Direct comparison aspects on Siglent SDS2000X Plus vs. SDS1000X HD

[Uli Auer]

Hey folks,

after being almost sold on the MSO5000 (I'm a hobbyist still buying my first DSO after a trusty HP/Agilent 54610B 500MHz), I'm now heading towards the Siglent route after 3 weeks of research - first and foremost for (frontend) noise reasons and my main application being supposed to be audio work (with a little bonus towards embedded systems development).

As I've narrowed it down to the Siglent SDS2000X Plus and the new SDS1000X HD - which are both on my bench right now as demo units for direct comparisons, due to the lack of real experience I'm a little insecure about which one to get.

So I'm happy to hear your opinions on pros/cons for these two....

I think we can skip any aspects of ergonomics (although I prefer the 1kxHD's control's feel) and personal taste. Most of the form factors like display size etc. match anyway, same goes for the software features.

What I'm after are those fine little differences in specs that might (or might not) matter regarding true performance.
I found it interesting to see that making some simple noise measurements (open channel) - and also measurements with low-level signals from a 2-ch AWG (like sine or square waves with for example 100mV rms) both units show pretty much the same results - although the 2KX+ has "only" the 8-bit frontend with 10-bit software mode but the 1KHD has real 12-bit....

There are some parameters from the data sheets I can't evaluate whether they really make an important difference or in which application,
(A = SDS2000X Plus, B = SDS1000X HD) for example:

- (analog aquisition) peak detect:      A: 1ns         B: 2ns minimum detectable pulse

- vertical offset accuracy:      A: +/-1.5%        B: +/- 0.5%

- DC gain accuracy:      A: ≤3%        B: +/- 1.5% and +/- 0.5%   

- Low frequency response (AC coupling -3dB):      A: 5Hz     B: 2Hz

- Horizontal time base accuracy:     A: +/- 1ppm     B: +/- 25ppm

And what about the ENOB of only 8.4 bits on the 12-bit SDS1kHD  


Btw: Since the HDMI out was one of my pro arguments towards the MSO5k back then....I really experience the remote LAN view of the Siglent as being very laggy being viewed side by side to the unit's display....is that normal (only tested the 1KXHD) ?

[Martin72]

Hi,

And what about the ENOB of only 8.4 bits on the 12-bit SDS1kHD

This is a normal value for a 12 bit oscilloscope, Rigol for example only writes “over 8” in their data sheets, they will probably know why.
A 12Bit 4Ghz scope, for example, could have less than 6.

[teddychn]

IMHO:

If you need 500MHz bandwidth, deep memory, and a built-in AWG, SDS2000X Plus it is.
If you need high resolution, go for the SDS1000X HD.
If you want both, upgrade to the SDS2000X HD. The SDS2000X HD even offers more than the above.

[KungFuJosh]

What Teddy said.

I used the SDS2000X+ for audio work (guitar amps and pedals, pro audio preamps, etc.), and it was great. I've now sold it and I'm getting an SDS2000X HD. I would not have sold it to get a SDS1000X HD, but any of these 3 scopes being discussed should be great.

I like having the higher frequency range available to test and learn about other things, thought it's not useful for audio. For audio work, I generally have the 20M bw limit enabled.

[Uli Auer]

Okay. The 2000xHD is way out of reach budget-wise - I tend to the 1000xHD @ 200MHz though….

Any opinions or on the differences in specs mentioned above? Or even concerns in case of the decision towards the 1kHD over the 2kPlus? Especially the (way worse?) spec of the 1kHD‘s horizontal time base accuracy of +/- 25ppm?

[Mahagam]

I want to add a few words about HDMI vs remote LAN. The remote LAN is bidirectional (compared to HDMI) - you have full control over your scope!

[TomKatt]

I want to add a few words about HDMI vs remote LAN. The remote LAN is bidirectional (compared to HDMI) - you have full control over your scope!

Remind me - does the hdmi offer improved resolution, or is it basically the same information just scaled up?  Because if it’s the same information, what benefit do you get over the larger 10” display to begin with?

[Martin72]

Any opinions or on the differences in specs mentioned above?

SDS2000Xplus vs 1000X HD:

+Min 1GSa/s on all channels
+Min 100Mpts on all channels (200Mpts 1 channel)
+AWG implemented
+LA implemented
+Zone Trigger
+5 decoders more
- 2 Mathchannels
- No digital filters
- 8(10) Bit

Especially the (way worse?) spec of the 1kHD‘s horizontal time base accuracy of +/- 25ppm?

The 1ppm clock in the SDS2000Xplus is absolutely unique in this price range and will not be seen again so soon.
The 25ppm of the 1000X HD is more likely, you won't notice any direct disadvantage, if necessary with the hardware counter.

[Performa01]

There are some parameters from the data sheets I can't evaluate whether they really make an important difference or in which application,
(A = SDS2000X Plus, B = SDS1000X HD) for example:

- (analog aquisition) peak detect:      A: 1ns         B: 2ns minimum detectable pulse

This is the sample interval in the trigger signal path. Modern DSOs have a fully digital trigger engine, which not only allows for very complex triggers but also ensures sufficient trigger bandwidth. Without diving into the basics of DSO operation, it can be said that this is the shortest pulse width the scope can reliably detect (and trigger on).

- vertical offset accuracy:      A: +/-1.5%        B: +/- 0.5%

Well, the 8-bit specifications are standard for a serious scope, whereas B indicates an even better accuracy. Siglent quite obviously felt that the higher resolution of a true 12-bit DSO also deserves increased accuracy.

- DC gain accuracy:      A: ≤3%        B: +/- 1.5% and +/- 0.5%   

Same as above, where 0.5% is pretty class leading also compared to the so called “Big Boys”.

