i don't see protocol decoding there?It's there, I checked but didn't copy it in.so... which protocols? protocol triggering?
Funny, they have 2065 Rigol 1054Z in stock, they sell a lot.That's an insane amount of stock!
ah! just say you can't tell yet, that's a rather poor answer :-/
That about sums up the specs of the GW Instek GDS2000E series which you can buy today so why wait a few months (and probably a few years to fix the bugs)?Waveform capture rate of 100,000 frames per second (normal mode); 400,000 frames per second (Sequence mode)The waveform capture is the least important because it is only achieved in dot mode (nobody uses that) as very specific time/div settings. Don't fall for the hype because waveforms/seconds is like the power rating of the (combustion) engine in a car: it is only achieved in a limited RPM range.
ah! just say you can't tell yet, that's a rather poor answer :-/OK, so you made me download and translate the datasheet, so here's the gen:
Serial bus triggering and decoding, supported protocols IIC, SPI, UART / RS232, CAN, LIN
That about sums up the specs of the GW Instek GDS2000E series which you can buy today so why wait a few months (and probably a few years to fix the bugs)?Waveform capture rate of 100,000 frames per second (normal mode); 400,000 frames per second (Sequence mode)The waveform capture is the least important because it is only achieved in dot mode (nobody uses that) as very specific time/div settings. Don't fall for the hype because waveforms/seconds is like the power rating of the (combustion) engine in a car: it is only achieved in a limited RPM range.You know better than that, Oh that's right dot mode is problematic with a small memory depth DSO.
ah! just say you can't tell yet, that's a rather poor answer :-/OK, so you made me download and translate the datasheet, so here's the gen:
Serial bus triggering and decoding, supported protocols IIC, SPI, UART / RS232, CAN, LINperfect it's one i could consider then
Dont http://www.tequipment.net has EU warehouse ?, to bad.
Funny, they have 2065 Rigol 1054Z in stock, they sell a lot.
That's an insane amount of stock!
Dont http://www.tequipment.net has EU warehouse ?, to bad.
Funny, they have 2065 Rigol 1054Z in stock, they sell a lot.
That's an insane amount of stock!
Five are gone since yesterday (down to 2060). It might be fun to follow along and see how long it takes to clear the inventory.
I posted on an old thread a short track I did of their sales. Love or hate it, it sells like no other, I've seen it drop once over 100 day. As of this post the count is 2017 from 2065.
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/rigol-reliability/msg945055/#msg945055Dont http://www.tequipment.net has EU warehouse ?, to bad.
Funny, they have 2065 Rigol 1054Z in stock, they sell a lot.
That's an insane amount of stock!
Five are gone since yesterday (down to 2060). It might be fun to follow along and see how long it takes to clear the inventory.
Dont http://www.tequipment.net has EU warehouse ?, to bad.
Funny, they have 2065 Rigol 1054Z in stock, they sell a lot.
That's an insane amount of stock!
i don't see protocol decoding there?It's there, I checked but didn't copy it in.
i don't see protocol decoding there?It's there, I checked but didn't copy it in.As standard or option ?
Considering that pretty much everything these days has at least one of UART, I2C or SPI, it's ridiculous that this isn't now standard on all new scopes.
I think now could be the perfect time to wait. It looks to me that all this bandwidth crippling business is steadily going away (for the economy part of the market). It is ridiculous that the price of the DSOs is determined by bandwidth because the most expensive characteristic for production is not the analog bandwidth, but the sample rate. Pricing by bandwidth is just a remnant from the past and a method to get more money from the customer. But it might be coming to the end.
I think now could be the perfect time to wait. It looks to me that all this bandwidth crippling business is steadily going away (for the economy part of the market). It is ridiculous that the price of the DSOs is determined by bandwidth because the most expensive characteristic for production is not the analog bandwidth, but the sample rate. Pricing by bandwidth is just a remnant from the past and a method to get more money from the customer. But it might be coming to the end.
Look, for example, at GW Instek GDS-2204E. Many people choose it over Siglent SDS2104X which costs the same, but is only 100 MHz scope while Instek is 200 MHz. However, Siglent is much more of a scope, its sample rate is twice that of Instek and it is actually 300 MHz scope if un-crippled. So, Siglent spent more money to build a better scope, but Instek still comes as a winner - because Instek didn't cripple the bandwidth. If Siglent un-crippled their scopes to 200, or even 300 MHz, Instek wouldn't be able compete.
I think now could be the perfect time to wait. It looks to me that all this bandwidth crippling business is steadily going away (for the economy part of the market). It is ridiculous that the price of the DSOs is determined by bandwidth because the most expensive characteristic for production is not the analog bandwidth, but the sample rate. Pricing by bandwidth is just a remnant from the past and a method to get more money from the customer. But it might be coming to the end.
Look, for example, at GW Instek GDS-2204E. Many people choose it over Siglent SDS2104X which costs the same, but is only 100 MHz scope while Instek is 200 MHz. However, Siglent is much more of a scope, its sample rate is twice that of Instek and it is actually 300 MHz scope if un-crippled. So, Siglent spent more money to build a better scope, but Instek still comes as a winner - because Instek didn't cripple the bandwidth. If Siglent un-crippled their scopes to 200, or even 300 MHz, Instek wouldn't be able compete.So you don't consider that the SDS2000X 2 or 4 ch models having more than 3x the memory depth and more wfm/s than the GDS-2204E as worth anything ?
