New Siglent SDS1202X-E oscilloscope based on Xilinx Zynq-7000 SoC architecture

[pascal_sweden]

How does the beta tester structure look like? Are these based in both Europe and the USA?

Which credentials need to be fulfilled to become an official beta tester?

[Fungus]

Surely you can still trigger using the CSS on the external trigger even though it doesn't explicitly say "CSS" on screen.

More interesting would be if it does I2C decode on the whole memory. Can you capture I2C data then scroll the START off screen horizontally without the decode freaking out

[tautech]

How does the beta tester structure look like? Are these based in both Europe and the USA?

Which credentials need to be fulfilled to become an official beta tester?

Only management will know who has X-E. There are beta testers worldwide.

Some EEVblog members are and have been beta testers for Siglent, but only those with demonstrated superior technical knowledge of the EE field. It is a very privileged position where secrecy is very important.
Users feedback is important too but without an existing relationship of trust and understanding users feedback need be detailed and clear so that engineers can simply replicate issues and seek remedies for the next firmware update.

[pascal_sweden]

Maybe Siglent should give a T-shirt to their official Beta testers!

Here is an example of how it could look like! See attachment.

[ebastler]

Maybe Siglent should give a T-shirt to their official Beta testers!

That would help a lot with the secrecy requirement tautech had mentioned...

[kcbrown]

Are you kidding? Look at the history of every product Siglent has released

Every product, eh?

What of the SDS1000X series?   What of the SDG2000 series?   What of the SDS2000X series?

and you'll see it takes at least two years to iron out the serious bugs.

Which serious bugs remain in the SDG2000 series?   Which serious bugs remain in the SDS1000X series?   Which serious bugs remain in the SDG1000X series?   None of those has even been on the market for more than 2 years.

Just look in the threads about Siglent power supplies, DMMs, signal generators or oscilloscopes and you can see for yourself. Maybe the SDS2000 is a low point in your mind but initially the SDG1000 series wasn't very useable with the original firmware (I ran the Lecroy firmware on mine for a long time) and it has a hardware issue as well,

Just how far back do you insist on going?   I'm certainly not going to disagree that Siglent was as you described, but you're ascribing that past trait to them now, when their trend over time seems to indicate a quite significant improvement.  And that's just as much of an injustice as would be me leveling the same criticism at GW Instek for the way they handled the GDS-2104: https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/opinions-on-gw-instek-scopes/msg1131212/#msg1131212 (we never did find out if the firmware they released last year, some 4+ years after the person involved experienced his issues, fixed those issues for him).

their new spectrum analyser had some issues with the tracking generator (current firmware sweeps much slower than before) and more recent someone found a serious problem in the UART decoding of the SDS1000X series scopes.

Sure.  And the same sort of thing seems to be true with respect to the new R&S offering.  Are you going to argue that R&S equipment should be avoided for the same reason that Siglent equipment should be avoided?

Bugs can't be fixed until they're identified.  The problem isn't about whether or not there will be some bugs upon any release, or even over time, the problem is with how responsive the company is with respect to addressing them.   Bugs that are more obscure and/or have a lower probability of being hit (for whatever reason, not the least of which is that the way people usually use the equipment is such that they don't configure the equipment so as to put it within the realm of the bug in the first place -- the Siglent UART decoding issue certainly seems to be one of those, seeing how it wasn't until recently that the problem was reported despite the fact that the scope has been on the market for over a year) are bugs that are likely to remain present for some time after the product's release.

It looks to me like Siglent has substantially improved its responsiveness.  But you seem to be living in the past with respect to how you view them.   I get that your experience with their equipment has been bad, and know how that can leave a sour taste in one's mouth.  But when it comes to advising others, what's needed first and foremost is objectivity, and that requires an honest assessment of the trends.

[pascal_sweden]

If you are a Beta tester for an unreleased scope model, you are bound to keep secrecy:
You can't reveal any details about an upcoming scope release and its technical specifications.

However, I don't believe it's an actual secret to know if you are a Beta tester or not.
Of course there could be an issue, if industry spies would find out and intercept your post packages

But why not introduce an official Beta tester statute to help testing products that are already released?
Then there is no secrecy about a new scope release or the technical specifications. And the community could help out in an official way to test out a new beta software version, using an official bug tracking system, such as JIRA, Bugzilla or ClearDDTS.