- Low frequency response (AC coupling -3dB):      A: 5Hz     B: 2Hz

Well, it’s the -3 dB frequency with AC input coupling. Quite obviously not so important, as anything below 10 Hz should be fine. Hint: if you work with frequencies below a couple hundred Hertz, you shoud always use DC-cupling for best accuracy anyway. Of course, you need AC-coupling for e.g. ripple measurement on analog PSUs, but then again, extremely high accuracy isn’t a main concern with such measurements.

- Horizontal time base accuracy:     A: +/- 1ppm     B: +/- 25ppm

25 ppm (or even 50 ppm) used to be standard for some time – this is way more accurate than any analog scope anyway. On the other hand, an accurate Counter/Timer was a standard tool on every bench in the old days, while many applications can get away with the integrated trigger frequency counter of a DSO nowadays. Once again, 1 ppm is class-leading, not easily found elsewhere.

And what about the ENOB of only 8.4 bits on the 12-bit SDS1kHD  

As the name suggests, it is the effective number of bits. This is not primarily dictated by the ADC-resolution, but spurious signals, noise and distortion limit the value. Consequently, it should not come as a surprise that higher bandwidth DSOs provide lower ENOB-values. With 20 MHz bandwidth limiter and in 10-bit mode, an 8-bit SDS2000X Plus can easily reach more than 9 bits. In general, ENOB is often compromised by the interleaving spurs of the ADC. In other words: it is only a couple discrete frequencies, or harmonics from the analog frontend, all of which can be compensated/filtered/ignored in most practical measurements (… except THD analysis, quite obviously).

Btw: Since the HDMI out was one of my pro arguments towards the MSO5k back then....I really experience the remote LAN view of the Siglent as being very laggy being viewed side by side to the unit's display....is that normal (only tested the 1KXHD) ?

I’ve seen very few reports on such behavior, but in general there is no significant lag. It might have to do with your particular network infrastructure.
 

EDIT: If MSO is important, then the SDS2000X Plus series offers a fully integrated solution, whereas the 800/1000 series has a separate external hardware, which poses quite some limitations.

[Uli Auer]

Thanks for your replies - especially to Performa01 for the detailed explanation of the particular parameters...

The HDMI (on the Rigols) is not expanding resolution - ist's only showing a bigger picture of the same 1240x720 (MSO5000), depending on the screen you use.
On my pretty big 32" 2560x1440 the mirrored screen of the MSO5000 still had a black frame around the scope's GUI image, and of course it started to get a bit washy.....but still it was nice to see it bigger....

@Performa01: Good to know that it's supposed to be lag-free....but here it's definitely not....and my Network is without any doubt fast enough (new house LAN installation with CAT7 and 1Gb LAN switch...maybe it's a Mac thing? But also this is hell of a laptop with mega graphics (MacbookPro M1 Max 64GB RAM)

Happy to get more feedback about other user's experience with the Siglent remote GUI (response)...

[Uli Auer]

EDIT: If MSO is important, then the SDS2000X Plus series offers a fully integrated solution, whereas the 800/1000 series has a separate external hardware, which poses quite some limitations.

I'm pretty fine using the four analog channels for LA functions only - that's sufficient for simple serial interfaces (ok, not in parallel to the analog channals probing other signals)
Btw afaik the LA is external hardware in BOTH units, isn't it? Also the (high) prices for both options are quite the same....anyway....I'd rather buy a Digital Discovery vor 250 Euros in case I need LA with more than 4 channels at once...and then I have MORE than 16 logic channels anyway....

Since the Siglent 2ch / 30MHz AWG is only slightly more expensive than the (1CH !) option for the S2kXplus I'll go that route anyway - the 1kHD is also capable of controlling the external AWG....so that's pretty cool I think...

And again: in total buying the SDS1204X HD and the SDG1032X is 1588 EUR ex VAT - which is almost doubling my original max budget....

But I think this is a pretty damn good (hobbyist's !) combo, don't you think?

In general I find the pricing of the Siglent options quite ridiculous!

490€ ex VAT for the 16ch LA probe kit PLUS 255€ ex VAT for licensing only - PER serial protocol !?!??!?! 
That's insane....! 

[Martin72]

Fix your post...

490€ ex VAT for the 16ch LA probe kit PLUS 255€ ex VAT for licensing only

With the latest update, a software license is no longer required.

[tautech]

EDIT: If MSO is important, then the SDS2000X Plus series offers a fully integrated solution, whereas the 800/1000 series has a separate external hardware, which poses quite some limitations.

I'm pretty fine using the four analog channels for LA functions only - that's sufficient for simple serial interfaces (ok, not in parallel to the analog channals probing other signals)
Btw afaik the LA is external hardware in BOTH units, isn't it? Also the (high) prices for both options are quite the same....anyway....I'd rather buy a Digital Discovery vor 250 Euros in case I need LA with more than 4 channels at once...and then I have MORE than 16 logic channels anyway....

No, SPL2016 is a passive LA/MSO probing solution whereas SLA1016 is an active external device.

Since the Siglent 2ch / 30MHz AWG is only slightly more expensive than the (1CH !) option for the S2kXplus I'll go that route anyway - the 1kHD is also capable of controlling the external AWG....so that's pretty cool I think...

And again: in total buying the SDS1204X HD and the SDG1032X is 1588 EUR ex VAT - which is almost doubling my original max budget....

But I think this is a pretty damn good (hobbyist's !) combo, don't you think?

Yes, a very capable pairing.

In general I find the pricing of the Siglent options quite ridiculous!

490€ ex VAT for the 16ch LA probe kit PLUS 255€ ex VAT for licensing only - PER serial protocol !?!??!?! 
That's insane....! 

MSO not longer needs licensing.
The popular protocol decodes of I2C, SPI, UART, CAN and LIN for SDS2000X Plus and all other models are standard and free.
Only the more advanced protocols are optional.

Fix your post...

I tried......

[Uli Auer]

The latest update of....what...?

The general software? Does that mean the serial options don't cost anything anymore?