I think now could be the perfect time to wait. It looks to me that all this bandwidth crippling business is steadily going away (for the economy part of the market). It is ridiculous that the price of the DSOs is determined by bandwidth because the most expensive characteristic for production is not the analog bandwidth, but the sample rate. Pricing by bandwidth is just a remnant from the past and a method to get more money from the customer. But it might be coming to the end.
Look, for example, at GW Instek GDS-2204E. Many people choose it over Siglent SDS2104X which costs the same, but is only 100 MHz scope while Instek is 200 MHz. However, Siglent is much more of a scope, its sample rate is twice that of Instek and it is actually 300 MHz scope if un-crippled. So, Siglent spent more money to build a better scope, but Instek still comes as a winner - because Instek didn't cripple the bandwidth. If Siglent un-crippled their scopes to 200, or even 300 MHz, Instek wouldn't be able compete.
We already see bandwidth upgrade promotions here and there. So, sooner or later, the bandwidth crippling will stop, and then market will become more fair and it will be possible to buy more bandwidth for the same money. May be it's worth waiting.
Once you start looking for a scope with a bandwidth over 500MHz price increases dramatically which is why I settled on an old Tektronix TDS scope from the 90's for any of my high bandwidth requirements. Unfortunately it's still hard to mass produce hi-end scopes with bandwidths in excess of 1GHz. At these frequencies you need to consider active probes which can cost megabucks and are a specialized device.
I think now could be the perfect time to wait. It looks to me that all this bandwidth crippling business is steadily going away (for the economy part of the market). It is ridiculous that the price of the DSOs is determined by bandwidth because the most expensive characteristic for production is not the analog bandwidth, but the sample rate. Pricing by bandwidth is just a remnant from the past and a method to get more money from the customer. But it might be coming to the end.
Look, for example, at GW Instek GDS-2204E. Many people choose it over Siglent SDS2104X which costs the same, but is only 100 MHz scope while Instek is 200 MHz. However, Siglent is much more of a scope, its sample rate is twice that of Instek and it is actually 300 MHz scope if un-crippled. So, Siglent spent more money to build a better scope, but Instek still comes as a winner - because Instek didn't cripple the bandwidth. If Siglent un-crippled their scopes to 200, or even 300 MHz, Instek wouldn't be able compete.So you don't consider that the SDS2000X 2 or 4 ch models having more than 3x the memory depth and more wfm/s than the GDS-2204E as worth anything ?Nope, because they don't work (Eres and decoding don't even use the full memory depth for example). Besides that GW Instek is lightyears ahead of Siglent when it comes to implementing 'little things' which make life easier like input lowpass/bandpass/highpass filtering, math expressions, internal storage, dedicated key for 10x probe setting, storing images/data to a server over LAN, plain SCPI over LAN (LXI?) instead of the obfustigated VXI-11 protocol, optional split screen FFT, force trigger button, autoset undo, etc, etc. An oscilloscope is not only about the specs on the datasheet but also about how easy it is to use and what kind of features it has. I think you will do well if you also sell GW Instek scopes to your customers because you'll cover a lot more ground that way.
I think now could be the perfect time to wait. It looks to me that all this bandwidth crippling business is steadily going away (for the economy part of the market). It is ridiculous that the price of the DSOs is determined by bandwidth because the most expensive characteristic for production is not the analog bandwidth, but the sample rate. Pricing by bandwidth is just a remnant from the past and a method to get more money from the customer. But it might be coming to the end.
Look, for example, at GW Instek GDS-2204E. Many people choose it over Siglent SDS2104X which costs the same, but is only 100 MHz scope while Instek is 200 MHz. However, Siglent is much more of a scope, its sample rate is twice that of Instek and it is actually 300 MHz scope if un-crippled. So, Siglent spent more money to build a better scope, but Instek still comes as a winner - because Instek didn't cripple the bandwidth. If Siglent un-crippled their scopes to 200, or even 300 MHz, Instek wouldn't be able compete.So you don't consider that the SDS2000X 2 or 4 ch models having more than 3x the memory depth and more wfm/s than the GDS-2204E as worth anything ?Nope, because they don't work (Eres and decoding don't even use the full memory depth for example). Besides that GW Instek is lightyears ahead of Siglent when it comes to implementing 'little things' which make life easier like input lowpass/bandpass/highpass filtering, math expressions, internal storage, dedicated key for 10x probe setting, storing images/data to a server over LAN, plain SCPI over LAN (LXI?) instead of the obfustigated VXI-11 protocol, optional split screen FFT, force trigger button, autoset undo, etc, etc. An oscilloscope is not only about the specs on the datasheet but also about how easy it is to use and what kind of features it has. I think you will do well if you also sell GW Instek scopes to your customers because you'll cover a lot more ground that way.
So you don't consider that the SDS2000X 2 or 4 ch models having more than 3x the memory depth and more wfm/s than the GDS-2204E as worth anything ?