[snoopy]

Surely you can still trigger using the CSS on the external trigger even though it doesn't explicitly say "CSS" on screen.

More interesting would be if it does I2C decode on the whole memory. Can you capture I2C data then scroll the START off screen horizontally without the decode freaking out

This is next to useless for SPI decoding especially bit banged SPI where the packet length could be delayed somewhat. Perhaps this is why they have delayed release after they saw what Keysight did with the external trigger

cheers

[nctnico]

It looks to me like Siglent has substantially improved its responsiveness.

Sure there has been some improvement from Siglent but it depends greatly on how much focus there is on a product (look at their handheld scopes for example https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/siglent-technical-support-join-in-eevblog/msg1172051/#msg1172051). Siglent also keeps missing silly bugs that other manufacturers catch early by doing proper software testing. Anyway, financially it doesn't make sense to me to do a full functional test on every piece of equipment I buy. I'm better off paying a bit more (and/or buy a used A-brand) so I can trust a piece of equipment just works as specified.

[tszaboo]

...

Ok, so the logic analyzer probes connects to the back, or yet another manufacturer thinks, that it is OK to create a scope in 2017 without logic analyzer built in? Seriously, do they even make market research?  Or do they just assume, that everyone wants a 2 CH scope, with as much speed as possible, right? Nobody interested in 500uV/DIV, or logic analiser input, or advanced features, like they were on a  HP 54600 twenty years ago... We want big megahertzes, and jigasamples per second.

[pascal_sweden]

Good catch about the missing LA slot!

Weird placement of the USB connector and there is no indented section around the power button like there is in the SDS1000X series.

Actually the SDS1000X-E series does not use the same case as the SDS1000X series.
Maybe it will in the final production version?

Could this be a pre-production case?

[kcbrown]

Sure there has been some improvement from Siglent but it depends greatly on how much focus there is on a product

Yes, but here, "focus on a product" is directly related (though not solely related) to the sales of the product, which will in turn determine the probability that any given bug will be found.  Of course, the focus isn't determined solely by that.  I suspect the SDS2000X series did substantially better than the SDS2000 series in large part because of the beating Siglent took due to their handling of the latter.

Regardless, what we're talking about here isn't a product that is relegated to a small niche.  It's a new product targeting the largest market segment for its type of product.   So what reason do we have to believe that Siglent won't put a lot of focus on it?

(look at their handheld scopes for example https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/siglent-technical-support-join-in-eevblog/msg1172051/#msg1172051). Siglent also keeps missing silly bugs that other manufacturers catch early by doing proper software testing.

You mean other manufacturers such as R&S?

Anyway, financially it doesn't make sense to me to do a full functional test on every piece of equipment I buy. I'm better off paying a bit more (and/or buy a used A-brand) so I can trust a piece of equipment just works as specified.

Wait, you think that by buying a higher priced piece of equipment, that you'll be guaranteed it'll work as specified, and that it'll have no serious bugs?   Really?   Like, say, the R&S RTB2K series?

The new Keysight 1000X series looks pretty solid from what little I've seen written, but that shouldn't be surprising at all, seeing how (as far as I know, at any rate) it's essentially using the same architecture and everything as the 2000 and 3000 series scopes, so the firmware has almost certainly inherited the fixes that have been applied to those scopes.


Look, I don't disagree that the A-brand manufacturers will tend to put more effort into quality control in their new offerings than manufacturers such as Siglent, Rigol, and yes, even Instek.  But it's important to note that the A-brand manufacturers usually target higher-end markets.  Siglent, Rigol, and Instek have nothing that can touch the Keysight 6K series, and that's just Keysight's midrange.  It's only just now that Keysight is really getting into the hobbyist market.  R&S still hasn't entered it, really, and neither has Tektronix.  In that space, aside from Keysight, there's only Siglent, Rigol, and Instek, and even Instek's reputation isn't spotless here.

But not even the A-brand manufacturers' efforts at quality control guarantee what you seem to be after here (perfect functionality for everything you use the equipment for).  It only alters the odds.

