I don't believe the 80,000 on the mask test. It's probably a typo.
I don't believe the 80,000 on the mask test. It's probably a typo.SDS2000X Plus ?
It is high compared to some other models but matches the SDS7000A spec.
I don't believe the 80,000 on the mask test. It's probably a typo.SDS2000X Plus ?
It is high compared to some other models but matches the SDS7000A spec.
I don't believe the 80,000 on the mask test. It's probably a typo.SDS2000X Plus ?
It is high compared to some other models but matches the SDS7000A spec.
No, 80,000 is what the docs say for the SDS800XHD. I find it hard to believe that a hardware accelerated function would be highest in the lowest model. That's not how hardware planning usually works. I also assume it was supposed to say 8,000.
SDS8204X HD measured Mask test max (average) is around 82400 test/s
SDS8204X HD measured Mask test max (average) is around 82400 test/s
SDS824X HD
(Measured Fail pulses from Pass/Fail output BNC frequency with HP53131A using 1s gate. Up to max Peak speed is 89000 tests/s, measured (pass/fail pulses interval) using SDS3000X HD
SDS800X HD and SDS1000X HD
Mask test speed Up to 80,000 frames/s
SDS2000X HD
Mask test speed Up to 14,000 frames/s
SDS3000X HD
Mask test speed Up to 28,000 frames/s
(Measured Fail pulses from Pass/Fail output BNC frequency with HP53131A using 1s gate. Up to max Peak speed is 89000 tests/s, measured (pass/fail pulses interval) using SDS3000X HD
So you're saying the typo is the higher models instead of the 800 series?SDS800X HD and SDS1000X HD
Mask test speed Up to 80,000 frames/s
SDS2000X HD
Mask test speed Up to 14,000 frames/s
SDS3000X HD
Mask test speed Up to 28,000 frames/s
Kindly, Please, don't put words in my mouth that I haven't said. I think the straw puppet theater belongs somewhere else - or not any - in my opinion, it is not suitable for anything.
SDS3000X HD max speed is stated as up to 28000/s and it is true least at current FW 1.0.3.3.
I also wonder where from come suspect or claim that it is not true.
Later when/if I have idle free time to take SDS2kXHD on board (if need) I can also check it.
With this test I measured ~28300 fail pulses/s from Aux BNC when test was continuously running as in image below.
Still though, it's crazy to me that a hardware based feature would have the best performance in the worst model.
Hi,QuoteStill though, it's crazy to me that a hardware based feature would have the best performance in the worst model.
According to the datasheets:
SDS2000Xplus, SDS800X HD, SDS1000X HD, SDS7000A: 80.000
SDS3000X HD: 28.000
SDS5000Xplus, SDS6000A: 18.000
SDS2000X HD: 14.000
So the 2000X HD is the best model of all.
However, I had never used the mask test to be able to judge whether the rate is really important in "real life" or only for data sheet fans.
It was humor. Truth be told, it probably doesn't matter for most people whether it's 10k or 100k per second on a mask test; it's just the idea that they made more expensive models with a lower spec that I can't reconcile in my head.
and yes this feature spec is not a big deal
just trying to understand the “why” and if there is any notable implication for the product (especially with respect to the support road map) beyond this one feature spec
it would be nice if someone from Siglent could explain it
I think you are overestimating the insights that the (basically three?) siglent beta testers have.
Even if they or some or at least one of them had this insight, it would be unwise to publicize it.
For most end users, this is also not interesting in the sense of what benefit they get from the knowledge apart from satisfying their curiosity.
Even if, as a technician, I naturally always want to know how something works together, I am basically only interested in one thing in this question.
Does it make a difference or not?
Maybe the (older?) 2000X HD has some different (FPGA?) resources that encouraged the designers at the time to be more conservative in how they managed/allocated the resources, and at the time the mask "budget" only got what it got? How much similarity/difference is there between the 2000X HD and the 800/1000/3000X HD?
Which leads to the question of whether the 2000X HD is on some different firmware dev branch than the 800/1000/3000 X HD?
Maybe rf-loop, 2N3055, Performa01, TopQuark, mawyatt, tv84, tautech, et al / others can give us an overview of the the similarities and differences of the underlying architectures of these scopes, and some thoughts on how the hardware similarities/differences might impact future firmware development, upgrade rollout, and product support across the models?
It seems (I could be wrong about this) that the new/newer/enhanced user memory management capability didn’t make it into the 2000X Plus but did make it into the 2000X HD.