout is excellent, nobs well spaced, easy to access without bumping around.
Love the separate SELECT button under the variable nob (much better than the pushable option).
Menus and functions are easy to use, extremely intuitive.
Scope very responsive.
Goes to 1nS per division.
1Gs per ch; 10Mp per ch; 120000Wfm/s
Gated + segmented + event search + 1M fft...
Brilliant!

[rf-loop]

120000Wfm/s
 segmented

I have not seen any true data about wfm/s speed with different settings and not seen any true data about segmented memory acquistion speed. Not seen any real speed tests with pass/fail mask test true speed.
Yes, I know there is not trigger out but it can test also with different methods. Also segmented acquistion maximum trigger/acquistion speed is extremely easy to check. Just calculate from segment time stamps over example 1000 or 10000 segments.  Rigols, Owons, Siglents etc there is lot of data available.  Nice if someone who can do reliable tests can do these also with this new GW.

[pxl]

no trigger out? probably it could be resolved by firmware update

[rf-loop]

no trigger out? probably it could be resolved by firmware update

Segmented acquisition have segment time stamps.
Pass/fail have output. It can count pass and fail. Stopwatch and look example 100s time how many pass (signal so that all test pass)  and then look same but how many fail, using signal what sure give result fail.

Things are not so difficult.

Also two channel pulse generator and human eyes (idea is detect how long pulse delay need that (2nd) pulse exist in next acquisition, and so on)   can use for define wfm/s speed if there is no trig out. (there is @marmad long time ago explained how to do it. I do not try with my chingfinnglish.

[nctnico]

You have to realise that the maximum waveforms/s occur at the shortest memory length, a short timebase setting and probably some other settings which could impact the screen update speed. That is not the general use case of a scope with deep memory. All in all you can go through a lot of trouble for producing these numbers but I don't think they have a lot of meaning for using an oscilloscope in a typical usage scenario. If GW Instek claims it can do 120 000 waveforms/s I'm pretty sure it can do that for one obscure setting just like any other oscilloscope.

Speed of segmented recording depends on what GW Instek aimed to achieve: update the screen after each segment or record first and show later (like my Agilent DSO7104A does IIRC). The latter is faster but makes it impossible to view the progress of the acquisition. I did some testing on the GDS2204E and it seems it updates the display after each segment so this function is definitely aimed at capturing rare events and allowing the user to see what is going on.

[rf-loop]

All in all you can go through a lot of trouble for producing these numbers but I don't think they have a lot of meaning for using an oscilloscope in a typical usage scenario.

What kind of trouble?   

I have not meet any real troubles  Exept if  manufacturer marketing peoples do not like but - so what. It is not my head ache.

And in this case, they claim 75kwfm/s
It is "true" but it is highest peak value what do not include processing and display refresh cycle pause in acquisition.
True (or least my true) value (average over several screen update-processing period) is around or bit under 10% lower.

Examples (First rable have typemistake and it is only Ch 1 on)
Other proplem is that it is with old first FW release. So some numbers may be bit low but meaningless.





Where is trouble?

[rf-loop]

Speed of segmented recording depends on what GW Instek aimed to achieve: update the screen after each segment or record first and show later (like my Agilent DSO7104A does IIRC). The latter is faster but makes it impossible to view the progress of the acquisition. I did some testing on the GDS2204E and it seems it updates the display after each segment so this function is definitely aimed at capturing rare events and allowing the user to see what is going on.

GW GDS2000E  manual:

Also notice that the scope doesn’t need to
rearm the trigger between each segment, this makes the segmented
memory function especially useful for high speed signals. The time
between each segment is also recorded so that accurate signal
timing can also be measured.

Is it copypasted from some other scope manual or how it feel that this story is not about this scope... 
I have nothing to say. Just "unbelievable". Nearly like Rigol joke about segmented memory.

[nctnico]

Also notice that the scope doesn’t need to
rearm the trigger between each segment, this makes the segmented
memory function especially useful for high speed signals. The time
between each segment is also recorded so that accurate signal
timing can also be measured.

Is it copypasted from some other scope manual or how it feel that this story is not about this scope... 
I have nothing to say. Just "unbelievable". Nearly like Rigol joke about segmented memory.

Your 'if the number ain't high it is definitely bad' attitude is getting boring. There are pros and cons to each design choice. Respect that and don't go jumping up & down because you can't mount a roof rack on a Ferrari.

[rf-loop]

Also notice that the scope doesn’t need to
rearm the trigger between each segment, this makes the segmented
memory function especially useful for high speed signals. The time
between each segment is also recorded so that accurate signal
timing can also be measured.

Is it copypasted from some other scope manual or how it feel that this story is not about this scope... 
I have nothing to say. Just "unbelievable". Nearly like Rigol joke about segmented memory.

Your 'if the number ain't high it is definitely bad' attitude is getting boring. There are pros and cons to each design choice. Respect that and don't go jumping up & down because you can't mount a roof rack on a Ferrari.

Just data? Dataa can not change with opinions.  Speeds are just numbers. Where are they?

[Carrington]

Look what I found. Another "all in one" in the near future, perhaps? 
Source: http://www.stantronic.co.uk/GWINSTEK-GW-GDS-2204E.html

[4cx10000]

What?!  It doesn't look like that in the data sheet!

[pascal_sweden]

You're kiddin', right? I mean, pretty much everything OWON made looks like a damn toy. Not saying it's not good gear (I don't know, I have no experience with OWON) but the looks of OWON gear is cheap and toy-ish, much more than anything else I've seen.

I know very well, that OWON scopes in the past used to look like toys.

