What features should that be that Siglent needs to add in your opinion, considering that Peak Detect and HiRes acquisition modes are apparently already offered in the SDS2kX+?As I wrote before; two simple things: User selectable memory length settings and full memory decoding.
Reading this thread suggests that both is already implemented.
Lots of buzz words right there, but funny enough it appears that the most loved (for its easy and quick operation) scope Keysight DSO-X lacks at least the first one (user selectable memory), but still manages to be the most widely sold bench scope Series in its class (the DSOX3k is as abundant as Athlete's Foot).
As to "Some of the engineers I have spoken to agree that Lecroy has some unique analysis features but if the competition would provide something similar they'd swap the Lecroy scopes in a heartbeat", you left out the part where I asked for the reason of why they would swap LeCroy scopes (which ones btw) "in a heartbeat", and I'd really like to hear why this is.
QuoteAnd you also forgot one major player in the scientific market: National Instruments. They have a very solid combination with their hardware and software.Since when does NI make bench scopes?
QuoteWavepro 7300AQuoteLooks like you bought the wrong scope for your needs.No, I didn't. I bought it for high frequency and low trigger jitter measurements. I couldn't resist for $400 and after shipping ($350), fixing and fan upgrades I have around 850 euro in it. It was a deal I could not let pass by me.
Understandable, but being a good deal doesn't change what type of scope this is, nor should it have surprised you that it's not a good general purpose scope.
...zoom mode as a work-around but that eats away a large part of the vertical space and it needs more tweaking controls & knobs from the user.
(personally I do not at all understand this popularity and copycatting this TFT size fashion. These are test and measurements tools not entertainment displays fo movies etc. 4:3 form factor is much better and perhaps for Siglent even so that long side is vertical. Why need follow others.
Could you add how many points were sampled, at which sample rate, for each of the timebase settings?
EDIT: also, would be interesting if the trigger setup has an influence on the update rate, too. Edge trigger is easy, but how about runts or other, more complex setups?
Lots of buzz words right there, but funny enough it appears that the most loved (for its easy and quick operation) scope Keysight DSO-X lacks at least the first one (user selectable memory), but still manages to be the most widely sold bench scope Series in its class (the DSOX3k is as abundant as Athlete's Foot).That is because Keysight uses full memory always but still manages to get high waveform update rates through a clever parallel acquisition system.
QuoteAs to "Some of the engineers I have spoken to agree that Lecroy has some unique analysis features but if the competition would provide something similar they'd swap the Lecroy scopes in a heartbeat", you left out the part where I asked for the reason of why they would swap LeCroy scopes (which ones btw) "in a heartbeat", and I'd really like to hear why this is.That didn't come up in the conversation and I didn't ask because that would have diverged from the main topic of the conversation too much. I wasn't there to discuss test equipment.
QuoteSince when does NI make bench scopes?They kind of do if you buy the modules to build a self contained system.
It didn't surprise me. I just noted that having an abundance of complex analysis features doesn't make for a good bench scope so Siglent shouldn't follow that example IMHO. So basically already writing what you wrote above.
Would be interesting to understand, if, using Zoom, you can actually get the highest sample rate together with the highest memory depth?
Could you add how many points were sampled, at which sample rate, for each of the timebase settings?
EDIT: also, would be interesting if the trigger setup has an influence on the update rate, too. Edge trigger is easy, but how about runts or other, more complex setups?
See below, the trigger thing I can test when second scope was here.
Would be interesting to understand, if, using Zoom, you can actually get the highest sample rate together with the highest memory depth?
Maybe I´ve misunderstood this, but I take the last timebase where 200mpt avaible and fed in a 1Mhz sine, then zooming in...
Lots of buzz words right there, but funny enough it appears that the most loved (for its easy and quick operation) scope Keysight DSO-X lacks at least the first one (user selectable memory), but still manages to be the most widely sold bench scope Series in its class (the DSOX3k is as abundant as Athlete's Foot).That is because Keysight uses full memory always but still manages to get high waveform update rates through a clever parallel acquisition system.
No, it doesn't. There is no "clever parallel acquisition system".
which avoids the need for the acquisition system to "wait" for the processing to finish. Only when the acquisition is stopped and the processing of the previous cycle data has completed, the whole memory is then used for the last acquisition, which is the only time the full amount of memory is actually used.
ANd considering the complexity of the different memory allocations it does make sense that the user doesn't get any memory information whatsoever.
QuoteQuoteSince when does NI make bench scopes?They kind of do if you buy the modules to build a self contained system.
Even if you put NI Digitizers in a NI PXI chassis and use NI LabView, it's still a Digitizer system where one has to write the software for it and not a general purpose bench scope like the SDS2kX+. Aside from costing an insane amount of money.
So I'd say let's just not go there
I don't think any of the points which make the WavePro a poor general purpose scope apply to the SDS2kX+ - or any Siglent scope as of today.
Could you add how many points were sampled, at which sample rate, for each of the timebase settings?
EDIT: also, would be interesting if the trigger setup has an influence on the update rate, too. Edge trigger is easy, but how about runts or other, more complex setups?
See below, the trigger thing I can test when second scope was here.
Thanks a lot for that. I understood now what the memory depth setting actually does. The scope always only stores sample points to fill one sweep (timebase x 10 x samplerate = total samples). This equation will always be satisfied. The memory depth setting allows you to limit the amount of memory. So instead of 200Mpts at the, say, 10ms/div timebase, if I choose a limit of 100Mpts, the sample rate will drop to 1GSa/s.