In fact, the very scope you settled on had issues by your very own admission.  What's the difference between your experience with it versus your experience with Siglent?   Clearly, the main difference is the speed with which Instek fixed the issues you reported to them.   You came away impressed by that, and rightly so. 


The point here is simple: Siglent seems to have upped their game, particularly with respect to products in the market we're discussing here.  Maybe they haven't upped it to your level of satisfaction, but I'm not convinced you're giving them a fair assessment.   So again, maybe the new 1000X-E series will be riddled with bugs and maybe it won't be.  But the trend Siglent has been on with respect to fixing issues is such that it's no longer the foregone conclusion that you claim it to be.

[tautech]

Good catch about the missing LA slot!

Weird placement of the USB connector and there is no indented section around the power button like there is in the SDS1000X series.

Actually the SDS1000X-E series does not use the same case as the SDS1000X series.
Maybe it will in the final production version?

Could this be a pre-production case?

WYSIWYG

[rf-loop]

Good catch about the missing LA slot!

Weird placement of the USB connector and there is no indented section around the power button like there is in the SDS1000X series.

Actually the SDS1000X-E series does not use the same case as the SDS1000X series.
Maybe it will in the final production version?

Could this be a pre-production case?

SDS1202X-Economy  do not have internal HW for MSO feature and because this, also no need LA connector.
If need MSO, then select bigger X+ model with 16Ch LA (+ also 25MHz signal generator)

X-E case is different, smaller. Also less weight. X/X+ is 3.26kg and X-E  2.5kg.
width 312mm  and height 150mm. (X/X+ 340mm, 184mm)

X-E display is 7" and X/X+ 8" same 800x480 resolution.

As tautech told WYSIWYG.

[GeorgeOfTheJungle]

X-E display is 7" and X/X+ 8" same 800x480 resolution.

The X-E's display is smaller than the X's ? One inch smaller? Really? Are you sure? If so, that for me is a "thumbs down". Grrrr.

[rf-loop]

X-E display is 7" and X/X+ 8" same 800x480 resolution.

The X-E's display is smaller than the X's ? One inch smaller? Really? Are you sure? If so, that for me is a "thumbs down". Grrrr.

Yes. There is not free lounges. (Price)

[GeorgeOfTheJungle]

How does the beta tester structure look like? Are these based in both Europe and the USA?

Which credentials need to be fulfilled to become an official beta tester?

Only management will know who has X-E. There are beta testers worldwide.

The SDS1kX was a pleasure to work with, very responsive and the display clear and big. I would happily beta-test the X-E.

[thanasisk]

Good catch about the missing LA slot!

Weird placement of the USB connector and there is no indented section around the power button like there is in the SDS1000X series.

Actually the SDS1000X-E series does not use the same case as the SDS1000X series.
Maybe it will in the final production version?

Could this be a pre-production case?

SDS1202X-Economy  do not have internal HW for MSO feature and because this, also no need LA connector.
If need MSO, then select bigger X+ model with 16Ch LA (+ also 25MHz signal generator)

X-E case is different, smaller. Also less weight. X/X+ is 3.26kg and X-E  2.5kg.
width 312mm  and height 150mm. (X/X+ 340mm, 184mm)

X-E display is 7" and X/X+ 8" same 800x480 resolution.

As tautech told WYSIWYG.

Will the SDS1000X-E have a plus version as well? (including la and signal gen)?

[ebastler]

SDS1202X-Economy  do not have internal HW for MSO feature and because this, also no need LA connector.
If need MSO, then select bigger X+ model with 16Ch LA (+ also 25MHz signal generator)

As tautech told WYSIWYG.

Will the SDS1000X-E have a plus version as well? (including la and signal gen)?

What's so hard to understand about rf-loop's statement?

No, for the time being, Siglent wants you to buy the more expensive models if you need that extra functionality. It's called market segmentation. They might eventually follow up with an X-E plus version, if competitive pressure forces them to do so. But they will not tell you now, because -- as mentioned before -- they want you to buy the X+.

[pascal_sweden]

So the economy version can do hardware decoding and supports the full memory buffer.

While the higher-end models don't do hardware decoding and only decode what's shown on the screen.

Will Siglent update the software for those higher-end models to decode the full memory buffer?