But I explicitly referred to the XDS series from OWON, which you have either overlooked,
or you did not bother to take the time and google on it.

Anyhow, to make things easy for you, I hereby provide you a photo of the new XDS series and a link

Professional design look of new XDS series from OWON



Link to XDS series from OWON, with details on product specifications

http://www.owon.com.hk/products_info.asp?ProID=182

What makes you think the plastics clips that keep the boards together won't last? Clips like these are used in lots of electronics products, and have been so for decades. They last because they are in a position that doesn't see much use (boards are usually left alone, they're not removed and replaced on a daily basis), and if they crack under force then the impact the device must have suffered from this to occur would have been so strong that the clips are the least of your worries.

Have you seen the video from Dave Jones about the GW Instek GDS-1000B oscilloscope?
Then you will know what I mean about fabricated prototyping boards that were put together in a hurry,
almost like they had to be ready in time to show off their product on a tradeshow

Link to EEVblog video about GW Instek GDS-1000B Oscilloscope Teardown

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9SXZk2tsQ4g?t=902

I have to admit that this was on their entry model, the GDS-1000B series, but it could very well be,
that they use the same design practise on the GDS-2000E series, as both scopes were released in the same delivery time window (a few months ago), and both scopes are cosmetically the same from the outside.

Non-mainstream design look of GDS-1000B series from GW Instek



Non-mainstream design look of GDS-2000E series from GW Instek

[nctnico]

I have to admit that this was on their entry model, the GDS-1000B series, but it could very well be,
that they use the same design practise on the GDS-2000E series, as both scopes were released in the same delivery time window (a few months ago), and both scopes are cosmetically the same from the outside.

I already wrote that the GDS-2000E uses a single board (seen it with my own eyes) so why keep insisting it isn't so? Don't forget that building a product from seperate boards is more expensive due to higher manufacturing (labour) costs. Besides that the 'Panda look' with the dark bezel to make the screen look bigger is common for many oscilloscopes nowadays:

I still don't get why you keep going on about how an instrument looks. It's a friggin instrument and I'd be more worried about the knobs being in the right place and the UI easy to navigate than how it looks. Philips used to have this doo-doo-brown color scheme:

Do you want the mechanic who works on your car to use red spanners and wear a blue jumpsuit?

[pxl]

I am just watching again Dave's video, and here is my personal opinion:
- I don't like that double GEN output on the front, probably I would not buy 2 options for that, and just seeing that two dead outputs, a bit sad
- no trigger out
- design is not my fav, but I could live with that without problem, looks practical
- horizontal pos. knob is just not that responsive, need to turn a lot to move the signal
- not real 1mV/div, just zoomed, why they need to fake that?
- definitely slows down the screen update when moving the signals up and down, not a real problem, but weird a bit it was because the persistence was set to 240ms, even more wierder
- a bit laggy / freezes from time to time
- usually the screen update rate seems fluctuate all the time and generally very slow
- I really like the "app" approach, should the API open and documented, would be a real killer
- when the func. gen was connected but off (at 27.51) and Dave moved his finger close to the scope the noise came up
https://youtu.be/cRe9b7iV6Kc?t=1671
- at the same time the trigger pos was at 0 V, but the waveform was not triggered at all, yet it seemed a well formed sine wave
- at the same time there was a sign at the top of the screen [Trig'd], hmmm
- there is no sign on the screen of the memory mode / sample rate, should be important to see whether a signal could be aliased or not
- short/auto memory? okay, but exactly?
- measurements +
- search +
- segmented mode +
- the "color" type waveform looks really bad and not that useful
- Dave left the filter on (10 kHz) (35:05) but is not written on the screen that we have the filter on!
- no dedicated intensity knob
- strong fan noise
- no HiRes mode

So all in all it looks generally capable, but there are things here and there to be polished later.

[pxl]

Anyhow, to make things easy for you, I hereby provide you a photo of the new XDS series and a link

Professional design look of new XDS series from OWON

That not just looks like a toy, indeed, but looks even unusable. Look at that big channel knobs with hardly any depth being too near to each other. That knobs would be always in the way to my fingers when setting another one.

[pascal_sweden]

With all respect, but I believe that the distance in between the channel knobs on the OWON,
is the same as on the GW Instek. Maybe slightly smaller, but it's almost the same.

Another solution is to work less hard, to keep "white collar" fingers, instead of "blue collar" fingers

That traditional Philips PM scope looked pretty professional actually.

Note that there is a difference between looking beautiful and looking professional.
Of course both can be united, with the right design style.

But to put it in perspective: the traditional Philips PM scope was not beautiful, but at least it
did not look like a toy. The overall look&feel was very professional.

The GW Instek looks ugly and does not look professional whatsoever.

Looking at all the combinations, we can come up with the following table:

1) Beautiful and professional look: Keysight, Tektronix, Also Rigol, Siglent and New Owon XDS series
2) Ugly but professional look: Older Philips PM scopes
3) Beautiful toy: Older Owon scopes
4) Ugly toy: GW Instek

In fact the older GW Instek scopes looked much nicer! They were a 3 or some maybe a 1.
What happened with their old designer? At least it would be interesting to find out

That's similar like what happened with Renault.
The old Renault cars like Renault Saffrane were looking very nice.
Until they got this new designer in house. Now all Renault cars are extremely ugly.
Rounds everywhere.... who says round designs are better than sharp designs.
Of course some rounds are okey.. but please don't go too far.

In fact, Dacia, Eastern European, but owned by Renault, looks much nicer than Renault itself!
Yes you read this correct, for all you French Renault afficionados!

