Why don't more new scopes include readout pins for automatic atten settings?

[TomKatt]

Seems like it wouldn't take a whole lot to include readout pin capability to new scopes...  As I understand it, it's basically just a simple contact ring around the bnc jacks that reads a resistance set by the 1X/10X (etc) switch on the probe so the scope automatically sets the correct attenuation factor.  That might add 50 cents to the scope BOM? (probably much less than that).  The argument could be made that not many people use 1X, but switchable 1X/10X probes seem like the most common type provided.  If they wanted to save money, they could always continue shipping the basic probes and make the readout versions an upcharge...

[nctnico]

Unfortunately there is no standard where it matters most: for other attenuations than 1:10 and 1:1

[TomKatt]

Unfortunately there is no standard where it matters most: for other attenuations than 1:10 and 1:1

Provide a system setting that allows the user to enter or override the resistance for attenuation.  Then use the most common values or specify their own.

But at least 1X/10X would be covered, which is likely the most commonly used values.

[Martin72]

Aside from the fact that I still haven't figured out what practical purpose this serves—other than that the detection will eventually become unreliable due to dirt or wear—the few extra cents in material costs also add up when production volumes are high.
As a layperson, it's hard to imagine how fiercely they haggle over every half cent.
On top of that, this readout is still one of the features that sets it apart from really cheap scopes.

[TomKatt]

Aside from the fact that I still haven't figured out what practical purpose this serves—other than that the detection will eventually become unreliable due to dirt or wear—the few extra cents in material costs also add up when production volumes are high.
As a layperson, it's hard to imagine how fiercely they haggle over every half cent.
On top of that, this readout is still one of the features that sets it apart from really cheap scopes.

Are the necessary? Obviously not.  But I'm sure at one point or another you have accidentally had a channel misconfigured and confused why readings were off?  I know that I have.

And while I understand the penny pinching, they also give you a dozen cable color rings and other parts that end up getting tossed out or stuck in a drawer...  I'd trade the readout pin for those.

[KungFuJosh]

There are two primary reasons IMO.

First, budget models get skipped because it's a value-added feature that you need to pay more for.

Second, because the presence of the readout ring requires extra effort WRT firmware and bug issues.

For example on the second point, there are/were bugs on Siglent models with readouts where the attenuation factor would be lost on reboot even though the pin was still contacted. That's only one example, and not intended as a dig towards Siglent. I happened to have had some of those models with the issue, and that's why I know about it.

[TomKatt]

There are two primary reasons IMO.

First, budget models get skipped because it's a value-added feature that you need to pay more for.

Second, because the presence of the readout ring requires extra effort WRT firmware and bug issues.

I can appreciate the first reason.  The second?  Seems like they're always adding new features of all types...  I'm surprised that something this basic resulted in such firmware problems.  Because otherwise that would be an argument against things like the default save button etc.

[KungFuJosh]

There are two primary reasons IMO.

First, budget models get skipped because it's a value-added feature that you need to pay more for.

Second, because the presence of the readout ring requires extra effort WRT firmware and bug issues.

I can appreciate the first reason.  The second?  Seems like they're always adding new features of all types...  I'm surprised that something this basic resulted in such firmware problems.  Because otherwise that would be an argument against things like the default save button etc.

It doesn't matter- anything with cost involved is a factor, in that case labor. The cost is never only the parts involved. So, the second reason gets tied back to the first anyway.

[CJSouthern]

Unfortunately there is no standard where it matters most: for other attenuations than 1:10 and 1:1

Provide a system setting that allows the user to enter or override the resistance for attenuation.  Then use the most common values or specify their own.

But at least 1X/10X would be covered, which is likely the most commonly used values.

FWIW, the SDS800X HD attenuation can be set to whatever you want with simple SCPI commands (in this case I set mine to a non-standard 10.5x because it was needed to give an accurate reading with some additional series resistance I'd added to some breadboard-to-scope connections) - but be aware that you then get non-rounded / unfamiliar sensitivity settings as can be seen here.

I guess the short answer as to "why don't they" (include the attenuation encoders on lower-end models) is that if they did, people would be less inclined to buy more expensive models because there would be less of a delta in their respective feature sets.

[TomKatt]

I guess the short answer as to "why don't they" (include the attenuation encoders on lower-end models) is that if they did, people would be less inclined to buy more expensive models because there would be less of a delta in their respective feature sets.

I'm guessing this is the primary reason.  Though it is a bit ironic given Siglent's turning a blind eye to all the 'updates' allowing people to turn their $461 804 into an $839 824    Not to mention the numerous other entry level products that can be modified into models several tiers up the ladder.

[KungFuJosh]

That's literally what I said.

Siglent doesn't care about the hobby market doing "improvements." They know that's a part of that hobby / budget market, and one of the reasons people buy those devices. The more expensive devices use a different licensing system. Why else would they use two licensing systems?