[nctnico]

Sure there has been some improvement from Siglent but it depends greatly on how much focus there is on a product

Yes, but here, "focus on a product" is directly related (though not solely related) to the sales of the product, which will in turn determine the probability that any given bug will be found.  Of course, the focus isn't determined solely by that.  I suspect the SDS2000X series did substantially better than the SDS2000 series in large part because of the beating Siglent took due to their handling of the latter.

Sorry but your assumption users should find bugs makes my jaws drop to the floor. Ideally a product should not be shipped with bugs but that is ideally. However with good test procedures in place a piece of test equipment should not have the silly bugs Rigol and Siglent are famous for. That is the major difference between the low end brands and the more expensive brands.

Regarding the SDS2000(X): AFAIK: the high-resolution mode is still limited to 1.4kpts so pretty much useless. I use high-res/filtering often to remove noise in order to make the actual signal more clear but with only 1.4kpts to look at you can only see a short part of a signal. And there are more ass-backward things Siglent does like shortening the memory length automatically. I don't recall any other DSO doing something like that. Either use the full memory length or use the length the user has selected.

In fact, the very scope you settled on had issues by your very own admission.  What's the difference between your experience with it versus your experience with Siglent?   Clearly, the main difference is the speed with which Instek fixed the issues you reported to them.   You came away impressed by that, and rightly so. 

The difference is that:
1) the bugs I found in the GDS-2000E where rather obscure, there where only two and both got fixed within weeks
2) overall the GDS-2000E firmware is way more mature with many tiny details which make life easier.
I really dug deep into the GDS-2000E to hunt for bugs: https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/gw-instek-gds2204e-(200mhz-4-channel-dso)-review/

BTW: you asked about problems in the SDG1000(X) and SDG2000X signal generators. There is at least one: the log sweep doesn't work. Instead of sweeping the generator produces a series of frequency steps. Not nice when testing a notch filter.

Also when I use my SDG1010 I notice I don't trust it at all. It has been through so many firmware versions each with their own quirks that I'm totally lost on what works and what doesn't. When I need to test something quick I use my cheap Feeltech FY3200 generator and I'm thinking about getting a different/new signal generator from a higher end brand.

[JPortici]

SDS1202X-Economy  do not have internal HW for MSO feature and because this, also no need LA connector.
If need MSO, then select bigger X+ model with 16Ch LA (+ also 25MHz signal generator)

As tautech told WYSIWYG.

Will the SDS1000X-E have a plus version as well? (including la and signal gen)?

What's so hard to understand about rf-loop's statement?

No, for the time being, Siglent wants you to buy the more expensive models if you need that extra functionality. It's called market segmentation. They might eventually follow up with an X-E plus version, if competitive pressure forces them to do so. But they will not tell you now, because -- as mentioned before -- they want you to buy the X+.

but in this case it seems the older, more complete and more costly model is also worse in some areas... at least in the decode part (can decode at max 50 ms/div, at 1.4 MPts memory depth instead of the full 14Mpts and also with some limitations and bugs.. for exmaple, the max baud rate for uart is 115200, at the limit of usefulness.. and it seems it's having issues handling it)

Me? i have my mind set on the keysight dsox1000 for home scope replacement. seeing dave's video made me wonder if i would have changed my mind if there would have been a plus model too. Probably not though

Always wanting more.. and more.. and more..

[kcbrown]

Sure there has been some improvement from Siglent but it depends greatly on how much focus there is on a product

Yes, but here, "focus on a product" is directly related (though not solely related) to the sales of the product, which will in turn determine the probability that any given bug will be found.  Of course, the focus isn't determined solely by that.  I suspect the SDS2000X series did substantially better than the SDS2000 series in large part because of the beating Siglent took due to their handling of the latter.

Sorry but your assumption users should find bugs makes my jaws drop to the floor.

My "assumption", which is really just an observation of reality, is that users will find bugs that the vendor does not, and that the probability that a given bug will be found by a user is going to increase with the number of users who are using the product.  The probability that a bug will be found is the probability that the vendor will find the bug combined with the probability that a user will find the bug.  The former is probably close to a constant for a given vendor, which makes the latter the only variable in the equation.