[nctnico]

Sorry I couldn't resist.
Now I really have to go and sleep.

[wraper]

Have you seen the video from Dave Jones about the GW Instek GDS-1000B oscilloscope?
Then you will know what I mean about fabricated prototyping boards that were put together in a hurry,
almost like they had to be ready in time to show off their product on a tradeshow

They are not prototyping boards, I say it again  . GDS-1000B is a very cheap scope with a very beefy hardware. So they must cut the corners to sell it at this price. That CPU/FPGA board must be at least 8 layers, I guess. On the other hand, the front end + ADC is doable on 4 layer board, which it likely is.
EDIT: BTW, likely they didn't pay any premium for that display adapter board. It seems to be from the same panel as the front end board (taken from that cutout on the corner). The reason why they need it? Well, display has a built in flex cable which is too short to connect it directly.

[CustomEngineerer]

1) Beautiful and professional look: Keysight, Tektronix, Also Rigol, Siglent and New Owon XDS series
2) Ugly but professional look: Older Philips PM scopes
3) Beautiful toy: Older Owon scopes
4) Ugly toy: GW Instek

These would be called personal preferences. To me the Rigols look like a toy, especially the DS1000Zs, but also the DS2000A (I own a DS2072A). For me, the Owon XDS are very ugly and toylike. I do like the look of the Siglents  and the Agilents. And the GW Instek looks fine, don't love it or hate it. Of course none of that really matters, as long as the scope is functional.

[wraper]

In fact the older GW Instek scopes looked much nicer! They were a 3 or some maybe a 1.
What happened with their old designer? At least it would be interesting to find out

Except the black display bezel, front panel design is basically the same as 10+ years ago.

[Vytautas]

I am just watching again Dave's video, and here is my personal opinion:

Dave has not reviewed the GDS-2000E series.
The issues he found do not exist in my GDS-2072E.
Concerning this discussion of looks, I think it is completely subjective and leads to nowhere. Its empty.

Concerning Owon, nobody mentioned what Dave said in his review (a piece of...)
By the way, somebody is got to play with the new Owon. Sorry, but really looks toyish. Responsiveness? (See 5:40) And I really doubt it has any visual persistence. So what would be Daves conclusion about it? Lets wait.

[rf-loop]

Concerning this discussion of looks, I think it is completely subjective and leads to nowhere. Its empty.

You can change it.

Just make some tiny tests and show real data. Las time I have asked data, this thread is full filled with some kind of childish beauty contest.

Some points where can start.

- segmented memory acquistion speeds. (minimum continuous trig interval (it can see using segments time stamps)
- wfm/s  speed using various settings.  (it can measure using simple pulse generator when no trig out)
- pass/fail mask test speed in case where all wfm's pass and in case all wfm's fails in test. (this can do using pass/fail counter and example stopwatch or better if signal generator using some signal, example 1MHz sinewave 1s long period, normal trigger (not auto) and after then read pass fail counter, there can see how many test it have run on ione second. (adjusted so that signal pass all and then again so that signal fails all in test (sidenote: last time I tested Rigol1kZ in this case speed is more like 1test/s than 10000/s and I believe (but this is not religion exept without real data. Data can not change with opinions) that GWI  2kE is much faster.)

[rf-loop]

Responsiveness? (See 5:40) And I really doubt it has any visual persistence.

Responsiveness. There user push + and -. How you make adjustment if it change settings more fast. If it is bit more fast you adjust always over, then back and agen over and then agen...  speed need be adjusted so that average user can do adjustment without many times iteration. I have used it, quite lot.  This video guy clearly have never used it before he turn video camera on with nearly total lack of experience and knowledge what he is doing. Sad.

There is persistence display mode if it is turned on. (it do its work but it is very conventional, 1 to some second and infinite what do not give very "beautiful" visual effect but with it can work. Also in some cases I hope they change white-yellow contrast better when use persistence)
(persistence is used and visible in my some test images)
But real fast intensity gradation there is not in XDS3k - nothing like Siglent what have exellent intensity gradient display in this class.
 
Also I have not seen at all well working intensity gradient display in GDS2kE.

But, I hope I get some day data for some things what I have asked or I need buy one for show these.

[Wuerstchenhund]

You're kiddin', right? I mean, pretty much everything OWON made looks like a damn toy. Not saying it's not good gear (I don't know, I have no experience with OWON) but the looks of OWON gear is cheap and toy-ish, much more than anything else I've seen.

I know very well, that OWON scopes in the past used to look like toys.

But I explicitly referred to the XDS series from OWON, which you have either overlooked,
or you did not bother to take the time and google on it.

I have seen the XDS....

Anyhow, to make things easy for you, I hereby provide you a photo of the new XDS series and a link

Professional design look of new XDS series from OWON

... and as much as I like that they came out with a very cheap 12bit scope it still looks, very much, like a cheap toy. 

The left half with the screen is actually OK but I really dislike the knobs/button area, which pretty much looks like the spread a lot tiny buttons on overly wide spaced segments. The knobs look really cheap, too, a bit like the knobs on older Siglent scopes (i.s. SDS1000CML). It looks a bit like OWON tried to copy the Tektronix MDO5k look and gave up half-way in the process. Which is a shame, really, as it seems to be an interesting scope.

But there's nothing "professional" in these looks. It pretty much looks like what it is - a cheap Chinese B-brand scope.

The other thing is that OWON doesn't only look like a toy, it also feels like one (t least ones I had occasion to touch did, they must have used the cheapest plastics they could find). I really hope the actual build quality of this scope is better than the (admittedly older) OWONs I have seen.