[CJSouthern]

I guess the short answer as to "why don't they" (include the attenuation encoders on lower-end models) is that if they did, people would be less inclined to buy more expensive models because there would be less of a delta in their respective feature sets.

I'm guessing this is the primary reason.  Though it is a bit ironic given Siglent's turning a blind eye to all the 'updates' allowing people to turn their $461 804 into an $839 824 

I don't disagree (to use a double-negative) but then again, if that capability didn't exist, they probably wouldn't sell as many 804s. Just for the record, mine is a genuine SDS824X HD - as written on the label!

To be honest, I've always thought there's two ways of looking at it; many will get "bitter and twisted" that (the likes of) the 824 is the same hardware that they sell for a lot more and it's only a software change therefore they're ripping us off" whereas I look at it from the perspective of it being a 200 MHz instrument that they sell for USD839 ... but ... special favour ... you can have it for only USD 461 if you're prepared to let us 'down-tune' it. No "rip-offs" - just a good bargain.

[TomKatt]

That's literally what I said.

Siglent doesn't care about the hobby market doing "improvements." They know that's a part of that hobby / budget market, and one of the reasons people buy those devices. The more expensive devices use a different licensing system. Why else would they use two licensing systems?

I get that... but the suggestion that making automatic probe settings an upmarket feature so people are motivated to buy the higher end model to have that feature kind of relies on those people be potential customers for the better models...  People buying the 800 series likely cannot afford the better models, and the people buying the better models probably are not considering the 800 series as an option anyway (and not simply because they lack auto probe setting).  So that leaves this feature as something that just makes buyers of the higher priced models feel better about their purchase rather than it being a true consideration toward choosing a particular model...

In the end, I guess it is what it is.  It's just a shame because it seems so easily added for so little cost.

[CJSouthern]

That's literally what I said.

Siglent doesn't care about the hobby market doing "improvements." They know that's a part of that hobby / budget market, and one of the reasons people buy those devices. The more expensive devices use a different licensing system. Why else would they use two licensing systems?

In the end, I guess it is what it is.  It's just a shame because it seems so easily added for so little cost.

I suspect that there's also an element of "blinkmanship" in that there are many features (especially software ones) that any given manufacturer could add to increase the (perceived) value of their offerings - but if every manufacturer starts playing that game then they, in essence, "make a rod for their own backs". Would be great for us ... just not so great for them.

And in all fairness, it's not just "50c more" that it costs to add; a LOT of overheads also need to be serviced - and a lot of the funding to do that comes from increased margins on higher specced products. But competition "keeps them honest".

That's one of the things that irks me about many Chinese products where their excellent hardware is let down by "sub-excellent" interfaces thus lowering the perceived value of their products. Or put another way, if they spend an extra 10% refining their interface they could possibly end up positiong themselves as the maker of a more premuim product - and charge accordingly. Having just said that, I wouldn't like the higher prices they could then command ... but I would like more posished interfaces. Unfortunately I can't have both

 

[Sensorcat]

I don't think the feature is as cheap to implement as it might appear at a glance. Low-cost scopes come with a set of probes, which usually means four today. These probes have a significant impact on the price of the whole package, even the low-cost probes they are. And the included probes are usually of the 1x/10x switchable type. These are hated by most RF engineers, because they assume that everyone has a set of probes for each task, or they don't see the usefulness of 1x probes in general, but that's a different story.

For the entry market, these probes make sense, although the quality is not the best, because the hobbyist will not buy expensive accessories anyway. Since the switch is usually at the handle of the probe, it appears difficult to implement the readout feature on these switchable probes without significant added complexity and cost. The cost of the spring contact and the resistor are minor issues compared to the problem of being switchable + support for readout + switch on the handle for convenience.

[TomKatt]

I don't think the feature is as cheap to implement as it might appear at a glance. Low-cost scopes come with a set of probes, which usually means four today.

Yeah, that's definitely true.  Though as I mentioned, if anything could be sold for a premium it would be the probes.  I could foresee including the hardware on the scope, yet including basic non-readout probes with the entry level package.  The readout probes would be an upsell.  If anything, they've created a new potential market - at a price point that even hobbyists may well afford. Win-win.

[David Hess]

I think the largest problem is lack of probes which support the readout function.  Texas and Probe Masters are about it.

Unfortunately there is no standard where it matters most: for other attenuations than 1:10 and 1:1

There is the Tektronix standard:

×1   open
×2   2.2 kΩ
×5   1.8 kΩ
×10   11 kΩ
×20   1.6 kΩ
×50     1.14 kΩ
×100   6.8 kΩ
×200   910 Ω
×500   690 Ω
×1000   470 Ω
Identify   short

https://w140.com/tekwiki/wiki/BNC_connector_with_readout_ring

Aside from the fact that I still haven't figured out what practical purpose this serves—other than that the detection will eventually become unreliable due to dirt or wear

I have never had a Tektronix readout system fail mechanically, except where the extra wire inside of the probe's cable breaks.