Of course the vendor should be attempting to find bugs themselves.  But the reality is that they won't find them all, no matter how hard they try, and the harder they try, the more expensive the product will be and the longer the time to market.

Ideally a product should not be shipped with bugs but that is ideally. However with good test procedures in place a piece of test equipment should not have the silly bugs Rigol and Siglent are famous for. That is the major difference between the low end brands and the more expensive brands.

You mean silly bugs like persistence not working?

Regarding the SDS2000(X): AFAIK: the high-resolution mode is still limited to 1.4kpts so pretty much useless.

How do you know that's a bug and not a straight-up limitation of the architecture?   Admittedly, it's quite the limitation.  But the GDS2204E doesn't have high-resolution mode at all (unless something's changed since you produced your review), so how is the SDS2000X worse in that regard?

I use high-res/filtering often to remove noise in order to make the actual signal more clear but with only 1.4kpts to look at you can only see a short part of a signal. And there are more ass-backward things Siglent does like shortening the memory length automatically. I don't recall any other DSO doing something like that. Either use the full memory length or use the length the user has selected.

I thought the Siglent used the memory length the user selected and then set the acquisition rate based on the window of time shown on the display, since they're using the "what you see is all you get" approach to acquisition.   No?

The difference is that:
1) the bugs I found in the GDS-2000E where rather obscure, there where only two and both got fixed within weeks

What was "obscure" about persistence not working?   Admittedly, you didn't elaborate on what was wrong with it in your (quite nice) writeup.

2) overall the GDS-2000E firmware is way more mature with many tiny details which make life easier.
I really dug deep into the GDS-2000E to hunt for bugs: https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/gw-instek-gds2204e-(200mhz-4-channel-dso)-review/

Right, but the same can't be said of their prior GDS-2104 (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/opinions-on-gw-instek-scopes/msg1131212/#msg1131212), can it?

Instek has apparently improved quite a lot in that department.   I suspect much of that is because Instek re-used the code from the firmware in their prior models, so the bugfixes that went into those prior models also made it into their newer models, and it shows.

Why should we believe that Siglent will do anything different in that regard, particularly with the SDS1000X-E?

BTW: you asked about problems in the SDG1000(X) and SDG2000X signal generators. There is at least one: the log sweep doesn't work. Instead of sweeping the generator produces a series of frequency steps. Not nice when testing a notch filter.

It's not clear to me how that can be entirely avoided in a digital instrument like this, though there are certainly going to be ways to minimize the effect (e.g., for sweeps, keeping the interval between frequency changes very short, like 1ms or something, and performing the frequency step calculation on the fly).  I noticed that the steps are apparent at low frequencies but not so much at higher ones (I suspect it would be a lot more apparent with a proper and fast FFT, so your Instek scope would be excellent for showing it), as if it's computing a fixed-size series of frequencies to use with some sort of integer value as its basis, and it's just running the value through a log-based function to arrive at the desired frequency.    Yes, that won't work very well for testing a notch filter, though it looks to me like it may be generating a fixed number of frequencies to use, so at least it looks like you can increase the frequency resolution by narrowing the frequency range.

Do you see the same effect when using linear sweep?

This particular behavior smells like a design flaw to me more than a garden variety bug, but perhaps a rewrite of the log sweep engine could take care of it.


Why in the world didn't you stick with the LeCroy firmware?   It's LeCroy.  Surely it doesn't have any glaring faults like this, since it's from an A-brand manufacturer ... right?

Also when I use my SDG1010 I notice I don't trust it at all. It has been through so many firmware versions each with their own quirks that I'm totally lost on what works and what doesn't. When I need to test something quick I use my cheap Feeltech FY3200 generator and I'm thinking about getting a different/new signal generator from a higher end brand.

You definitely should get a different waveform generator in that case.  You have to be able to trust your equipment.  That trust ultimately has to come from experience, but as you say (and I agree), the A-brands are going to at least start from a better point.  Looks like Instek has a decent range of waveform generators.  Given your positive experience with them, I don't think I'd hesitate to go for one of their units as long as the specs meet your requirements.   Something "equivalent" from Keysight will cost you at least 1.5x what the Instek units would, from what I'm seeing.