Have you seen the video from Dave Jones about the GW Instek GDS-1000B oscilloscope?

Yes, I have. And as with others of his videos, I'm not sure I would share all of Dave's criticism in this one, too.

Then you will know what I mean about fabricated prototyping boards that were put together in a hurry,
almost like they had to be ready in time to show off their product on a tradeshow

Maybe. But that doesn't matter. By now people have told you probably a hundred times that the GDS-2000E uses a single board.

I have to admit that this was on their entry model, the GDS-1000B series, but it could very well be,
that they use the same design practise on the GDS-2000E series, as both scopes were released in the same delivery time window (a few months ago), and both scopes are cosmetically the same from the outside.

Maybe, maybe not, but how about you stop speculating wildly and listen to the people here that actually have the scope instead? 

Non-mainstream design look of GDS-1000B series from GW Instek



Non-mainstream design look of GDS-2000E series from GW Instek

As others have already said, GW Instek uses pretty much the same design since forever. I guess they're overly conservative, but then I'd say as long as it's just boring and bland (and it is) but isn't counter-productive then that's fine. Could they do more to make it less bland? Certainly. Is it a bad scope just because of the boring design? Absolutely not.

And while the GW Instek looks bland, they are not the only one. This is the scope I pretty much work with every day:





That's a Keysight DSO90kA, and while it's a great and very powerful high bandwidth scope the front doesn't look like a lot, does it? Considering that this once was Keysight's highest bandwidth real-time scope, the front doesn't really look like much. But then, does it matter? Especially when there isn't much wrong with the controls layout, or the (physical) user interface in general (the touchscreen UI is a different story, though).

[pxl]

I fixed the whining noise problem! I have put two ordinary 4700uf / 10V capacitors across the - what I think are- 5V and 3.3V outputs and the noise is gone. I also checked the PSU switching frequency using the FFT function and the harmonics around 5kHz are gone. The fix is easy to implement as well (see the pictures):

At that point I started to like this scope, I've found this. omg. But respect for investigate and fixing the problem!

[Wuerstchenhund]

Looking at all the combinations, we can come up with the following table:

1) Beautiful and professional look: Keysight, Tektronix, Also Rigol, Siglent and New Owon XDS series
2) Ugly but professional look: Older Philips PM scopes
3) Beautiful toy: Older Owon scopes
4) Ugly toy: GW Instek

In fact the older GW Instek scopes looked much nicer! They were a 3 or some maybe a 1.
What happened with their old designer? At least it would be interesting to find out

That's simply your personal preference which isn't necessarily related with reality.

I already said that I think the OWON XDS looks like an ugly toy, and in fact is even worse than the GW Instek which just looks bland.

Siglent looks OK, some of their knobs are a bit cheap and with the SDS2000 the rotary knobs for multi-function and trigger were positioned too closely (fixed with the DSD2000X), but overall the layout is fine.

Rigol's smaller scopes (DS1000z, DS2000, DS4000) have some style that is reminiscent of some '80s sci-fi theme but overall it's OK. Again some knobs are a bit cheap but that's it.

None of these scopes looks particular premium level, but for me the OWON is the worst of the bunch, because it doesn't just look bland like the GW Instek, it looks really cheap. Even when compared with other B-brands.

In terms of design, I actually find dark colors more attractive, even more so when it's combined with some nice usability features like a pivotable display:




But at the end of the day, looks are down to personal taste. Which to discuss is pointless, really.

[4cx10000]

Yupp, scopes coming from different manufacturers are not - as we without doubt can see in all photos - lookalikes. We have to, in one way or another, try to reconcile with the fact. All have their favorite looking things and that being the same as when we choose our beloved life partner. The outside may or may not look as we wish, but the inside and theirs function (don't think dirty because it is some kind of parallel to scopes) are well within your demands. Having said that, doesn't it apply to scopes as well? 

[Piccolino]

 For my eyes the black bezel it is very beautiful, entire scope it is the most beautiful from the chinese scopes but when you use it, when I push the buttons on the bezel, I feel very confusing. I can't did the difference very fast between the bezel and the display. I must to stop for a second to see and to understand which is bezel which is display. For operate the scope, the bezel it is better to be white colour.

[nctnico]

Yes, I know there is not trigger out but it can test also with different methods. Also segmented acquistion maximum trigger/acquistion speed is extremely easy to check. Just calculate from segment time stamps over example 1000 or 10000 segments.

That method doesn't work because you'll get the average time for triggering/re-arming and don't know whether you missed a pulse or not. The only way which works is to send a burst with 100, 1000 pulses (or even more) and adjust the time between each pulse so that the segmented recording captures each pulse (you end up with a number of segments equal to the number of pulses send). That way you know the worst case trigger/re-arm time.

[rf-loop]

Yes, I know there is not trigger out but it can test also with different methods. Also segmented acquistion maximum trigger/acquistion speed is extremely easy to check. Just calculate from segment time stamps over example 1000 or 10000 segments.

That method doesn't work because you'll get the average time for triggering/re-arming and don't know whether you missed a pulse or not. The only way which works is to send a burst with 100, 1000 pulses (or even more) and adjust the time between each pulse so that the segmented recording captures each pulse (you end up with a number of segments equal to the number of pulses send). That way you know the worst case trigger/re-arm time.

Of course, who have told anything else.  It give only information what kind of speed range we are. But this test even first time novice can do without aany experience, without any knowledge, with very simple equipments. Of course if people know and can do more perfect test it is better. More perfect more better.
But still it looks that no one who have hands on GDS2kE do not want do even simpliest tests for even some data. Of course if test method is explained reader can then think how to read these results.
So, why this silence about real data.

