-
EEVblog 1612 - Siglent SDS1000X HD 12 bit Oscilloscope Teardown
Posted by EEVblog on 27 Apr, 2024 00:53 -
Siglent SDS1000X HD 12 bit Oscilloscope Teardown and brief play, noise measurement, and comparison to the SDS2000X HD
SDS2000X HD Teardown: -
There seems to be another plastic film on the surface of the screen (?). Apparently a residue left on the surface of the screen during installation, and then the film marked with a red ribbon was put on top. Please check it. Surface need look same half matte as SDS800. Least I have not seen this glossy surface in SDS1000XHD what can see in your video.
-
There seems to be another plastic film on the surface of the screen (?). Apparently a residue left on the surface of the screen during installation, and then the film marked with a red ribbon was put on top. Please check it. Surface need look same half matte as SDS800. Least I have not seen this glossy surface in SDS1000XHD what can see in your video.
Yes they have a screen protector. Mine had so many bubbles that i was forced to remove it from beginning. Anyway a bench scope shouldn't need a screen protector. His matte screen is pretty comfortable for the eyes. -
Very short introduction, hopefully there will be more to come.
The housing and the very good workmanship also seem to be the same as the 2000X HD.
The front-end comparison is interesting in the sense that the 1000 can be adjusted manually using the trimmer Cs and the poti - whereas this is completely missing on the 2000.
Is that what the “FE Tweak Wizard” in the menu of the 2000X HD is for?
In any case, this seems to be something unique to the 2000X HD.
The 1000X HD doesn't have it, the 800X HD doesn't have it - and neither does the 3000X HD, just checked.
-
Dave, show us the PLL and the crystal oscillator manufacturer in more detail.
Is the PLL's phase noise performance sufficient for 12 bits and an input frequency of 200 MHz? -
Hi Dave, my 1204X-HD has microphonic inputs.
-
There seems to be another plastic film on the surface of the screen (?). Apparently a residue left on the surface of the screen during installation, and then the film marked with a red ribbon was put on top. Please check it. Surface need look same half matte as SDS800. Least I have not seen this glossy surface in SDS1000XHD what can see in your video.
Wow, you are right. less reflective now with it removed. I've never seen two films like that before. -
Hi Dave, my 1204X-HD has microphonic inputs.
Wow. Why the difference? -
-
While going frame by frame, you can see that the 2354 updates on each frame, while the 1024 usually displays a single waveform for 2 frames.
-
While going frame by frame, you can see that the 2354 updates on each frame, while the 1024 usually displays a single waveform for 2 frames.
That's interesting. And we know that the SDS800X HD have crippled resolution of the displayed (but not captured/stored) waveform. I wonder if the 1000X HD does the same. And if the 800X HD has that frame rate reduction too.
That would mean they have some unfortunate bottleneck in the screen image rendering path. -
Perhaps they forgot to mount the capacitors in your unit.Hi Dave, my 1204X-HD has microphonic inputs.
Wow. Why the difference?
Let them know and they'll happily ship you a couple that you can solder in place...
-
Perhaps they forgot to mount the capacitors in your unit.Hi Dave, my 1204X-HD has microphonic inputs.
Wow. Why the difference?
Let them know and they'll happily ship you a couple that you can solder in place...
It is because Dave used 50Ω termination....
It is amazing how easier is to just speak smack instead of looking into facts...
-
It is because Dave used 50Ω termination....
You are right, i tested it with 50 Ohms, then it's gone. Good call!
-
That would mean they have some unfortunate bottleneck in the screen image rendering path.
Cost cutting, the Zynq in the 1000HD does “everything” while the 2000HD has 3 or 4 chips with FPGA fabric including one which is a dedicated display chip.. and an (older) Zynq.
Some subtle differences in functionality, 1000HD has hardware mask testing, 2000HD has hardware mask, averaging, and ERES.
I noticed the slow screen updates in the side by side right away, that kind of thing bothers me more than it should. Love a fast UI.
-
Display update rate does not correlate to waveform update rate.
The older and more expensive SDS2354X HD has a higher display update rate than the SDS1204X HD.
In theory, one might assume that the "optimal" display update rate would be the actual physical display update rate (typically 60Hz, or 16.7ms intervals), but UX specialists may disagree; with something around 25fps considered a good balance (between visual and data bandwidth needed).
To my eyes, the SDS1204X HD definitely looks less than 20 display updates per second, because every second or third frame of the 25fps video shows the same waveform. The numeric display updates only occur at about 8fps or so, because they stay unchanged for about three consecutive 25fps frames.
In comparison, every frame on the SDS2354X HD at 25fps shows a different waveform. Thus, there is definitely a display update rate difference between the two.
We'd need a higher framerate video of the two, side-by-side, to evaluate/estimate the actual frame rates. For accurate numbers, something like 120fps - 180fps video would be needed, although colors and resolution would not matter as long as the waveform display updates are detectable. -
An example is with Rigol 5K which does not have the fastest UI, but is capable to reach its maximum waveform update rate (over 500K)
Display update rate does not correlate to waveform update rate.
From my experience with Siglent SDS1204X-HD it can show faster update screen rate sometimes but is easily slow down by the measurements or other functions that run in the same time.