Anyway the 16ch probe is still 490€ + 93,10€ VAT = 583,10€....too much for me - at least for now....I mean I can get the probe later if I really need it (and after breaking a bank )

[Uli Auer]

MSO not longer needs licensing.
The popular protocol decodes of I2C, SPI, UART, CAN and LIN for SDS2000X Plus and all other models are standard and free.
Only the more advanced protocols are optional.
[/quote]

Good to know! On the Siglent website the single protocol decode licenses are still being listed....

[tautech]

MSO not longer needs licensing.
The popular protocol decodes of I2C, SPI, UART, CAN and LIN for SDS2000X Plus and all other models are standard and free.
Only the more advanced protocols are optional.

Good to know! On the Siglent website the single protocol decode licenses are still being listed....

SDS2kX Plus and above models only offer the advanced protocol decodes.

[TomKatt]

The latest update of....what...?

The general software? Does that mean the serial options don't cost anything anymore?

Anyway the 16ch probe   8)8)is still 490€ + 93,10€ VAT = 583,10€....too much for me - at least for now....I mean I can get the probe later if I really need it (and after breaking a bank )

Unless you absolutely need to align your digital signals with analog channels, I’ve always felt better LA gear can be had for cheaper…. And though I haven’t tried it yet, there’s a possibility of feeding the scope trigger out to trigger the LA or vice/versa.  Ive had great success using a DSlogic Plus LA, and it also offers more decoders and more digital triggering options.

In general, I think dedicated test gear is more powerful / flexible than integrated solutions.  And the SDS800X HD series seems really very competitive to its bigger cousins - with the exception of screen size and 50 ohm features they are very close…. Take that cash and put it towards the other gear you need?  But as has been mentioned several times here, if you can afford it go for the max lol.

Edit - obviously if you need >200MHz BW or the 1ppm timebase accuracy on the 2000HD then the SDS800X HD won’t cut it.

[Martin72]

And the SDS800X HD series seems really very competitive to its bigger cousins - with the exception of screen size and 50 ohm features they are very close…

This is also the secret star of the new series for me.
There has never been so much scope for so little money.
The fact that it doesn't have 50 Ohm inputs is acceptable in view of the maximum bandwidth.
And if you don't necessarily need a 10” screen.....
Buy the SDS804 for 500 to tune the 824.
Then you'd still have money left over for an SDG2042X.

[Uli Auer]

I think I'll go for the SDS1204X HD - as already said.....I think the 50Ω are a pretty good thing to have....of course for a hefty price upgrade compared to the 800.....but 10" looks also much better...

[TomKatt]

And the SDS800X HD series seems really very competitive to its bigger cousins - with the exception of screen size and 50 ohm features they are very close…

This is also the secret star of the new series for me.
There has never been so much scope for so little money.
The fact that it doesn't have 50 Ohm inputs is acceptable in view of the maximum bandwidth.
And if you don't necessarily need a 10” screen.....
Buy the SDS804 for 500 to tune the 824.
Then you'd still have money left over for an SDG2042X.

I’m guessing that Siglent rushed into competing with Rigol’s DHO800 12bit introduction and felt compelled to price it in the same bracket.  Had they realized Rigol either rushed themselves and released “unpolished” firmware (or didn’t invest sufficiently) - making the SDS800X HD a little better in comparison IMO, Siglent may have been able to price the new 800X HD series more accordingly to their overall performance in the market (ie more $$$) and I suspect it would still be very popular.  It just seems under-priced for what they offer, especially considering the ease of “upgrading” an 804 into an 824 simply by entering a license code (another advantage compared to mucking around with files on a Rigol).  Not that I’m complaining mind you 

I think I'll go for the SDS1204X HD - as already said.....I think the 50Ω are a pretty good thing to have....of course for a hefty price upgrade compared to the 800.....but 10" looks also much better...

Nothing wrong with that if you’ve got the cash   

[egonotto]

I think I'll go for the SDS1204X HD - as already said.....I think the 50Ω are a pretty good thing to have....of course for a hefty price upgrade compared to the 800.....but 10" looks also much better...

Hello,

the price difference is over €800. You could buy the SDS804X HD and the Siglent SDG2042X and a USB logic analyzer and a couple of 50 Ohm termination resistors and a magnifier for the same money. With the web interface you also have a bigger screen.

Best regards
egonotto

[tautech]

Thanks for your replies - especially to Performa01 for the detailed explanation of the particular parameters...

The HDMI (on the Rigols) is not expanding resolution - ist's only showing a bigger picture of the same 1240x720 (MSO5000), depending on the screen you use.
On my pretty big 32" 2560x1440 the mirrored screen of the MSO5000 still had a black frame around the scope's GUI image, and of course it started to get a bit washy.....but still it was nice to see it bigger....

@Performa01: Good to know that it's supposed to be lag-free....but here it's definitely not....and my Network is without any doubt fast enough (new house LAN installation with CAT7 and 1Gb LAN switch...maybe it's a Mac thing? But also this is hell of a laptop with mega graphics (MacbookPro M1 Max 64GB RAM)

Happy to get more feedback about other user's experience with the Siglent remote GUI (response)...

Or whatever browser you're using with it.

W10 and Chrome is pretty snappy.

[KungFuJosh]

Happy to get more feedback about other user's experience with the Siglent remote GUI (response)...

There's two things to consider: lag, and frame rate. For me, there was almost no lag when I had the SDS2504X+ connected via ethernet. However, the frame rate is only something like 15fps, which can feel like lag, but it is not.

The other thing to keep in mind, is that the 10" models have a better interface in general, including remotely through a web browser.

Thanks,
Josh

[ebastler]

The other thing to keep in mind, is that the 10" models have a better interface in general, including remotely through a web browser.

I thought that any interface differences relate to button operation only -- where the SDS800 scopes still have the button layout carried over from the non-touchscreen predecessor, and hence have some redundant buttons. Are there differences in the touch (and hence web) UI as well?