(Sidenote: It looks like "beauty contest" is more interesting. What this tell?  Perhaps many peoples use oscilloscopes and other tools only for decorate they hobby corner. This is good wink also for manufacturers. They may start producing hobby corner decorating "looks like professional" boxes. Something like "credibility on the street" in camera world. 
This business idea is free for all. Let's make "professional" "High-End" looks like cheap boxes for decorating hobby labs. (this same was times ago in audio world when some Japanese companies start making "professional" looks like total junk for peoles who want feel they are "audio enthusiasts".  I remember well this trend in 80-90 era.)

Of course if triggering/re-arming works exactly without any variations it give quite accurate result. In this case if input frequency is enough high we do not care dropped but we have pushed it to capturing segments as fast as it can. Oh, if nitpick then not exatly. In worst case if trigger event happend just before it is ready (name it time A)  for next capture we need wait next trigger event in our input signal. If it is 100MHz we need wait 10ns - how much before A  previous edge was. In worst case we need wait 10ns - very short time. So, in this case if scope can do exactly 1us period trig/capture we get this sad period 1010ns.

Situations change lot if oscilloscope  triggering/re-arming have lot of variations. More variations and more wrong this method result is if we are looking speed what do not miss any pulse even in lot of segments. This is true.
But method is still so easy that even novice can do it without any good tools but some kind of signal generator what give enough high frequency.
But, if there is lot of variations in triggering/re-arming result is average and if variation is high lowest bulletproof segments/s speed may be lot of below average when we do not accept any pulse lost.

It is really really sad if segmented acquisition have widely random triggering/re-arming time. But all kind of shit can still name "segmented memory acquisition" in sellers advertisemenents. Good example is in Rigol where is just some kind of slow "frame recorder" together with very badly implemented mask test. Then we wander why lot of users underestimate these tools power in use. Of course they underestimate these tools because they do not have these tools or tools they have are just crap toys. After then we hear opinions that these tools are nearly for nothing. Yes, if they are shit they are just names in sellers advertisemenst features list. Of course they still may have some useful use.

Siglent SDS2000 is faster than SDS1000X. Processing power is faster and acquisition / digital side triggering engine is faster.

So, I take this slower SDS1000X and test it.
In new FW P06 they have touched to Sequence acquisition (I do not explain this change here)
There is big improvement in this function useability value but also perhaps some small disadvantages. (there is not free lounges)

Test: (test repeated also so many times that I can be enough  sure (for me)  and result is not just random lottery win)
This scope reach maximum segment/s speed with 50ns/div where segment lenght is 700 points and one channel in use.
With this setting maximum amount of segments is 45526.
I have previously measured max ~500k segments/s speed. Still now if use low amount of segments say example 100 it can "randomly" capture all without lost if burst 100.

Bit more hard test.
45526 segment.
50ns/div
CH1 OR CH2 in use.
Here do not matter anything if sinc on or off and if dots or lines etc. (of course, this is segmented memory acq.)
Signal 100ns pulse.
Burst lenght 45526 pulse.
Pulse frequency 486 kHz.

I run this 20 times sequentially and every time it capture every pulse. Exactly.
No any single misssed pulse. It can say that speed maximum is least 486ksegment/s

All other settings same but now signal 80MHz sinewave. (with this freq it do not reach maximum average, but near. Because cycle period is 12.5ns. Best case trig happend just when system is ready and worst case 12.5ns later if nitpick)
Read time stamps difference over 45525 intervals and result is average speed 497.25 ksegment/s

SDS2000 is bit faster than this SDS1000X

[lem_ix]

I agree that Rigol and Owon look like toys, the Instek looks like a tool, if a bit uninspired. Would love a teardown of this, will need a second scope soon and this one caught my eye.

[rf-loop]

Can not resist, looks like bit more professional (are there any other things in oscilloscope?)


(1980 ana/digi)

[nctnico]

@RF-loop: did the stupid test: 123000 segments/s (length= 1000 points and 1Gs/s)

[rf-loop]

@RF-loop: did the stupid test: 123000 segments/s (length= 1000 points and 1Gs/s)

Number without any explanation about test condition?
But this is, how I say - typical. Lot of nitpick if someone say something and test something (nearly all is junk in your opinion) but then your own tests and  data is like this. But more than nothing. Is this also how they define 120kwfm/s update rate (like LeCroy)

Some definition for stupid test?

[nctnico]

As you wrote: take 1000 segments with a high frequency input signal (several MHz) and divide the total time by the number of segments.

[PigSpark]

This is for rf-loop

Have used Mark Madel's method to measure the waveform update rate on my toy ( ) GDS-2000E oscilloscope. Used a 10Hz square wave, triggered on both edges and sampling set to normal.

At 200ns I could not find the dead time so I gave up after 10 minutes as it was Saturday and I needed a beer. So at 500ns we have 122K updates/s, near enough for me.

This was only on channel 1 so I intend to repeat this test with more channels.

[rf-loop]

This is for rf-loop

Have used Mark Madel's method to measure the waveform update rate on my toy ( ) GDS-2000E oscilloscope. Used a 10Hz square wave, triggered on both edges and sampling set to normal.

At 200ns I could not find the dead time so I gave up after 10 minutes as it was Saturday and I needed a beer. So at 500ns we have 122K updates/s, near enough for me.

This was only on channel 1 so I intend to repeat this test with more channels.

Interesting result. But also strange if you do not find 200ns/div dead time..