While I think you overstate things with respect to Siglent's newer offerings ("riddled with bugs"), I do think there's a kernel of truth in what you say: the upper-tier brands will generally (not always, but then, there's exceptions to everything) do better in terms of releasing stable and functional products.   You do pay quite a lot more for it, though.  There ain't no such thing as a free lunch.   There's a reason the "B-brand" manufacturers are able to hit substantially lower pricepoints.  Good QC is expensive.  If brands like Siglent were to adopt the QC methods of the "A-brand" manufacturers, how exactly would you expect them to hit their current price targets?   "B-brand" manufacturers can do things to minimize both development costs and QC costs like reusing firmware from previous models, and I fully expect that's what Siglent is doing here (which is why I'm skeptical of the claim that the 1000X-E will be "riddled with bugs"), but that's very different from adopting the QC methods in use by the "A-brand" manufacturers.

[nctnico]

The difference is that:
1) the bugs I found in the GDS-2000E where rather obscure, there where only two and both got fixed within weeks

What was "obscure" about persistence not working?   Admittedly, you didn't elaborate on what was wrong with it in your (quite nice) writeup.

It was quite hard to spot but IIRC there was no difference between selecting 16ms and 500ms or something like that.

Right, but the same can't be said of their prior GDS-2104 (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/opinions-on-gw-instek-scopes/msg1131212/#msg1131212), can it?

After reading the thread again IMHO it is a bit of a grey area on where to put the blame. Appearantly there was new firmware available for this (now obsolete) scope but the owners never looked/asked for a new version. I can't believe a new firmware version is released just before a piece of equipment is taken out of production so it must have been available for a longer period. Unfortunately GW Instek is a bit daft when it comes to publishing firmware on their website. They rather send it when people ask for it (see the obsolete GW Instek DMMs currently on sale on Ebay).

BTW: you asked about problems in the SDG1000(X) and SDG2000X signal generators. There is at least one: the log sweep doesn't work. Instead of sweeping the generator produces a series of frequency steps. Not nice when testing a notch filter.

It's not clear to me how that can be entirely avoided in a digital instrument like this, though there are certainly going to be ways to minimize the effect (e.g., for sweeps, keeping the interval between frequency changes very short, like 1ms or something, and performing the frequency step calculation
....
sort of integer value as its basis, and it's just running the value through a log-based function to arrive at the desired frequency.    Yes, that won't work very well for testing a notch filter, though it looks to me like it may be generating a fixed number of frequencies to use, so at least it looks like you can increase the frequency resolution by narrowing the frequency range.

Do you see the same effect when using linear sweep?

This particular behavior smells like a design flaw to me more than a garden variety bug, but perhaps a rewrite of the log sweep engine could take care of it.

Bug or design flaw doesn't matter: it doesn't work. I agree it could be interesting to look at the log sweep output with a spectrum analyser or FFT but what is the purpose? Linear sweep works fine BTW.

If brands like Siglent were to adopt the QC methods of the "A-brand" manufacturers, how exactly would you expect them to hit their current price targets?   "B-brand" manufacturers can do things to minimize both development costs and QC costs like reusing firmware from previous models, and I fully expect that's what Siglent is doing here (which is why I'm skeptical of the claim that the 1000X-E will be "riddled with bugs"), but that's very different from adopting the QC methods in use by the "A-brand" manufacturers.

Chinese brands can deploy cheap labour for testing and programming. That is where they get their advantage from when it comes to price. Doing a full functional test is a really simple job that doesn't take much education so doesn't need to cost much. The root cause however is not saving money but incompetence when it comes to managing software development. I have some experience with Chinese software developers myself and it made me want to cry. Every concept of creating quality software and testing was completely alien to them and their bugs reminded me of the ones Siglent and Rigol show. The good Chinese software developers all seem to work in the US and Europe.

[kcbrown]

The difference is that:
1) the bugs I found in the GDS-2000E where rather obscure, there where only two and both got fixed within weeks

What was "obscure" about persistence not working?   Admittedly, you didn't elaborate on what was wrong with it in your (quite nice) writeup.

It was quite hard to spot but IIRC there was no difference between selecting 16ms and 500ms or something like that.

Oh, interesting.  Please alter your writeup and put that in it.  That kind of thing is useful to demonstrate that the bug in the feature in question isn't a fundamental one.