[tautech]

The other thing to keep in mind, is that the 10" models have a better interface in general, including remotely through a web browser.

I thought that any interface differences relate to button operation only -- where the SDS800 scopes still have the button layout carried over from the non-touchscreen predecessor, and hence have some redundant buttons. Are there differences in the touch (and hence web) UI as well?

Minor.

The 7" SDS800X HD display is not wide enough to accomodate all the UI features of its bigger display brothers so MATH is assigned to the front panel and not in the dropdown menus, however the web UI permits just opening another channel with the OSD + allows us to dedicate MATH to the new channel.

[ebastler]

The 7" SDS800X HD display is not wide enough to accomodate all the UI features of its bigger display brothers so MATH is assigned to the front panel and not in the dropdown menus, however the web UI permits just opening another channel with the OSD + allows us to dedicate MATH to the new channel.

Oh -- so even the regular small font is a bit larger (more pixels per character) on the 800X HD to improve readability. I had never realized; thanks for the screenshot comparison.

[DaneLaw]

...
Btw: Since the HDMI out was one of my pro arguments towards the MSO5k back then....I really experience the remote LAN view of the Siglent as being very laggy being viewed side by side to the unit's display....is that normal (only tested the 1KXHD) ?

This brief video-clip gives an idea of what other users are obtaining on their Siglent live-web-input, at least back in marts 2024.
(Credit skander36 SDS1204X HD).

[TomKatt]

...
Btw: Since the HDMI out was one of my pro arguments towards the MSO5k back then....I really experience the remote LAN view of the Siglent as being very laggy being viewed side by side to the unit's display....is that normal (only tested the 1KXHD) ?

This brief video-clip gives an idea of what other users are obtaining on their Siglent live-web-input, at least back in marts 2024.

If anything will demonstrate the differences in frame rate between the scope display and remote web display, it will surely be roll mode. 

There's two things to consider: lag, and frame rate. For me, there was almost no lag when I had the SDS2504X+ connected via ethernet. However, the frame rate is only something like 15fps, which can feel like lag, but it is not.

[Uli Auer]

Here the whole web display is indeed very laggy - now tested on Chrome browser instead of Firefox - which is identical....

[ebastler]

There is another video on that same channel which demonstrates a more typical use case -- a signal with glitches, shown in regular sweep mode. Compared to a Rigol DHO's web interface, the frame rate that Siglent can display in the web broswer is not impressive.

I have been happy enough with my SDS800X HD's web interface. I have used it frequently to take screenshots, and sometimes to take a peek at a long-term measurement without leaving the sofa. But I would not use it as my main user interface at the bench (to get a larger screen without a dedicated video output).

[Uli Auer]

And yes, indeed also roll mode is not usable on the web gui...

[Uli Auer]

I would not use it as my main user interface at the bench (to get a larger screen without a dedicated video output).

YES. Exactly - that's why I'm rather getting the 10" screen (for "on the bench" use) with the S1000X HD....

[Uli Auer]

I think somebody should do a hardware hack for implementing a HDMI out on the Siglent scopes....;-))))

Dave? 

[Mahagam]

There is another video on that same channel which demonstrates a more typical use case -- a signal with glitches, shown in regular sweep mode. Compared to a Rigol DHO's web interface, the frame rate that Siglent can display in the web broswer is not impressive.

Regardless of the frame rate, this video looks like an epileptic's nightmare. I prefer to work with well-synchronized signals, and then the frame rate is not so important.

[Uli Auer]

You know how to synchronize any faulty signal with intermitting drop-outs, glitches and and other artifacts....?

Wow...please tell me how to do that.....

[Martin72]

And yes, indeed also roll mode is not usable on the web gui...

That's always too short for me personally.
I can only understand/compare something if I know the conditions.

[Mahagam]

You know how to synchronize any faulty signal with intermitting drop-outs, glitches and and other artifacts....?

Wow...please tell me how to do that.....

In 2024, oscilloscopes can synchronize not only on the edges. Just read the user manual and you will discover many new synchronization options. Also, the zone trigger and holdoff options can work wonders for synchronization

[tautech]

You know how to synchronize any faulty signal with intermitting drop-outs, glitches and and other artifacts....?

Wow...please tell me how to do that.....

I can see how this might seem daunting when previous experience was limited to a now obsolete scope without the many triggering options most modern scopes provide.

No longer are we happy with just stable triggering to provide a decipherable display so the multitude of triggering options that provide the ability to capture almost anything.

It's one thing to drive a scope to get stable triggering for repetitive signals and another to master the extensive trigger suite !

Comparing what the display provides vs Web display shows is self defeating, use one or the other and the absolute power of the triggers available.
This power is in your hands....... combine it with Single shot and Search for a new level of understanding of what a modern DSO can deliver.

[artur0089]

What will frequency modulation or PWM look like?
 
7" is not enough for a display overloaded with information.
Super Phosphorus has faded into the background...

[tautech]

What will frequency modulation or PWM look like?
 
7" is not enough for a display overloaded with information.
Super Phosphorus has faded into the background...

The subjects of this thread have 10" displays.

[Martin72]

What will frequency modulation or PWM look like?
 
7" is not enough for a display overloaded with information.

As long as the grid division is the same, the display of the signal is also the same, regardless of whether it is 5, 7, 10, 15, 20 or 30 inches.

Super Phosphorus has faded into the background...

Has nothing to do with it.

[TomKatt]

Isn’t the resolution the same also?  So same display, just slightly larger?

[tautech]

Isn’t the resolution the same also?  So same display, just slightly larger?

Which models ?