With this method Siglent SDS1000X.
Normally, measured from Trig out using second oscilloscope what also show acquisitions burst time and scope processing busy time when processing data and updating image.
This method I trust without doupt and it give continuous wfm/s and other data how acquisition cycle go.
With this method SDS1000X give its maximum 60kwfm/s (just bit over) what is also specified max speed.
Inside ine display refresh cycle there is burst speed around 70kwfm/s.

But, then this method without trigger out.
50ns/div,   combined these two pulses method 181kwfm/s  (pulses delayed so that later pulse can also trig. Pulses, 50ns and 100ns are combined both to one input. Pulses rising edges distance 5.3ns start give frequent trig. Reliable continuous trig to both edge 5.5us. (checked also from acquisition history so that both exists exactly alternately in history memory)

single pulse 10Hz freq,  rising/falling trigger give 181kwfm/s  (continuous not blinking rising falling trig figure with pulse lenght 5.5us )

SDS1000X
So, Trigger output counting (not missed pulses with poor counters) 61kwfm
Other two method without scope trigger output  181kwfm/s.
And more fun, now dots/lines etc do not change anything in this speed.


This do not mean that these other methods always give wrong result.
In Siglent case they give around 3 times too fast result with some settings. (other settings may give less or even more difference to avarage max).

https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/siglent-sds1000x-series-oscilloscopes/msg926963/#msg926963

[Vytautas]

Hello all,

Wanted to share a video I just uploaded (sorry for some lack of sharpness, my first video), showing the FFT resolution capability of my GDS-2072E scope. It is awesome! For low frequency analysis, like audio applications (which I am mostly involved with) the capabilities of this scope are amazing. No chance to get that on Rigol DS1000Z or even 2000 series scopes.

https://youtu.be/ciTf-T-q2i0

[nctnico]

Cool! I didn't know it could do that. Time for some playing...  It can show up 10 highest peaks in an event table and/or use a horizontal bar to find peaks even if they are off screen and also use the event table to jump to a peak (centre it on screen).
I did have a problem though: my GDS2204E locked up after the self test. Probably the power-on defaults got screwed up. I solved this by pressing the default button just as it finished it's self test. Worked first time so 

[saturation]

Is there a changelog for firmware?  I find none on the GWInstek website.  For those who have updated the firmware to the latest, can you please post what you know has changed or improved.  Thanks!

[Vytautas]

To download the firmware from their site, you need to login (create your account and login).
The new and very good feature included in the latest firmware is providing the FFT spectrum in a separate window, and not on top of the time domain waveform.

[MT]

What is the Rigol (unhacked) equivalent to GDS2204E?

[wraper]

What is the Rigol (unhacked) equivalent to GDS2204E?

There is no unhacked equivalent from Rigol, because Rigol does not come with decoding and trigger options out of the box. Even compared with hacked Rigol DS-2000A, this scope offers much more.

[nctnico]

What is the Rigol (unhacked) equivalent to GDS2204E?

That is a tough question. I think the GDS2000E series may be comparable with the DS2000 series but Rigol doesn't offer a 4 channel version of the DS2000 series and the UART, CAN, SPI, I2C decoding + extra memory options set you back another $1100 for the DS2000.

[pascal_sweden]

The Rigol DS2202A can do 2 GS/s if you only use 1 channel.

The GW-Instek GDS2204E can do max. 1 GS/s even if you only use 1 channel.

Memory is bigger on Rigol as well.

[wraper]

The Rigol DS2202A can do 2 GS/s if you only use 1 channel.

The GW-Instek GDS2204E can do max. 1 GS/s even if you only use 1 channel.

Memory is bigger on Rigol as well.

Memory is significantly larger only if hacked. It is smaller on unhacked Rigol (14 mpts total) once you use 2 channels. If you use all 4 channels on Instek, you have 10 mpts x4 memory. It does not get divided between channels like on Rigol. That 54 mpts hacked memory is not very useful either because DS2000A has a tough time to do something useful with it.

[ebastler]

Why can't we reserve the "New GW Instek GDS..." thread for posts by people who think their GW Instek scope is a better deal, and the "New Rigol DS1054Z..." thread for those who prefer their Rigol?  
These "mine is better than yours" posts get a bit repetitive over time...

[nctnico]

Why can't we reserve the "New GW Instek GDS..." thread for posts by people who think their GW Instek scope is a better deal, and the "New Rigol DS1054Z..." thread for those who prefer their Rigol?  
These "mine is better than yours" posts get a bit repetitive over time...

It is always good to compare and check reasoning for buying or not buying a piece of equipment.

[MT]

Why can't we reserve the "New GW Instek GDS..." thread for posts by people who think their GW Instek scope is a better deal, and the "New Rigol DS1054Z..." thread for those who prefer their Rigol?   These "mine is better than yours" posts get a bit repetitive over time...

Product comparison ,which this is about, is very important people want to know what they get for the money, both hacked and unhacked!
I'm not interested what fanbois debate! There are so many models around so its very easy to step on a landmine!
Thanks for the info folks, i have to read up on the Rigolettos.

[ebastler]

Why can't we reserve the "New GW Instek GDS..." thread for posts by people who think their GW Instek scope is a better deal, and the "New Rigol DS1054Z..." thread for those who prefer their Rigol?   These "mine is better than yours" posts get a bit repetitive over time...

Product comparison ,which this is about, is very important people want to know what they get for the money, both hacked and unhacked!
I'm not interested what fanbois debate! [...]

Well, my suggestion was only half-serious, of course...