Right, but the same can't be said of their prior GDS-2104 (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/opinions-on-gw-instek-scopes/msg1131212/#msg1131212), can it?

After reading the thread again IMHO it is a bit of a grey area on where to put the blame.

How so?  The user who had the problem said that they'd been waiting for Instek to fix the problems for years and finally just gave up on it.

Appearantly there was new firmware available for this (now obsolete) scope but the owners never looked/asked for a new version. I can't believe a new firmware version is released just before a piece of equipment is taken out of production so it must have been available for a longer period.

True, but we can't know how much time transpired between when the user in question bought his scope and the point in time that Instek finally released an updated version.   That user had been checking for updates for some time, apparently, without any success.

You might want to have a look at their firmware page for that scope.  They released another version 2 weeks ago.   That's very good support considering it's a discontinued product, but it raises the possibility (remote though it might be) that it wasn't until they discontinued the product that they started issuing new releases for that particular product.   Indeed, it might be that they're releasing new versions of the firmware for that scope because they're fixing bugs in their current products, and those fixes are being backmerged into the old product's firmware.   If they're doing that, then it really is excellent product support, because they certainly don't have to do that at all.

Their firmware releases don't seem to include a changelog, however, something that even Rigol manages to include, so Instek still has some improving to do here.


In any case, the point here is that Instek apparently has not always been the responsive company your experiences indicate it to be.  They've improved.   If they can improve, what says Siglent can't and, more importantly, what says they haven't?

Unfortunately GW Instek is a bit daft when it comes to publishing firmware on their website. They rather send it when people ask for it (see the obsolete GW Instek DMMs currently on sale on Ebay).

That is odd.  But perhaps they're improving on that front as well.   Here's hoping, anyway ...

This particular behavior smells like a design flaw to me more than a garden variety bug, but perhaps a rewrite of the log sweep engine could take care of it.

Bug or design flaw doesn't matter: it doesn't work.

Wait.   What exactly do you mean by it doesn't work here?   It performs a "sweep", but it's not "smooth" at lower frequencies when there's more than 2 orders of magnitude between the lowest frequency and the highest one.   Any smoothness that one perceives is likely to be perception only -- chances are it's stepping through a set of frequencies regardless, and I'd wager it's doing that even in linear sweep mode.

What exactly are your expectations here?  That the frequency sweep be truly continuous?



It would be really interesting to characterize the log sweep of an A-brand AWG like the one from Keysight.

I agree it could be interesting to look at the log sweep output with a spectrum analyser or FFT but what is the purpose?

The purpose would be to better characterize the bug.  That kind of thing can help the development team track down the root cause quite a lot.  In this case, because the issue is reproducible at will, it probably doesn't matter a whole lot.

Linear sweep works fine BTW.

Interesting.  But in light of the above, are you sure?

What's the advantage, for testing, of using log sweep versus linear sweep?

Chinese brands can deploy cheap labour for testing and programming. That is where they get their advantage from when it comes to price. Doing a full functional test is a really simple job that doesn't take much education so doesn't need to cost much.

So can the traditional manufacturers.  If it were just about that, then I'd expect the traditional manufacturers to already be doing this in order to (substantially) reduce their costs.

The root cause however is not saving money but incompetence when it comes to managing software development. I have some experience with Chinese software developers myself and it made me want to cry. Every concept of creating quality software and testing was completely alien to them and their bugs reminded me of the ones Siglent and Rigol show. The good Chinese software developers all seem to work in the US and Europe.

I certainly can't dispute that.   But if that's truly the case, then explain GW Instek.   Their developers aren't in the U.S. or Europe, are they?

And in any case, we saw a similar pattern with hardware.   The Chinese initially had a reputation for producing junk hardware.  Today, they're perfectly capable of producing hardware of quite good quality.   And we've seen improvements on the software front as well.   Like it or not, the initial incident rate of bugs seems to be lower now than it was before, and the speed with which bugs are fixed seems to have improved as well.

The Chinese seem to be learning, just like the Japanese before them (the Japanese seem to have a culture of meticulousness that the Chinese lack, however, so the Chinese might not improve as fast as the Japanese did).