The subject of this thread is the 10" models, SDS2000X Plus and SDS1000X HD which have the same spec display:
10.1'' TFT LCD with capacitive touch screen(1024*600)

[Uli Auer]

Somewhere in this thread there were some votes for the new 800HD series - these are 7"
I think that's what TomKatt and artur are referring to

[Uli Auer]

I don't understand what super sophisticated triggering functions have to do with the discussed problem of the laggy LAN remote view?
The video posted by ebastler was simply showing exactly that behaviour - and proofing that the Rigol approach with the HDMI out - showing 1:1 (!) the same picture as the scope display is much better and more adult - of course just for THAT application of viewing a larger image without any loss of information ! And leaving the advantages of mouse and keyboard control out of the equation....
Of course implementing a real graphics board type HDMI out that also could provide a better resolution on larger external displays would be even betterrer, as Dave would say it....but that again would cost more I'd guess....

[Uli Auer]

And yes, indeed also roll mode is not usable on the web gui...

That's always too short for me personally.
I can only understand/compare something if I know the conditions.

Again: What's "too short" in my statement? If roll mode ain't roll on the remote screen I don't get the point....

[Mahagam]

And leaving the advantages of mouse and keyboard control out of the equation....

The HDMI cable is pretty short, but a LAN connection usually gives you WiFi and internet, so you can easily and simply show an image from your oscilloscope anywhere you want.

[Uli Auer]

The HDMI cable is pretty short, but a LAN connection usually gives you WiFi and internet, so you can easily and simply show an image from your oscilloscope anywhere you want.

That's true. But in general a very theoretical application. I mean how far away from your measurements object / your probed circuit do you need your image to be shown? Having your circuit at work and your scope image at your home office?
And again: What's your (then even super remote) image worth when it's not showing what's on your scope?
You wouldn't even notice THAT your scope is showing something different....Sure, for more static display content (but only for that) that's not an issue....

[KungFuJosh]

I don't understand what super sophisticated triggering functions have to do with the discussed problem of the laggy LAN remote view?

You're confusing frame rate and lag.

If you want a better scope with faster frame rate and better screen options, you have to pay for it. Take a look at the new Magnova oscilloscope.

Or if you have a 'house' budget, go look at the R&S MXO5 series.

[ebastler]

Regardless of the frame rate, this video looks like an epileptic's nightmare. I prefer to work with well-synchronized signals, and then the frame rate is not so important.

I agree that it is always preferred to get a stable view of the rare event of interest, and with the powerful triggering options in modern scopes you can achieve that most of the time.

But before you set things up properly, you first need to realize that some unexpected signal is occurring. For me, the "Oops -- what was that little glitch on the screen?" has been the turning point of many eventually successful debugging sessions, sometimes identifying faults in areas where I had not expected them at all.

For that early "discovery" phase, I want a screen with fast updates, i.e. reasonably high frame rates. That's why I would not consider the Siglent web interface as my main UI at the bench (and I don't think it was meant to be that).

[ebastler]

The video posted by ebastler was simply showing exactly that behaviour - and proofing that the Rigol approach with the HDMI out - showing 1:1 (!) the same picture as the scope display is much better and more adult - of course just for THAT application of viewing a larger image without any loss of information !

Note that the external screen on the Rigol in that video is also showing the web interface. So it's possible to get faster updates via a web view; the limitation for the Siglent scope is not on the browser end. It would be interesting to understand what makes the difference here -- is Rigol pushing images in a more compressed format, or are there different HTML/Javascript/whatever mechanisms to render video streams which differ in achievable frame rate?

On the other hand, the frame rate on the built-in screen is noticeably higher for the Siglent scope in that video. (Assuming that the acquisition and trigger settings were the same for both contestants.)

[KungFuJosh]

For that early "discovery" phase, I want a screen with fast updates, i.e. reasonably high frame rates. That's why I would not consider the Siglent web interface as my main UI at the bench (and I don't think it was meant to be that).

I agree with this in general. I wish Siglent would have a framerate option for the web UI. However, most of the time, the web UI has been fine for me. I often setup the trigger at the scope before monitoring from the web. My desk and work bench are right next to each other, so going back and forth is probably easier for me.

[Uli Auer]

Note that the external screen on the Rigol in that video is also showing the web interface. So it's possible to get faster updates via a web view;

Ah. Good to know - did not realize that.....thought it was the "direct" HDMI.....that also explains the broad white frame around the scope image which made me wonder for a short moment why it's white instead of my black frame on my (too big) screen with the HDMI output...

[Anlefu]

I get a 16 channel digital  (SPL2016） manual created by an engineer in a web sales platform(taobao idlefish)， only cost ￥250≈￡40.
It works all ok.

[Anlefu]

Good news：
Geeker version will be cheap enough ，only need ￥250≈￡40。

Bad news:
totally manual created, this guy only for interest to share this sample version. need to wait for months before delivery.

But anyway, this Geeker version works as same as officer version.

[ebastler]

Good news：
Geeker version will be cheap enough ，only need ￥250≈￡40。

Bad news:
totally manual created, this guy only for interest to share this sample version. need to wait for months before delivery.

But anyway, this Geeker version works as same as officer version.

In the context of the present thread, it's worth pointing out that this probe works with the SDS2000X plus and the 2000X HD and higher. The 1000X HD uses a different, external logic analyzer module, as do the 800X HD and the earlier 8-bit SDS1000... scopes.

There is a dedicated thread on DIY alternatives to the SPL2016. Maybe post your update there: https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/diy-logic-analyzer-probe-and-pods-for-siglent-scopes/

[David Hess]

There are some parameters from the data sheets I can't evaluate whether they really make an important difference or in which application,
(A = SDS2000X Plus, B = SDS1000X HD) for example:

- (analog aquisition) peak detect:      A: 1ns         B: 2ns minimum detectable pulse

This is the sample interval in the trigger signal path. Modern DSOs have a fully digital trigger engine, which not only allows for very complex triggers but also ensures sufficient trigger bandwidth. Without diving into the basics of DSO operation, it can be said that this is the shortest pulse width the scope can reliably detect (and trigger on).