But -- while I would not call any of the regulars in this forum a "fanboy" -- many of the regular posters hold strong opinions on certain scope brands, and voice them with great regularity in these threads. For many posters, I only need to look at the name and I already know what brand their post will argue for, or against. It is rare to find a post from these guys (you know who you are ) with gives a balanced view of "this aspect is implemented better in the Rigol XYZ line, while that aspect is better in Siglent ABC scopes". And I do find that kind of "discussion" a bit boring over time, seriously.

[Vytautas]

Yes, I am not inclined to believe assertions without practical demonstrations.
So, guys, post pics and videos to prove what you say. Then it will have a measure of credibility.
Otherwise, empty talk.

[wraper]

Yes, I am not inclined to believe assertions without practical demonstrations.
So, guys, post pics and videos to prove what you say. Then it will have a measure of credibility.
Otherwise, empty talk.

If you use search on the forum, you can find some pics you asked for instek at minimum. Rigol is already reviewed back and forth, many problems found too. There are at least 2 review treads for instek. Also why should I make any video? I don't get paid for it, so why should I spend any time for proving something to somebody beyond my free will writing a review some time ago? I already spent enough time for free while writing the review while otherwise I could spend it with receiving the profit.

[symp]

Hey guys, sorry for thread dig for such a small question.

What would be the best way for me to buy a GDS-2074E? I have settled on this as my first scope after a ship load of looking around, love how much info is known about the rigol DS2000a series but the speed of the interface on the GDS-2000E series is the best I have seen. I can't find this model on taobao. I'm located in Australia. Are there any recommended distributors for GW Instek in Australia or am I best to just go to tequipment.net?

Appreciate any advice.

[nctnico]

This page has a phone number and e-mail you can use to find resellers of GW Instek gear:
http://gwinstek.com/en-global/Page/global_site

[symp]

This page has a phone number and e-mail you can use to find resellers of GW Instek gear:
http://gwinstek.com/en-global/Page/global_site

Thanks nctnico, I appreciate the link. I was more so looking for a forum recommended supplier, lots of you guys know your stuff. If they are all the same I will just pick an Australian supplier at random, unless it is possible to buy directly from GoodWill Instek.

[rhb]

I was asked to link this to this thread.

https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/instek-dsomdomso-fft-spectrum-analysis/msg1355055/#msg1355055

I've got the MSO-2204EA, but it looks to be the same hardware with slightly different packaging.

[Smalldog]

I know this is bit of an old thread, but if anyone is looking to pickup a GDS-2000A series scope on the cheap, Amazon has some decent deals.  I picked up the GDS-2072A for $313 shipped, and the GDS-2104A for $540 shipped.  After I bought the GDS-2072A, the price spiked back up to about $900, but it's been coming down about 5% every day.  Same with the GDS-2104A.  I It was $800+ on Christmas, and I noticed it was dropping a little every day, so I set a notification up on camelcamelcamel and it broke $500 today.  And right after I bought it, it dropped another $5.  Not really worth calling Amazon over.

Now to find out how to unlock features or additional frequencies, as I am sure all of the models have the same hardware inside.

Smalldog

[lem_ix]

The A models are quite a bit older, no Xilinx Zynq in them. They did go up to 300Mhz tho unlike the 2000e series.

[rhb]

At the risk of causing envy, I picked up a GDS-2072E from Amazon for US $242 with tax and shipping.  Just pure dumb luck.  A friend had sent me a note about good Amazon prices on some other Instek gear and I saw the 2072E.  I'd been planning to get one to use for FW testing once I'd made sufficient progress.  But at 1/3 normal price I grabbed it.

I'm going to be madly busy and mostly offline for the next couple of weeks.  If you are interested in having open source FW for the GDS-2000E line  please send a polite note to Good Will asking for the GPL'd source code used in the GDS-2000E line.  It's built on the Xilinx Zynq embedded Linux toolchain, but there are multiple versions.  Also they may have changed portions and we need that.

Once that is in hand, I shall start work on  being able to reproduce an existing FW update file from source where available and from binary objects where not.  Until we can do that, an open source scope is just idle chatter.  Once we can rebuild an update file reliably, it becomes possible to rewrite small pieces at a time and things will go much faster.  The only way to eat an elephant is one byte at a time.

The FW update packages contain the change log.  At present I have 1.20, 1.24, 1.28 and 1.32, though 1.24 is in the 2072E rather than as a .UPG file, so I shall need to extract it unless someone has it already.  Older FW updates are *very* valuable as the change log will help identify which binary blobs do what.  To avoid causing trouble for EEVblog, I suggest that FW files be circulated via PM rather than posted.  If you happen to have a scope with some other version of the FW installed, please don't update it until we have managed to extract the FW.  For some period of time dropbear was installed and the instruments could be accessed via ssh.  That's been turned off in later versions.  The login credentials are on online somewhere, but I don't recall where.  If you've got a FW version not in the list which has ssh working, you can put a USB drive in and copy the filesystem contents to the USB using tar and/or cpio.

I'd also like to encourage anyone familiar with or interested in FPGA  coding who wishes to support this effort to get a $100  minZed board or one of the fancier siblings and start learning the Xilinx development environment.  The Zynq is used in several lines of scopes, so much of what is learned from one will quickly translate to another.

Realistically, it will take several months of effort to get to the point where we can rewrite sections of the UI, add applications, etc.  Serious FPGA level changes will probably take longer.  If a mostly open source and modifiable GDS-2000E line gains market share over the Rigol DS1000Z  all the OEMs will notice and become more cooperative.It will take time.  RMS has been pushing this string for a long time.  But he's made a lot of progress.

[ebastler]

[...] just idle chatter [...]

As a service to busy forum readers, I summarized that long post for you.