For such an option to make any sense the waveform update rate must be essentially bounded by the memory fill rate. It's a feature to increase the waveform update rate at the expense of temporal resolution.
Could you add how many points were sampled, at which sample rate, for each of the timebase settings?
EDIT: also, would be interesting if the trigger setup has an influence on the update rate, too. Edge trigger is easy, but how about runts or other, more complex setups?
See below, the trigger thing I can test when second scope was here.
Thanks a lot for that. I understood now what the memory depth setting actually does. The scope always only stores sample points to fill one sweep (timebase x 10 x samplerate = total samples). This equation will always be satisfied. The memory depth setting allows you to limit the amount of memory. So instead of 200Mpts at the, say, 10ms/div timebase, if I choose a limit of 100Mpts, the sample rate will drop to 1GSa/s.
For such an option to make any sense the waveform update rate must be essentially bounded by the memory fill rate. It's a feature to increase the waveform update rate at the expense of temporal resolution.
Obvious but I feel this need still note for some random readers. User selectable memory limit is important - not just for wfm/s speed.
There is this very handy and useful waveform history FIFO. How many last sequential acquisitions it can keep depends highly about memory length of one acquisiton.
Example if we are looking some slowly repeating serial messages we do not mostly need full samplerate but one acquisition we need least as long time as one message last. Then we may want capture many messages to buffer for analyze.
We can use 10k, 100k, 1M, 10M or 100M when non interleaved mode. Smaller acq length more acquisitions history FIFO can keep.
Could you add how many points were sampled, at which sample rate, for each of the timebase settings?
EDIT: also, would be interesting if the trigger setup has an influence on the update rate, too. Edge trigger is easy, but how about runts or other, more complex setups?
See below, the trigger thing I can test when second scope was here.
Thanks a lot for that. I understood now what the memory depth setting actually does. The scope always only stores sample points to fill one sweep (timebase x 10 x samplerate = total samples). This equation will always be satisfied. The memory depth setting allows you to limit the amount of memory. So instead of 200Mpts at the, say, 10ms/div timebase, if I choose a limit of 100Mpts, the sample rate will drop to 1GSa/s.
For such an option to make any sense the waveform update rate must be essentially bounded by the memory fill rate. It's a feature to increase the waveform update rate at the expense of temporal resolution.
Obvious but I feel this need still note for some random readers. User selectable memory limit is important - not just for wfm/s speed.
There is this very handy and useful waveform history FIFO. How many last sequential acquisitions it can keep depends highly about memory length of one acquisiton.
Example if we are looking some slowly repeating serial messages we do not mostly need full samplerate but one acquisition we need least as long time as one message last. Then we may want capture many messages to buffer for analyze.
We can use 10k, 100k, 1M, 10M or 100M when non interleaved mode. Smaller acq length more acquisitions history FIFO can keep.
Yep, that's a perfectly valid reason. Is there a setting to configure how many captured waveforms to keep in the history? Or is it implicit only, depending on the mem depth limit? That would be a pity. The history buffer seems to be a very useful feature, it should not be hidden away.
That is because Keysight uses full memory always but still manages to get high waveform update rates through a clever parallel acquisition system.
No, it doesn't. There is no "clever parallel acquisition system".
which avoids the need for the acquisition system to "wait" for the processing to finish. Only when the acquisition is stopped and the processing of the previous cycle data has completed, the whole memory is then used for the last acquisition, which is the only time the full amount of memory is actually used.
ANd considering the complexity of the different memory allocations it does make sense that the user doesn't get any memory information whatsoever.
Yes it does use all the memory from the user's point of view so what happens under the hood is just semantics.
And there is definitely something clever going on. Think about the situation where a new trigger comes before the entire memory is filled in combination with needing to have pre-trigger data as well.
The PDF you linked to is a simplified explaination for what is really going on under the hood. But for the user it doesn't really matter.
QuoteQuoteQuoteSince when does NI make bench scopes?They kind of do if you buy the modules to build a self contained system.
Even if you put NI Digitizers in a NI PXI chassis and use NI LabView, it's still a Digitizer system where one has to write the software for it and not a general purpose bench scope like the SDS2kX+. Aside from costing an insane amount of money.
So I'd say let's just not go there
Well, you brought up scientific use cases and I disagreed Lecroy didn't have any competition in that market.
QuoteI don't think any of the points which make the WavePro a poor general purpose scope apply to the SDS2kX+ - or any Siglent scope as of today.Currently the way the memory is managed. I was just curious on why (how Siglent got the idea) the SDS2000X doesn't allow to record outside the screen and much to my surprise (yes, that did surprise me) the Wavepro 7200A works in the same way. Since all other DSOs I have come across so far do allow recording outside the screen without needing work-arounds I take the liberty to assume that this is something Siglent copied from Lecroy.
If a 5000X or 2000X plus owner can test how decoding works for long captures, it would be very helpful.
If a 5000X or 2000X plus owner can test how decoding works for long captures, it would be very helpful.
Im not really into (serial) decoding things, so could be a stupid question:
Like this perhaps ?
You make it sound as if by some magic MegaZoom uses all the memory (for sampling data of the current acquisition) all the time, but this is, plain and simple, wrong. Also, MegaZoom is not magic, it's actually a pretty simple, although clever, idea to maintain very high update rates - something which was valued by people coming from analog scopes.
But yes, it's quite normal that in repetitive mode and short time bases a DSO will not use all available sample memory.
There is no difference between the vector and dot display types when the
number of samples of a frame is greater than 1000. When the sample number
is below 1000, there are some differences.
What I must also test:
Math...When I use math, could I hide the source channel….