What does peak detection have to do with triggering?

DSOs with digital triggering use the vertical signal path and digitizer in place of a separate trigger path, so trigger bandwidth is identical to vertical bandwidth.  The trigger pickoff is "digital", inside the logic between the digitizer and acquisition memory.  DSOs with analog triggering may have trigger bandwidth which is higher or lower than the vertical bandwidth.

Peak detection happens during decimation where the highest and lowest values are captured for a given sample interval in the acquisition record.  If no decimation takes place because the acquisition record is long enough to capture the full sample rate, then peak detection at this point is not required.  This leads to the minimum detected peak width being the same as the sample interval of the digitizer, so 500 MS/s yields 2 nanoseconds, 1 GS/s yields 1 nanoseconds, etc.

Decimation of some type also occurs to convert the acquisition record to the display record; 10s of thousands of samples cannot be entirely displayed on a screen with limited horizontal resolution.  Some DSOs take special measures here to make sure the peaks are preserved and not erased by anti-aliasing.  Very old DSOs without index graded displays do not have to worry about this, but even the first DSOs with index graded displays handled this somehow.

[Performa01]

What does peak detection have to do with triggering?

You answered this question yourself. Or didn't you?

The trigger signal path (which you think doesn't exist) has the virtue of a constant sample rate, regardless of the number of channels in use and independent of the timebase. It is also this separate path (=data stream) where trigger coupling and filtering takes place.

Have I really been so unclear? The shortest detectable pulsewidth is of coursee related to the sample rate in the triggerpath, which would usually be the same as the max. samplerate with all channels on, e.g. 1 GSa/s in a 4-channel DSO with 2x2GSa/s ADCs.

[David Hess]

The trigger signal path (which you think doesn't exist) has the virtue of a constant sample rate, regardless of the number of channels in use and independent of the timebase. It is also this separate path (=data stream) where trigger coupling and filtering takes place.

Within the context of digital triggering, I said, "The trigger pickoff is "digital", inside the logic between the digitizer and acquisition memory."  Do you not read that or did you not understand it?

Have I really been so unclear? The shortest detectable pulsewidth is of coursee related to the sample rate in the triggerpath, which would usually be the same as the max. samplerate with all channels on, e.g. 1 GSa/s in a 4-channel DSO with 2x2GSa/s ADCs.

I was being tactful and asked for clarification, instead of simply calling you wrong.

The trigger path has nothing to do with peak detection.  Presumably they share the same sample rate, but that does not have to be the case.  It would not surprise me if the trigger signal path is decimated to the sample rate used when all channels are active, for consistency.  Peak detection occurs on the vertical digital signal path as part of decimation which is after the trigger pickoff.

[Performa01]

I was being tactful and asked for clarification, instead of simply calling you wrong.

Sorry, I thought it would be very clear that I used the sample rate in the trigger path as the indicator for the maximum sample rate. And I couldn’t believe someone with good intentions would be so finicky and imply that I said peak detection is accomplished in the trigger signal path somehow.

Presumably they share the same sample rate, but that does not have to be the case.  It would not surprise me if the trigger signal path is decimated to the sample rate used when all channels are active, for consistency.

Within the context of digital triggering, I said, "The shortest detectable pulsewidth is of course related to the sample rate in the triggerpath, which would usually be the same as the max. samplerate with all channels on, e.g. 1 GSa/s in a 4-channel DSO with 2x2GSa/s ADCs"  Do you not read that or did you not understand it?

Btw: in my limited understanding of the English language, “related to” is not the same as “depends on”.

The original question was about a specific detail in the SDS2000X Plus datasheet, i.e. the minimum detectable pulse. This specification is related to the minimum undecimated acquisition sample rate, hence related to the trigger sample rate.

And for me, there’s no need to speculate about the sample rate in the trigger path, because we’re talking about Siglent DSOs specifically. And there is certainly no such thing as “decimation to the sample rate when all channels are active”.

For those wondering how it really works: the trigger signal is tapped off one single data stream of the ADC that corresponds to the channel which we want to trigger on. In full channel mode the acquisition data rate is the same as the trigger data rate. In half channel mode, the two streams of an ADC are combined (interleaved) for obtaining twice the sample rate. Yet the data rate in the trigger path remains unchanged.

Of course, it could happen that we see (detect) a pulse somewhere within a record in half channel mode, but at the same time cannot trigger on. But that’s in theory only, because the bandwidth of the frontend will limit the usable minimum pulse width so that even the full channel sample rate will always be sufficient.

[rf-loop]

First of all, I think the Perfoma01 explanation is completely correct all the time - of course. It's a little confusing that some people don't want to understand it (especially when not at all thoroughbred beginner - in which case it would be very understandable).

I don't really understand how the "peak detect" function is also mixed in here, which only works when the ADC data can only be exported to the acquisition memory as decimated (the binding of the trigger time is also now incomplete compared to the full non-decimated data sequence. However, this is not important in this mode of operation in general) .

The minimum pulse width that can be triggered and the minimum pulse width that can be visually detected must be kept in mind slightly separately when we read the Siglent data sheet. At this point, it might be good to open the device's hardware features a bit. However, we can't dive into that very deeply because it's not public information. However, one can find out quite a lot when open the data sheets of used AD converters. It is known, based on many observations, that the Trigger engine always receives the same non interleaved data stream, regardless of the possible decimation before acquiring the memory. (So in ADC chip interleaved mode only one half) Of course we already know this, but anyone can find out that knowledge themselves empirically if they want to and are able to.

Of course, it is sometimes possible to detect (detectable by eyes) narrower pulses/spikes on the screen than mentioned in the data sheet. For example, when the undecimated data flow to the memory and thereby to the screen is higher than the sample rate that the trigger engine sees. But you can't trigger them (except perhaps occasionally, if the visible pulse happens to be in the data that the trigger engine saw. Of course, the response of the analog front end also comes as a limitation here)

[David Hess]

I don't really understand how the "peak detect" function is also mixed in here, which only works when the ADC data can only be exported to the acquisition memory as decimated (the binding of the trigger time is also now incomplete compared to the full non-decimated data sequence. However, this is not important in this mode of operation in general).

