EF, nice post and it does seem unusual the Mask test rate is so low in the datasheet (just checked) compared with other models.
However there is probably a partial workaround for the more simple waveforms in that SDS2000X HD provides for 2 user definable Zone triggers where when strategically placed and a Not Intersect property selected, using this instead of Mask could maintain a higher framerate.
Not tested and none in stock but others might contribute/clarify.
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.
Maybe it was supposed to be 8,000? Just a guess.
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.
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 SDS824X HD measured Mask test max (average) is around 82400 test/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
There need note that acquisition works in burst mode. In this particular case 1 burst period was 34.7ms including around 2.6ms pause)
Signal in to Ch1 10MHz and Mask test so that test fail in every acquisition.
50ns/div, display dots
SDS8204X HD measured Mask test max (average) is around 82400 test/s
SDS824X HD
voltsandjolts thanks for the model correction
rf-loop thanks for the testing
Any ideas on why the 824X HD has such strong peformance vs the the 2000X HD and 3000X 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
(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.
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.
My bad (even though it was posed as a question). 😉
Still though, it's crazy to me that a hardware based feature would have the best performance in the worst model. Hopefully it's a temporary firmware limitation, but even that is odd since at least the 2KXHD model has had plenty of time to mature.
Hi,
Still 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.
Hi,
Still 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.
This is still kinda confusing.
Not sure why these specs indicate the 2000X is ”the best model of all” (maybe it’s just humor?).
More importantly, while any one feature spec is just one feature spec - which may or may not be of interest to some users - this feature spec indicates that (unless it’s a documentation error) something is different about the architecture of the 2000X HD vs the product family siblings. Maybe hardware or firmware or support or some other aspect of product development?
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.
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.
roger on the humor
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
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
Same, I'd like to know why. I can make some guesses, but there's no point in guessing. I don't think there's any real concern for the support roadmap for any of these for at least a few years.
Hi,
I would also be interested to know why this is the case.
That it is probably not a big showstopper, this thought came to me when I found the specification in the data sheet of the SDS6000A, after all the "most powerful" SoC oscilloscope.
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? Just pure speculation. 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?
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?
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?
Might depend on how curious someone is or what they find interesting.
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?
Their functionality and UI can be traced back to SDS5000X, which IIRC was the first to use the current UI or maybe discontinued SDS2000X ?
Which leads to the question of whether the 2000X HD is on some different firmware dev branch than the 800/1000/3000 X HD?
SDS2000X HD was Siglents first 12bit model and as such much served as a development platform in some ways however initially they were priced beyond the reach of the average advanced hobbyist and SDS2000X Plus was the cheaper and more favored model.
However now all latest Siglent DSO's essentially share the same UI, improvements and bug fixes are in time rolled out to all models.
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?
Typically all models use a dual ADC architecture, each with dual memory support but how they each might be configured can initiate confusion as they each have been configured in a way to meet their feature/price point vs marketplace competitors.
At this stage the only model that seems different is SDS7000A as Siglent have developed their own next level acquisition HW to properly compete with other brands that offer 2-8 GHz DSO's.