Sorry, could not resist.
But based on your own disclaimer in the post, this should qualify as a fair synopsis.

[rhb]

Well, I *didn't* buy a 70 MHz dual channel scope because I needed another one.  I have a 4 channel 200 MHz Instek and a 2 channel 100 MHz Rigol.   But you may draw you own conclusions ;-)  I'd like to note that I don't intend to do anything until I can simply reproduce what is already running on the scope.  The extra scope is just in case I make a mistake and to give the Instek MSO something to probe.

After a career of getting several large (500,000+ lines) piles of old code up and running, this seems like light work to me and far more interesting than another company's version of the wheel.  It's still another wheel, but not one I've worked on before.

The main reason for the lengthy post is that companies won't embrace open source unless they see a marketing advantage.  One guy requesting the GPL'd code  is not a lot of interest.  Even a few dozen doesn't qualify as a lot of interest.

The Instek hardware seems pretty decent, but I hate the software.  And I am not inclined to suffer quietly.

[ebastler]

Thanks, rhb. That sounds more promising than "Bought the scope, but I'll be busy. Could someone please get the source code from GW in the meantime?"   

Anyway, I was mostly kidding, and getting tempted by your own assessment of "Until we can do that, an open source scope is just idle chatter." I wish you, and all of us, best of luck with this endeavour!

[rhb]

I thought it a rather droll remark and enjoyed it.  The really awful result was mentioning this in the "Is it legal to hack a scope?" thread.  It led to a flame war over the GPL & LGPL by people who didn't understand the language of the licenses and the context of American law.

I'm migrating a ZFS pool from 1 TB to 2 TB disks which is proving unspeakably slow, but I'm too far in to back up and use a different method.   And most of my infrastructure is ripped up, sitting in a pile to be rebuilt. To top it off, starting Thursday I am going to be moving a 12' x12' x 34' cold room for my sister and her husband which I have only seen in photographs.

Much to my delight I took a moment to port scan the GDS-2072E and ssh is running on port 22   That was turned off in later releases, though I don't know which.  But the root password is online somewhere.  So extracting the working system is easy.  It also makes turning it back on easy.

The real point of posting here is to try to enlist some help with tracking down information which is only of interest to GDS-2000E owners.  All of that takes time.  There are no magic wands.  And I get *really* slow when I have to do complex things I haven't done before like hook up to the JTAG port. Moreover, no one has any advantage tracking down information via web searches. You *usually* can find it, but you can't say if it will take minutes or days.

A 1.25 million line package of stuff at a medium size oil company took me 6 weeks to get it to compile.  And two of the three authors still worked there!  They just did not have a firm grasp on what linker targets were where.  So I'd go along until I hit something that wouldn't compile or link and go around asking them to look for the proper files and check them into RCS.  A 500,000 line port from VMS to Unix took 6 months with 3 people working on it, though another contractor and I did most of the work and I built the build system and version control for it.  That required locating and replacing all the VAX run time library calls.  It took me 3 days to write and test the scripts that did that.  I also wrote a scientific program that took over 1500 hours to write working alone and I did half the work on the weekends with a job in Houston, a house and dog in Dallas and an airplane ticket on Sunday and Thursday.  Oh, and the job in Houston was *another* large pile of old code.  I wore out the tee shirts a long time ago.  About the only thing that would scare me would be building X11 and Motif from source again.  That was my introduction to large scale software systems.  The serpent on the cover of the Imake book is very apt.

Again, tl;dr, but I'm hoping to head off the "let's design open source HW" which is pointless because of the production issues and the "it's so complex it's impossible" which presumes that scopes are designed by God and handed down on the mountain.

My biggest concern is how and where to organize information and resources without running afoul of copyright law, etc.

[netlend]

Hello friends. I have IDS-1054B, all licenses are suitable, except for the spectrum analyzer.
Tell me what I'm doing wrong.

[jemangedeslolos]

Hello,

I am looking for a scope to work at home without having to think about carrying around my oscilloscope from work.

At first glance, my choice would be the new Siglent SDS2104X Plus but I can get a very good price on a GW Instek GDS2104E.
nctnico seems to contaminating me a little at GW Instek scope.
What I like is the general responsiveness of the oscilloscope including the fast decoding of serial buses.
I feel from the videos I saw and the information I got (thanks to TK) that it is the fastest in its class.

I was wondering if there are hardware differences between the GDS-2000E and the MDO-2000EG/EX ( apart the DMM and AWG ).
Does it have the same spectrum analysis functions ?

Thank you very much 

[rhb]

You can hack in the spectrum analysis function.  It's actually quite useful.  You can also hack a GDS-2072E to 200 MHz and there is no difference in the performance.  I made a detailed comparison using one of Leo Bodnar's fast edge pulsers of my MSO-2204EA and a hacked GDS-2072E.

Main fault of the GDS-2000E series is 5% overshoot on a fast step because of an excessively fast filter skirt.  I just bought a Rigol DS1202Z-E because it has <1% overshoot and cost $300 new from Rigol.


I've not had good luck with bus decoding, but I was also not very persistent.

Have Fun!
Reg

[jemangedeslolos]

Thank you rhb but the GDS-2104E is a used one which I can get for approx 600 €.
There are no probes but seems in good condition.

[rhb]

If you only need to analyze buses with 4 lines or less it's probably a good choice.  My comment was with respect to the LA feature of the MSO-2204EA.

Instek has been responsive about fixing problems.  More so than Rigol was with my DS1102E.

FWIW I bought the GDS-2072E for $250 delivered new from Amazon.  I got wildly lucky and caught old stock being heavily discounted. 

Have Fun!
Reg