DSOs with digital triggering probably use a fixed table of values of the timing relationship between the trigger and position within the acquisition record.  It is all DSP, so it should never vary.  DSOs with analog triggering usually or always measure and store this value as part of the time delay counter calibration whenever the decimated sample rate changes because the analog section may drift several sample periods over time and temperature.

Nothing requires this timing relationship to be in units of decimated sample rate of the acquisition record, or even in units of the undecimated sample rate.  In old Tektronix oscilloscopes, it has a resolution many times higher than the resolution of the acquisition record or undecimate sample rate, which makes sense because this is required to support equivalent time sampling.  Newer instruments do not provide enough operational details to know how this is handled, but the interpolation required for the trigger should provide practically arbitrary resolution.  Time delay counters using the same method of trigger measurement as a DSOs digital trigger, and comparable hardware, can provide 10s of picoseconds of resolution.

Of course, it is sometimes possible to detect (detectable by eyes) narrower pulses/spikes on the screen than mentioned in the data sheet. For example, when the undecimated data flow to the memory and thereby to the screen is higher than the sample rate that the trigger engine sees. But you can't trigger them (except perhaps occasionally, if the visible pulse happens to be in the data that the trigger engine saw. Of course, the response of the analog front end also comes as a limitation here)

Tektronix sometimes specified the certainty of capturing a pulse depending on pulse width.  For instance on a 2440 CCD based DSO at 500 MS/s and 300 MHz:

2 Nanoseconds - 50% or greater amplitude at 85% or greater confidence.
4 Nanoseconds - 50% or greater amplitude.
8 Nanoseconds - 80% or greater amplitude.

But the 2440 uses a very unusual peak detection method based on how CCD sampling works.  Their more conventional DSOs at the time simply say 10 nanoseconds at 100 MS/s or 100 nanoseconds at 10 MS/s.  I tested this using a fast pulse generator and they always captured the full pulsed height if the pulse was greater than the sample period, and intermittently captured the pulse in proportion to the pulse width with a variable pulse height depending on the rise/fall time when it was shorter than the sample period, which is exactly what one should expect of a sampling process with short aperture time.  Modern DSOs should perform no differently as they are facing the exact same limitations and do peak detection in exactly the same way.

[Performa01]

On the catchword “10 ps resolution” we can use the automatic measurements to demonstrate how even entry-level oscilloscopes can do fairly accurate time measurements down to the picoseconds, despite their moderate sample rate.

The test setup includes a stable 500 MHz sinewave, fed into channels 2 and 4 of an SDS2504X Plus (early SDS2304X Plus with 500 MHz option) via a resistive power splitter. First, we use two identical cables, each 200 mm long:


SDS2354X_Plus_skew_200+200mm

The (gate) cursors are there only because I had to use a time gate for the T@M measurements.

Even at 500 ps/div we can barely see the skew of <8 ps between the two signals. This means the total length difference of the two signal paths is less than 1.6 mm.

The distance of the first rising ede to the trigger point at 20% is -2.62 ps on average in the triggered channel and +6.17 ps in the other channel. The difference (skew) is ~7.79 ps on average.

How can we know the resolution? Well, the standard deviation of the skew measurement is 3.38 ps and the peak-to-peak variation is 22.5 ps. The mean value of the measurement statistic is stable.

Another hint is the fact, that the Channel Deskew in the channel menu can be set with 10 ps resolution. Finally, we’ve got the math function interpolate() which allows a maximum of 20. This corresponds to a sample interval of 25 ps and we have no reason to believe that this very same function would not be used internally as well.


Now that we’ve seen a channel skew close to zero, we want some defined delay. Unfortunately, I don’t have the exact same microwave cable in a slightly different length, but a similar one, which is also about 50 mm shorter. I can only assume it’s dielectric has the same velocity factor. Anyway, I’ve replaced the cable to channel 2 with the shorter one – see what we get:


SDS2354X_Plus_skew_150+200mm

50 mm difference at a velocity factor of 0.66 should result in a channel skew of 250 ps. Lo and behold, the measurement says 243,5 ps – 6.55 ps too low, that is not too far off!

If we calculate the length difference corresponding to 6.55 ps at a velocity factor of 0.66, then we get ~1.3 mm. And this seems totally correct. The 200 mm cables have a right-angle plug on one end and a straight one at the other end. The 150 mm cable has two right-angle plugs. I think this explains the 1.3 mm length difference, i.e. the 150 mm cable is a tiny bit longer than initially calculated.

This shows that a serious DSO can do very precise high resolution time measurements, even if it’s only entry level class. Even the SDS824X HD can do pretty much the same in this regard. An SDS7000A on the other hand does a ten times better job and the standard deviation of skew measurements is just ~285 femtoseconds.

[tautech]

An SDS7000A on the other hand does a ten times better job and the standard deviation of skew measurements is just ~285 femtoseconds.

Please please show/demonstrate.
 

[Otso]

Regarding the web UI and refresh rates, the oscilloscopes apparently have a VNC server as well. Does that provide a better experience than the web UI, e.g.,  faster refresh rates, smoother interaction?

[2N3055]

Regarding the web UI and refresh rates, the oscilloscopes apparently have a VNC server as well. Does that provide a better experience than the web UI, e.g.,  faster refresh rates, smoother interaction?

Web UI is VNC

[Otso]

Regarding the web UI and refresh rates, the oscilloscopes apparently have a VNC server as well. Does that provide a better experience than the web UI, e.g.,  faster refresh rates, smoother interaction?

Web UI is VNC

Yeah, I just realized it and came here to delete my question, but I was too late…

[Otso]

Regarding 800 vs 1000 series, according to Eleshop, the fan noise of the 800 series is ”Louder than average” and the 1000 series is ”No noticeable noise” if that is something that matters to you.

I’m considering the SDS814X HD which would be more than enough for my needs, but the non-technical aspects of the SDS1104X HD are tempting, like the larger screen and lower fan noise. But paying more than double the price for those reasons is difficult to justify.

[2N3055]

Regarding 800 vs 1000 series, according to Eleshop, the fan noise of the 800 series is ”Louder than average” and the 1000 series is ”No noticeable noise” if that is something that matters to you.

I’m considering the SDS814X HD which would be more than enough for my needs, but the non-technical aspects of the SDS1104X HD are tempting, like the larger screen and lower fan noise. But paying more than double the price for those reasons is difficult to justify.

Bigger screen is very nice.

[tautech]

Regarding 800 vs 1000 series, according to Eleshop, the fan noise of the 800 series is ”Louder than average” and the 1000 series is ”No noticeable noise” if that is something that matters to you.

I’m considering the SDS814X HD which would be more than enough for my needs, but the non-technical aspects of the SDS1104X HD are tempting, like the larger screen and lower fan noise. But paying more than double the price for those reasons is difficult to justify.

Very accurate for SDS2000X HD but not for SDS1000X HD.

SDS1000X HD has a much larger fan than SDS800X HD so it will be spinning far slower and be quieter.

SDS800X HD fan noise is acceptable and quite similar to the popular 4ch X-E models it has superseded.
SDS1000X HD fan noise is comparable to SDS2000X Plus.

I have many models yet the compact SDS814X HD is 1st I grab when I need a scope away from the bench.

[Otso]

Anyone tried to use a VNC client on an iPad with the Siglent? I have a 12.9” iPad Pro, and wonder how that would work, especially if I go with the smaller display of the 800.

[tautech]

Anyone tried to use a VNC client on an iPad with the Siglent? I have a 12.9” iPad Pro, and wonder how that would work, especially if I go with the smaller display of the 800.

SDS800X HD display is sharp and crisp and I can read it easy from 1m being long sighted and use +1/+2 glasses for bench work.

With my older 10" iPad and webserver usage the display scaling is not correct and the RH side of the display is missing.
YMMV but maybe someone with a larger iPad can check this for us.

TBH for all usage the 7" display is large enough although I do much prefer to use a mouse and more so with SDS814X HD than my 10" display models.

[Otso]

Anyone tried to use a VNC client on an iPad with the Siglent? I have a 12.9” iPad Pro, and wonder how that would work, especially if I go with the smaller display of the 800.

TBH for all usage the 7" display is large enough although I do much prefer to use a mouse and more so with SDS814X HD than my 10" display models.

Yeah, I’m pretty fine with the 5.6” display of my nearly 13 year old Rigol DS1052E. A higher resolution 7” display would be an upgrade!

[Tjuurko]

Geeker version will be cheap enough ，only need ￥250≈￡40。

Bad news:
totally manual created, this guy only for interest to share this sample version. need to wait for months before delivery.

But anyway, this Geeker version works as same as officer version.

I have such a "SPL2016".
It is made very carefully, but the internal scheme is very different from the recommended: only a 50 ohm resistor is between the input and the output.
As a result, a very large input capacity of 76 pF was obtained, the switching voltage does not exceed 1V (Threshold = 10.0V).

[MathWizard]

Whats the difference between the SDS800X HD and SDS1000X HD ?? I see on RCC electronics, in Canada they have the SDS824X HD, which I think would be a great upgrade over my SDS1204X-E. But then they don't have any SDS1000X-HD's, it just jumps to SDS2000X HD's which are way too expensive for me.

The 824X HD is very tempting at that price, so maybe the SDS1000X HD's were near the 2000X-plus prices. I don't want to spend that much again anytime soon. Maybe in another 5yrs I can upgrade my SDS2204X-plus to HD.

[tautech]

Whats the difference between the SDS800X HD and SDS1000X HD ?? I see on RCC electronics, in Canada they have the SDS824X HD, which I think would be a great upgrade over my SDS1204X-E. But then they don't have any SDS1000X-HD's, it just jumps to SDS2000X HD's which are way too expensive for me.

The 824X HD is very tempting at that price, so maybe the SDS1000X HD's were near the 2000X-plus prices. I don't want to spend that much again anytime soon. Maybe in another 5yrs I can upgrade my SDS2204X-plus to HD.

In my view SDS1000X HD are a little overpriced however we sell the odd one whereas SDS800X are fantastic bang for buck.

SDS1000X HD however are a very polished bit of HW but....without the smart and silent fan SDS2000X HD provides.

While not 12bit, SDS2000X Plus models do have a 10bit mode to 100 MHz and a better feature set than SDS1000X HD and for a similar price.
The inbuilt 50 MHz AWG to use with the Bode plot feature, all in one instrument is attractive for many.

These all share the same UI which would be a change from your X-E but not that dissimilar you couldn't get to grips with it within minutes.

[bte]

Whats the difference between the SDS800X HD and SDS1000X HD ?? I see on RCC electronics, in Canada they have the SDS824X HD, which I think would be a great upgrade over my SDS1204X-E. But then they don't have any SDS1000X-HD's, it just jumps to SDS2000X HD's which are way too expensive for me.

The 824X HD is very tempting at that price, so maybe the SDS1000X HD's were near the 2000X-plus prices. I don't want to spend that much again anytime soon. Maybe in another 5yrs I can upgrade my SDS2204X-plus to HD.

Here's a good comparison between SDS800X HD and SDS1000X HD:

https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/sds800x-hd-review-demonstration-thread/msg5293741/#msg5293741

My understanding from your post is that this is a personal purchase so I would suggest buying SDS804X HD instead for approx. half price and "upgrading" to SDS824X HD.